Minutes 2009

Minutes of Special Meeting of Sligo County Council held on 20th July 2009 at 11.00am in Council Chamber, County Hall, Riverside, Sligo.


COUNCILLORS PRESENT:

  • Councillor Baker,
  • Councillor Barrett,
  • Councillor Barry,
  • Councillor Bree,
  • Councillor Cawley,
  • Councillor Clarke,
  • Councillor Collery,
  • Councillor Devins,
  • Councillor Fleming,
  • Councillor Gormley,
  • Councillor Keaney,
  • Councillor Leonard,
  • Councillor Lyons,
  • Councillor MacManus,
  • Councillor McGarry,
  • Councillor McGrath,
  • Councillor McLoughlin,
  • Councillor Mullaney,
  • Councillor Mulvey,
  • Councillor Murray,
  • Councillor O’Grady,
  • Councillor Queenan.


OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE:

  • Mr H. Kearns, County Manager
  • Ms D. Clarke,  Director of Services
  • Ms R. McNulty,  Director of Services
  • Ms P. R. Gallagher, Acting Director of Services
  • Mr T. Brennan, Senior Engineer
  • Ms K. McDaniel, Senior Engineer
  • Mr F. Moylan, Senior Executive Planner
  • Ms A. Jones, Administrative Officer
  • Ms J. McNamara, Administrative Officer
  • Mr S. Ward, Executive Planner
  • Ms M. O’Hara, Executive Planner
  • Mr N. Ballyntyne, Acting Executive Technician
  • Ms F. Loughlin, Staff Officer
  • Ms M. McGovern, Clerical Officer
  • Mr F. MacNabb, Meetings Administrator

CATHAOIRLEACH:

The Cathaoirleach, Councillor G. Murray presided and at the outset welcomed members in the public gallery.  The meeting agreed that each Chapter in the report would be gone through individually and only submissions relating to the County Council would be dealt with.

TO CONSIDER THE SLIGO AND EVIRONS DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010-2016 AND THE SECOND MANAGER’S REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED RELATING TO THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010-2016:

Mr F. Moylan stated the following:

 The Sligo and Environs Draft Development Plan 2010-2016 was on public display from 9 February to the 22 April 2009 (both days inclusive). The Draft Plan incorporates the Draft Record of Protected Structures, the Draft North Fringe Local Area Plan and the Quay Quarter Urban Design Framework, and is accompanied by the following documents:

  • Joint Sligo City and County Housing Strategy 2010-2017
  • Joint Sligo City and County Retail Planning Strategy 2010-2017
  • Environmental Report (Strategic Environmental Assessment).

During this public consultation period, Sligo County Council and Sligo Borough Council received 172 submissions and observations on the Draft SEDP. A further 32 submissions and observations were received on the Draft Record of Protected Structures. 

In addition to this, it should be noted that eight submissions were received before 9 February 2009 and that six submissions were received after 22 April 2009. The early submissions are considered in this Report as they were obviously submitted in advance of the closing date for receipt of submissions. However, the late submissions will not be considered until the stage of the Third Manager’s Report.

He further outlined the role of the Elected Members as follows:

Deciding whether to adopt or to propose amendments to the Draft Plan is a function reserved for the elected members of Sligo County Council and Sligo Borough Council. 

On foot of the submissions received, and on review of the content of the Draft SEDP and Draft RPS, the Manager has recommended a number of material (i.e. significant) alterations to the draft. If the members decide that these, or other material alterations should be made to the Draft Plan, the proposed amendments must go on public display for a period of four weeks.

All submissions received during the final public consultation phase will be summarized in a Third Manager’s Report. Having considered the proposed amendments and the Manager’s recommendations on the issues raised, the Members will then finally adopt the Development Plan. The new SEDP 2010-2016 must be adopted at least four weeks before the current SEDP 2004-2010 expires. The last date for adoption of the new Plan is 9 November 2009.

At this stage, the members are required to consider all of the following:

  • The Draft SEDP and associated documents (Joint Housing Strategy, Joint Retail Strategy, Draft North Fringe LAP, Draft Quay Quarter Urban Design Framework);
  • The Draft Record of Protected Structures;
  • The Environmental Report (SEA);
  • The Manager’s recommendations contained in this Report.

The Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) indicates the following:

“Where, following the consideration of the draft development plan and the manager’s report, it appears to the members that the draft should be accepted or amended … they may, by resolution, accept or amend the draft and make the development plan accordingly” (S. 12 (6))

“In making the development plan … the members shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable development of the area to which the development plan relates, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any minister of the Government.” (S. 12 (11))


WESTERN/CITY BYPASS:

Mr F. Moylan, Senior Planner outlined some of the key issues raised in the submissions as follows:

Sligo and Environs Development Plan 2004-2010 currently includes objective T1.5 –  a long-term strategic route option for a Western Bypass … all lines are indicative and are subject to a route selection study, as appropriate. Section 2.1.3.5 Western Bypass (p. 31 of the SEDP 2004-2010) indicates that route selection options would focus on alignments that lessen the impact on residential development.

Recognising the enormous environmental problems that would arise from a proposal to construct a bypass across Sligo Harbour, the proposed Draft SEDP 2010-2016 removed any statement that would have affected in any way the route selection process for a future bypass. 

Section 102.5 Strategic Road Objective T1.5 City Bypass reaffirmed the need to make provision for a bypass while clearly outlining the main considerations of any route selection study: environmental issues, location of residential areas and the obligation to preserve the integrity of designated ecological sites under the Habitats Directive.

Section 10.2.7 Objective T1.5a Western/City Bypass was inserted in the Draft SEDP by resolution of Sligo County Council on 17 November 2009. The Council’s statement contained in Section 10.2.7 refers to the outcome of public consultation undertaken in early 2008 in relation to the proposed Variation No. 6 of the SEDP 2004-2010.

Section 10.2.7/Objective T1.5a of the Draft SEDP indicates, inter alia, that “as part of the environmental impact assessment of the Western/City Bypass this will not consider the area between the two Sea Roads as it is accepted that it is not a suitable alternative”.
 
1.2.4   Submissions relating to objective T1.5
Four submissions were received in relation to the proposed objective T1.5 and the restrictions set out in Section 10.2.7. 
Submission no. 18 requests that Section 10.2.5 be amended to include text stating that the route selection will only be considered further west of Second Sea Road, while Submission no. 128 requests that the proposed bypass be routed both west of Second Sea Road and west of zoned land.
Submissions no. 141 and 142, made by the National Roads Authority and the Spatial Policy Section of the DoEHLG respectively, firmly request the removal of Section 10.2.7 and any restrictions that might impede on the appropriateness of the route selection process.

1.2.8  Manager’s opinion
The local authorities have a statutory obligation to implement government policy through their development plans. The Draft SEDP fully acknowledges the national and regional importance of the Atlantic Road Corridor as set out in Transport 21 and the National Spatial Strategy.   The need to protect this strategic link between Atlantic Gateways while continuing the development of Sligo City is given due recognition in the Draft Plan through Section 10.2.5 Strategic Road Objective T1.5 City Bypass. This objective clearly avoids the imposition of a pre-determined route corridor.

Given the complex environmental, social and planning/engineering problems that would need to be addressed as part of any bypass route selection on the western side of the city, it is evident that a range of studies must be carried out, including environmental impact assessment (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and Habitats Directive assessment (HDA), in addition to extensive consultation with all stakeholders. All assessments are legally required to consider a range of options.

By restricting the investigation of alternative options as part of the EIA, SEA and HDA of a possible City Bypass, the technical/scientific approach would be flawed and the legal procedures relating to route selection would be prejudiced. It is therefore strongly recommended that all possible options be investigated and further consultation be carried out on these options, as previously recommended in the Manager’s Report on submissions relating to the Proposed Variation no. 6 of the SEDP 2004-2010. Every effort should be made to secure continued funding from the NRA for carrying out the necessary studies relating to the city bypass.
 
1.2.9  Manager’s recommendation
Subsection 10.2.7 Objective T1.5a – Western/City Bypass should be deleted from the Draft SEDP.

Mr H. Kearns, County Manager strongly reiterated his opinion as above.

