Minutes 2024

Minutes of Special Meeting of Sligo County Council to consider The Draft Sligo County Development Plan 2024-2030 and The Third Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions and Observations relating to The Draft Sligo County Development Plan 2024-2030 held at 10.00 a.m. on 30th September, 2024 in The Council Chamber, County Hall, Riverside, Sligo

COUNCILLORS PRESENT:

• Councillor Bree,
• Councillor Brennan,
• Councillor Casserly,
• Councillor Clarke,
• Councillor Cosgrove,
• Councillor Gallagher,
• Councillor Gibbons,
• Councillor Gilroy,
• Councillor Healy,
• Councillor MacSharry, T.,
• Councillor McSharry, E.,
• Councillor Mullaney,
• Councillor Mulvey,
• Councillor Nealon,
• Councillor O’Boyle,
• Councillor Queenan,
• Councillor Taylor and
• Councillor Walsh.

 

OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE:

• Mr. Martin Lydon, Chief Executive
• Ms. Dorothy Clarke, Director of Services
• Mr. Frank Moylan, Senior Planner
• Ms. Mihaela Davidescu, Senior Executive Planner
• Ms. Leonora McConville, Executive Planner
• Mr. Barry Ward, Executive Planner
• Ms. Sinéad Branley, Meetings Administrator
• Ms. Siobhán Gillen, Administrative Officer
• Ms. Jo-Anne McGonigle, A/Staff Officer
• Ms. Yvonne Colreavy, Clerical Officer
• Ms. Karen McMahon, IS Technical Support Officer

 

CATHAOIRLEACH:

Cathaoirleach, Councillor Declan Bree, presided.  Members were welcomed to the Meeting and he advised the Members that this was a significant Meeting.  It was hoped that it would be possible to make the County Development Plan.

Ms. Clarke, Director of Services, advised the Meeting that the making of a new County Development Plan is one of the most important and critical functions of the County Council, for both the Executive and the Members.  It was also one of the key Reserved Functions for the Members.  The County Development Plan is a strategic document about the future development of the county for the next six years, from a land use perspective until 2030.

The preparatory process was a two years.  The Statutory process had been outlined on page 6 of Volume 1 the documentation provided.  The Council was now coming to the latter stages of the process and it was hoped that the new Plan would be made by the end of the meeting.

The Senior Planner would take the Members through the different documentation circulated.  The Third Chief Executive’s Report contained 90 submissions during the 7th June to 5th July consultation period.  The new Plan would be the blueprint and framework for Sligo County Council to make sure that Sligo grew – that both the city and county area fulfilled its potential.  In conclusion, the Director of Services acknowledged the work of the Senior Planner and his Team, together with other Sections for their contributions.  The Members were also thanked for their contributions in the past.

Mr. Moylan, Senior Planner noted that before going to the Chief Executive’s Report he would give a brief presentation.  Some of the newly elected Members had not been involved in the process up to now and his presentation would explain the background and format of the meeting. 

At this Meeting, the Members would be considering material amendments to the Draft Plan and, ultimately, the adoption of a new Plan for County Sligo would be sought. 

The process had commenced in July 2021 with three rounds of public consultation, the most recent of which involved publication of amendments proposed by the Council at a Meeting in September 2023.  All the amendments would be considered, and the Members would decide whether to make those amendments to the Plan.

The amendments referred to were

• 308 proposed amendments – on public display from 7^th June to 5^th July, 2024
• 90 submissions received
• 14 submissions from Prescribed Bodies (e.g. OPR, NWRA, TII, etc.)
• 73 submissions on Proposed Amendments to Zoning and
• 4 submissions unrelated to Proposed Amendments.

Mr. Moylan continued by setting out the Structure of the Third Chief Executive’s Report and format of the Meeting for the Members’ information.  Clarification was also given on the difference between ‘Modifications’ and ‘Amendments’

It was important to focus on the central spine of the Plan and this had been set out in the Core Strategy.  This set out the medium to long term strategy for the spatial development of the county.  In doing so, it was required to demonstrate that the Development Plan and its objectives were consistent with National and Regional Plans.

In relation to Population and Housing projections targets, these were set out in the “National Planning Framework”, and the “Implementation Roadmap