Following further discussion the following Motions were put:

Proposed by Councillor T. McLoughlin
Seconded by Councillor V. Cawley

AND AGREED

“That the City Bypass should be located elsewhere with a view to ensuring that the accepted negative impact on those people living west of the First Sea Road be prevented and the proposed route west of the Second Sea Road starting at the Carraroe interchange in the townland of Tonafortes, via Oakfield, Ballydoogan, Barnasraghy, Woodville Farm and the whole townland of Cummeen, via Gibraltar and Finisklin should not be adopted.  It is accepted that the natural amenity of Gibraltar, the Special Area of Conservation at Cummeen, Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery, the Ceremonial enclosure RMP No Slo 14-052 CMC and the integrity of Woodville Farm should be protected for the people of Sligo and the proposed route west of the Second Sea Road should not be adopted”


Proposed by Councillor G. Mullaney
Seconded by Councillor M. Fleming

“That no reference whatsoever to a Western City Bypass will be included in the Sligo Development Plans and funding should be sought immediately for a comprehensive Route Selection Study to determine the optimal route, either east or west of our City, for any future Bypass.  No route should be selected until completion of this Study”

After a brief discussion, it was

Proposed by Councillor G. Mullaney
Seconded by Councillor M. Fleming

AND AGREED to amend the motion by adding the following:-

“and that no future decision will be made until it comes back to the Elected Members”

As Agreement could not be reached, the Cathaoirleach called for a vote on this motion:

For: Fleming, Keaney, Mullaney, Murray
Against: Barrett, Barry, Bree, Cawley, Clarke, Collery, Devins, Gormley, Leonard, Lyons, MacManus, McGarry, McGrath, McLoughlin, Mulvey, O’Grady and Queenan

As the result was 4 for, 17 against, the Cathaoirleach declared the motion defeated.


RETAIL STRATEGY:

Sixteen submissions on the Draft SEDP raise issues directly related to the Draft Retail Strategy. Three other submissions (referred to as “early submissions” in the Report) received before the Draft Plan was published also relate to retail or request retail-friendly zoning. The specific requests raised in each submission are addressed individually in Section 2 of this report. 
The requests are varied, but the main issues can be summarised as follows:

  • C2 (edge-of-centre) zoning in areas disjointed from the city centre
  • designation of two district centres in the Caltragh-Carrowroe area
  • identification of additional neighbourhood centres and relaxation of floor space restrictions
  • allowing discount food stores to locate in neighbourhood centres

1.3.6  Manager’s opinion
C2 zoning
In the Draft SEDP, C2 zoning is generally afforded to areas or sites near the city centre (C1 zoning), which are considered suitable for edge-of-centre development. The main criteria used in designating C2 areas are proximity to the commercial core of Sligo (areas located within 300-400 metres), good pedestrian and vehicular access and strong links to the city centre.

The Draft Plan prioritises the city centre as the preferred location for comparison retail, in order to maximise the economic benefit of other city-centre activities. Dilution of the city centre’s offer, by premature development of edge-of-centre sites, should therefore be resisted. 

It is crucial that major developments such as the Centre Block are at least partially completed before development in edge-of-centre locations can be considered. 

At the same time, the Draft Retail Strategy and the Draft SEDP acknowledge the fact that not all retail formats can be delivered in the city centre, because of various constraints. Therefore, the Draft Plan gives a clear indication of the preference for expanding the city centre into C2-zoned areas primarily in the Docklands. This preference should be made more explicit in the final SEDP 2010-2016.

Given the Draft Retail Strategy’s estimates of retail floor space requirements for the lifetime of the Plan and the economic downturn, it is considered that the current C2 zoning includes sufficient sites with significant potential for developing expansions of the city centre.

It would be premature and potentially damaging for the city centre to zone additional sites for edge-of-centre development at this stage. 

No further sites or areas should be zoned C2 in the final SEDP 2010-2016.

District Centres
It should be noted that the Draft Retail Strategy 2010-2016 does not recommend the designation of a District Centre within the SEDP area, because the majority of projected convenience and comparison goods net floor space requirements can and should be accommodated in the city centre, edge-of-centre areas and neighbourhood centres.

Both the Draft Retail Strategy and the Draft Plan identify only limited capacity for further convenience retail provision to 2015 and 2020. The net floor space requirements are likely to be modest in scale – circa 1,280 sq.m. net floor space by 2015, rising to 4,190 sq.m. by 2020.

Given that District Centres can comprise up to 10,000 sq.m. (as indicated in the Retail Planning Guidelines), it is clear that the net floor space estimates for Sligo, as provided by the Draft Retail Strategy, do not justify the designation of a District Centre.

Overall, it is considered that there is no demonstrated need for a District Centre in Sligo at this stage in the city’s evolution towards a higher-order retail centre.

The locations of neighbourhood centres were selected based on the existence of a retail nucleus and/or a favourable relation with the surrounding or planned future residential areas in terms of accessibility by diverse modes of transport, especially by foot and bicycle.

There are a total of 14 neighbourhood centres in the Draft SEDP, of which four are designated “larger neighbourhood centres”.

Both the previous Retail Strategy/SEDP and the current Draft Retail Strategy/Draft SEDP placed an upper limit on the net floor space of individual retail units and that of the entire centre. The upper limit is higher in the case of the larger neighbourhood centres, to allow for the provision of small-scale supermarket development.

Given that the essential role of neighbourhood centres is to serve surrounding communities, within easy-walking distance, in terms of convenience shopping and other daily facilities, it is considered that the selected locations and number of neighbourhood centres is adequate for the lifetime of the Plan. No further centres should be designated in the final SEDP 2010-2016.

The net retail floor space restrictions are intended to ensure that only local convenience needs are catered for in the smaller centres and at the same time direct small supermarket development into the four larger centres. The floor space restrictions should be retained. Any inconsistencies between the Neighbourhood Centre Objectives in Section 6.5.7 and the development standards in Section 16.4.15 should be eliminated.

The Draft SEDP recognizes the fact that a discount food store can effectively “anchor” a neighbourhood centre”. Appropriate provision is made in the Draft Plan for the development of larger stores within the four larger neighbourhood centres. However, the Plan does not adequately address the urban design issues that may arise in relation to discount food stores, which are often built as standardized units, difficult to integrate in the existing context. 
The development standards should be revised and expanded to require urban design consideration to be taken into account by supermarket/discount food store proposals in neighbourhood centres.

1.3.7   Manager’s recommendation

A.  In Section 6.5.4 Sligo’s catchment and future growth in retail floor space (p. 26 of the Draft SEDP), under the last heading Location of new floor space, replace the fourth paragraph with the following:
“Lands in the Docklands, to the west of the Inner Relief Road and to the east and south-east of the city centre, will offer the most suitable edge-of-centre locations for retail expansion after commercial development will have been substantially completed on all available city centre sites. These edge-of-centre areas are accessible by foot, by public and private transport, and contain a certain amount of brownfield and under-utilised land.” 

B.  In Chapter 6, Section 6.5.7 Local retail needs of the Draft SEDP, modify one of the  Neighbourhood Centre Objectives as follows:
“NC-2 Promote the development of suburban, larger neighbourhood centres with a maximum net retail floor space of 2,750 sq.m. (maximum 250 sq.m. per individual unit and of which up to 1750 sq.m. net floor space can be dedicated to convenience retail development units, to allow for one small supermarket of maximum 1,500 sq.m. provision) at the following locations:
- Carrowroe 
- Lisnalurg”

C.  In Section 16.4.15 Neighbourhood centres, modify the third paragraph as follows:
“In order to preserve the local nature of the designated neighbourhood centres, a size threshold of 250 sq.m. of net floor space is normally applied to individual retail units and a total of 1,500 square metres to the whole centre, except for a limited number of convenience stores located in the larger neighbourhood as indicated in objectives NC-2 and NC-3 in Section 6.5.7 of this Plan. 
Larger neighbourhood centres, with a maximum threshold limit net retail floor space of 2,750 square metres, may be permitted at strategic locations to the south and north of the city, at Carrowroe, Cleveragh, Lisnalurg and Ballinode, subject to the satisfaction of the planning authority that supporting population exists residential development is taking place/is imminent in the immediate locality, within approximately 500 metres. The larger neighbourhood centres in the Outer City at Lisnalurg and Carrowroe should be developed simultaneously with a residential component of appropriate scale, based on masterplans. Outer City neighbourhood centre developments should be phased and should include an appropriate combination of retail, residential and supporting uses in each phase. A Two slightly larger-scale convenience stores may be permitted at the four centres listed above, provided that:
(i)    it their combined net floor space is not in excess of 1,750 square metres in size
(ii)   there is only one are only two such stores per neighbourhood centre 
(iii) it is the centres are well served by public transport; in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to apply conditions requiring the developer to make a financial contribution.

Discount food stores may be permitted to locate in neighbourhood centres, subject to relevant floor space restrictions, in the following circumstances:

a. it can be proven that there would be no negative impact upon the vitality and viability of the city centre or upon the amenity of the city or of the neighbourhood centre and surrounding area;

b. the development proposal is supported by a masterplan covering the entire area of the neighbourhood centre. The masterplan should be based on sound urban design principles, should demonstrate appropriate layout and design of buildings as well as integration of the discount food store and the other proposed/potential structures/uses, ensuring that the emerging neighbourhood centre will not appear to be “mono-use” or be visually dominated by a single-use retail structure or a car parking area.

c.    there is adequate accessibility by different modes of transport, including for pedestrians.

Details can be found in Section 6.5.7 of this Plan.”
D.   In the new Chapter 17 Implementation (refer to the Manager’s response to Submission no. 142), introduce appropriate provisions for prioritising the development of the four larger neighbourhood centres (refer to Chapter 17 included in Appendix 3 of this Report).

Members Queries were answered in relation to the Retail Strategy and it was then

Proposed by Councillor J. Devins
Seconded by Councillor R. O’Grady

AND AGREED

“To adopt the Manager’s Recommendations in relation to Retail Strategy Section 1.3”

It was then agreed by the Members that only the new amended parts of the plan be read out to the Meeting.


NORTH FRINGE LOCAL AREA PLAN:

A total of sixty-five submissions were received specifically in relation to the Draft North Fringe LAP. 

Of these, forty-four identical submissions (signed by different persons), express a range of concerns regarding the development of the North Fringe area.

A further twelve submissions raise other issues, while eight submissions support the proposed residential zoning of a particular site.
The main issues raised in the North Fringe-related submissions are:

  • the overall scale of development in the area
  • non-compliance with the principle of sequential development
  • prematurity of commercial/warehousing development
  • negative impact on visual amenity
  • inappropriate development models
  • inadequate road network
  • sterilisation of lands
  • nature of the road objective T2.16
  • location of roundabout at Elliott’s Corner
  • location of educational facilities
  • residential densities
  • inappropriate mix of uses
  • inadequate community facilities
  • storm water infrastructure and flooding

A number of submissions raise specific points regarding certain details of the North Fringe development framework, particularly regarding the location and height of buildings relative to existing properties. The specific requests raised in each submission are addressed individually in Section 2 of this report. 

Manager’s opinion
The North Fringe LAP aims to provide a long-term integrated development and design framework, which will accommodate the future urban expansion of Sligo into the rural areas at Lisnalurg, Teesan, Shannon Oughter, Carncash and part of Doonally.  While it is considered that the area is likely to be developed over the next twenty years, the preparation of a LAP will not, by itself, generate high levels of growth. The LAP simply aims to provide a planned framework to accommodate development pressure as it arises in this area in the long-term.  The LAP acknowledges the potential for significant changes in market conditions over this period, and is therefore designed to be sufficiently adaptable to allow for the expansion / contraction of different elements in accordance with changing market requirements.

The proposed new Chapter 17 Implementation (see Appendix 3 of this Report) clarifies that the North Fringe LAP is a long-term project, not prioritised for development during the lifetime of the SEDP 2010-2016.

1.4.15   Manager’s general comment
The North Fringe LAP aims to provide a long-term, integrated development and design framework, which will accommodate the future urban expansion of Sligo into the rural areas to the north of the City. The anticipated timeframe for the development of this area is 10-20 years, i.e. beyond the lifetime of the SEDP 2010-2016. Development should occur on an incremental basis, in parallel with the upgrading of the road network and the provision of environmental infrastructure.

The North Fringe is intended to become a well-planned and designed, high-quality urban extension of Sligo City, with its own Central Avenue, neighbourhood centre, primary and secondary schools, linear park, shopping and employment areas and good connections to the national roads network and the city centre. As a new urban quarter, it will have its own identity and character, different from that of the existing rural areas, but incorporating essential elements such as natural features, views of the surrounding landscape and existing residences. 
It should be noted that the layout shown on the Development Framework map is indicative only and should not be used for a detailed assessment of impacts on existing properties. All development proposals in the area will be the subject of detailed assessment at planning application stage. Any interested third parties will also have the opportunity to make detailed comments on planning applications at that stage.
 
1.4.16  Manager’s recommendations 

A. The North Fringe LAP should provide clarity on the envisaged timeframe for development of the area. It should emphasise the long-term nature of the LAP and requirement to provide social and physical infrastructure in tandem with the development of these lands.
The following text should be inserted into section 1.0 of the North Fringe LAP:

1.4  Timeframe

The North Fringe LAP is a long-term plan, which aims to accommodate development pressure within a planned framework as it arises over the long term. As stated in section 1.3.1, it is expected that the North Fringe area will be developed over the next 10-20 years. 
Development of these lands will occur on an incremental basis and each development proposal will be the subject of detailed assessment at planning application stage. In parallel with the development of these lands, the planning authority will ensure that an adequate level of social, transport and environmental infrastructure is available. This infrastructure may be provided by the private or public sector, or indeed a combination of both (see section 5.0 of the LAP). 

B. The LAP should include a policy on the consideration of proposals for one-off houses within the LAP area. 
The following text should be inserted in the LAP:
Whilst piecemeal development of the area will be discouraged, proposals for rural-generated one-off housing (as defined in section 7.2.5 of the SEDP) on residential-zoned lands will be accommodated
subject to demonstration that any such proposal would not compromise the achievement of the overall Development Framework. 
An excessive concentration of such proposals will be discouraged, however, and individual site sizes will be limited to a minimum in the interests of achieving recommended densities.

The second paragraph of section 4.3.6 of the LAP should be replaced with the following text:
The primary access from the west will be off the N15 via a new or improved junction layout (J-x), which will accommodate the Central Avenue. The location and design of this junction will be subject to future consultation and agreement at planning application stage. A secondary access point will be located at the northwest boundary of the North Fringe area (J-y).

Members concerns/queries were answered in relation to the North Fringe Local Area Plan.  Following this the following motions were put:

CHAPTER 2 RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS:

Proposed by Councillor V. Cawley
Seconded by Councillor D. Bree

“That a maximum density for the North Fringe Area Plan should be medium density”

As Agreement could not be reached, the Cathaoirleach called for a vote.

For: Bree, Cawley, Collery, Devins, Gormley, Lyons, MacManus, McLoughlin, O’Grady
Against: Barry, Clarke, Fleming, Keaney, Leonard, McGrath, Mullaney, Mulvey, Murray

As the result was 9 for, 9 against, the Cathaoirleach Councillor G. Murray had the casting vote and declared the motion defeated.

Proposed by Councillor J. Leonard
Seconded by Councillor H. Keaney

“That the North Fringe Local Area Plan be adopted as proposed”

As Agreement could not be reached, the Cathaoirleach called for a vote.

For: Barrett, Barry, Clarke, Collery, Fleming, Keaney, Leonard, McGrath, McLoughlin, Mulvey, Murray
Against: Bree, Cawley, Devins, Lyons, O’Grady
Abstentions: Gormley, MacManus

As the result was 11 for, 5 against, with 2 Abstentions the Cathaoirleach declared the motion carried.

Members agreed that only the Manager’s Recommendation would be read out and put to the Meeting in relation to submissions which pertained to the County Council area.

SUBMISSION NO.1:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO.3:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO.5:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO.7:

Proposed by Councillor D. Bree,
Seconded by Councillor T. McLoughlin

AND AGREED

“That the objective T2.11 be deleted from the Development Plan”

SUBMISSION NO. 8:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO 10:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 11:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 14:

In response to Councillor D. Bree query on the Joint Sligo Borough and County Council Climate Change Strategy, Ms. R. McNulty, Director of Services indicated this working group was ongoing in getting a Draft Climate Change Strategy to fruition.  The members agreed with the Managers recommendation in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 15:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendation numbered15 (B) in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 16:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 17:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 18:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 20:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 21, 23,25,26,27,28,29, 30,31,133,134 AND 135:

All these relate to the North Fringe LAP and were previously dealt with under the Heading of the North Fringe Local Area Plan above.

SUBMISSION NO. 33:

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor M. Barrett

AND AGREED

“that the recommendation of the Manager be amended to allow for the zoning as WILT of the lands indicated on the adjoining map, marked Plot A”

Mr F. Moylan, Senior Executive Planner informed Members it would be inappropriate to set a precedent to re-zone this land from Open Space to WILT

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 34, 35,36,37-45,69-75,143-169,172

All these relate to the North Fringe LAP and were previously dealt with under the Heading of the North Fringe Local Area Plan above.

SUBMISSION NO. 46:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 50:

Proposed by Councillor M. Lyons
Seconded by Councillor T. Collery

“That the lands situate at Carraroe, comprising 6.4 hectares (15.8 acres) or thereabouts, the subject of a submission by Noel Elliott, Mary Gilmartin and Peter Martin and as described on the map produced and marked A together with the entrance roadway shown as a pink dotted line on said map be zoned in the draft development plan 2010-2016 as community facilities and more specifically for the construction of a Private Hospital, Respite Home, G.P. Unit, Consultants Suite and other ancillary medical facilities”

Mr F. Moylan, Senior Executive Planner stated the following:
It would be inconsistent to zone lands at this location for community facilities. The existing Draft SEDP already provides adequately for the accommodation of such facilities on sites that are more easily accessible, closer to existing residential areas and community facilities.

Following further discussion and as agreement could not be reached, the Cathaoirleach called for a vote.

For: Baker, Barrett, Barry, Clarke, Collery, Devins, Fleming, Gormley, Keaney, Lyons, McGrath, McLoughlin, Mullaney, Mulvey, O’Grady, Queenan
Against: Bree, Leonard
Abstentions: Cawley, MacManus, McGarry, Murray

As the result was 16 for, 2 against, with 4 Abstentions the Cathaoirleach declared the motion carried.

SUBMISSION NO. 51:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 58:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 59:

This submission was dealt with previously under the heading of the North Fringe Local Area Plan.

SUBMISSION NO. 66:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 67:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 68:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 89:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 90:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 92:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 93:

The members agreed with the Manager’s recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 96:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 97:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 101:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 102:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 104:

Proposed by Councillor J. Devins
Seconded by Councillor R. O’Grady

AND AGREED

“Lands owned by TESCO at Carraroe (Submission 104) to be zoned Mix2 – mixed use (optional retail warehousing)”

SUBMISSION NO. 105:

Previously agreed under the Heading of Retail Strategy.

SUBMISSION NO. 106:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 107:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 108:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 109:

Previously agreed under the Heading of North Fringe Local Area Plan.

SUBMISSION NO. 112:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 118:

Previously agreed under the Heading of Retail Strategy.

SUBMISSION NO. 119:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 123:

Proposed by Councillor S. MacManus
Seconded by Councillor D. Bree

AND AGREED

“That the word “generally” at the beginning of the Managers Recommendations relating to Submission no. 123 be deleted”

SUBMISSION NO. 126:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 127:

Previously dealt with under Submission No. 7.

SUBMISSION NO. 128:

Previously dealt with under the Heading of City By-Pass.

SUBMISSION NO. 129:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 130:

Proposed by Councillor V. Cawley
Seconded by Councillor J. McGarry

“That the land outlined in submission 130 be zoned low density for the development of one house and the walkway river crossing also be accommodated on a portion of this land while leaving a 3-meter buffer zone along the river to provide the walk for the Linear park.  Further, that the house be located on a half acre site within the site that will be identified by the Planners”

As Agreement could not be reached, the Cathaoirleach called for a vote on this motion:

For: Barrett, Cawley, Clarke, Collery, Fleming, Gormley, Keaney, Lyons, McGarry,
Against: Baker, Barry, Bree, Devins, Leonard,
Abstentions: MacManus, Murray

As the result was 9 for, 5 against with 2 abstentions, the Cathaoirleach declared the motion carried.

SUBMISSION NO. 131:

Proposed by Councillor D. Bree
Seconded by Councillor S. MacManus

AND AGREED

“That the sentence “It is recognised that these constraints exist in Sligo” be deleted from Chapter 6 – Page 27 of the Draft SEDP”

SUBMISSION NO. 137:

Proposed by Councillor V. Cawley
Seconded by Councillor H. Keaney

“That the area outlined on the map as 137 be zoned for the development of a retirement village under community facilities”

Mr F. Moylan, Senior Executive Planner indicated it would be premature to include the subject lands within the development limit of the SEDP/North Fringe LAP before the realigned N15 and N16 are constructed and operational and that their was ample serviced lands zoned within the area of the plan that should be considered first.

As agreement could not be reached, the Cathaoirleach called for a vote:

For: Barry, Collery, Fleming, Keaney, Lyons,
Against: Baker, Barrett, Bree, Clarke, Devins, Leonard, Mullaney, Mulvey, Murray, Queenan

Abstentions: Cawley, Gormley, MacManus, McGarry, O’Grady

As the result was 5 for, 10 against, with 5 Abstentions the Cathaoirleach declared the motion lost.

SUBMISSION NO. 139:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 140:

Previously dealt with under the Eastern Bridge.

SUBMISSION NO. 141:

Proposed by Councillor J. Leonard
Seconded by Councillor S. MacManus

AND AGREED

“Re Submission No. 141 - to delete Manager’s recommendation Section I.”

SUBMISSION NO. 142:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSION NO. 171:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

EARLY SUBMISSIONS:

Mr F. Moylan, Senior Executive Planner indicated a number of submissions were received in advance of the Draft SEDP 2010-2016 going on public display on the 9th of February 2009.

SUBMISSION NO. E1, E2, E3, E4,:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to these submissions.

SUBMISSION NO E5 & E6:

The members agreed that there would be no change to the Draft Plan.

SUBMISSION NO. E8:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

SUBMISSIONS NO. 2, 7, 9,23, 24, 25, ON THE DRAFT RECORD OF PROTECTED STRUCTURES (RPS):

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to these submissions.

SUBMISSIONS NO. 139 (EPA) ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (ER):

The members agreed with the Managers recommendations in relation to this submission.

MANAGER’S SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATION NO 1:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendation in relation to this submission.

MANAGER’S SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATION NO 2:

Proposed by Councillor P. Barry
Seconded by Councillor J. Devins

AND AGREED

“to reject Manager’s Supplementary Recommendation No. 2”

Councillor Bree to be recorded as abstaining, Councillor Leonard to be recorded as dissenting.

MANAGER’S SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATION NO 3:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendation in relation to this submission.

MANAGER’S SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATION NO 5:

The members agreed with the Managers recommendation in relation to this submission.

Mr F. Moylan, Senior Executive Planner invited any additional comments/amendments from Members.  The following motions were put:

Proposed by Councillor D. Bree
Seconded by Councillor S. MacManus

AND AGREED

“Recognising that the issue of water treatment, its maintenance and delivery, is of growing public concern, and further recognizing that water is not a private commodity and is best retained under the control of local government and the public sector, this Council confirms its opposition to the privatization of water services, and will oppose any attempt to hand over water and waste water systems to the private sector, and further the Council agrees to delete Objective O-WS-7 from page 113 of the Draft Development Plan”

Proposed by Councillor V. Cawley
Seconded by Councillor M. Barrett

“That the slip road off T1.2 connecting road be deleted and an alternative T.1.2 connection be identified”

Following discussion this motion was then withdrawn with the agreement of the meeting.

Proposed by Councillor D. Bree
Seconded by Councillor S. MacManus

AND AGREED

“Amend Objective O-WS-4 so as it will read “Implement the National Water Pricing Policy and not to impose charges for the supply of water for domestic use”

Proposed by Councillor D. Bree
Seconded by Councillor S. MacManus

AND AGREED

“In Section 17.8 on page 224, delete last paragraph”

Proposed by Councillor J. Leonard
Seconded by Councillor M. Fleming

AND AGREED

“Having considered the Draft Sligo & Environs Development Plan 2010-2016, the Environmental Report (SEA) and the Second Manager’s Report on submissions and observations under the Planning and Development Acts, 2000-2007, and taking account of proper planning and sustainable development of the area, the statutory obligations of the local authority and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or of any Minister of the Government, it is hereby agreed to amend the Draft Plan in accordance with the Second Manager’s Report subject to the further amendments proposed and adopted at the Special meeting of Sligo County Council held on 20th July, 2009.

It is further considered that the proposed amendments, if made, will be a material alteration of the Draft Plan and it is hereby resolved in accordance with the Planning & Development Acts 2000-2007 that the proposed amendments be put on public display for a period of not less than 4 weeks.”

Proposed by Councillor D. Bree
Seconded by Councillor S. MacManus

AND AGREED

“Aware that the survival rates of cancer patients treated in Sligo General Hospital are either identical to or superior to those currently being achieved in the United States and alarmed at the impact that current cut backs will have on the ability of University Hospital Galway to deliver cancer care services, this Council condemns the proposal to transfer the Brest Cancer service from Sligo to Galway on August 6th, and further the Council again calls on the Government to reverse the decision to transfer the Breast Cancer service from Sligo”

 

 

 



The meeting ended at 6.00pm.

 


Meeting Date 20/07/2009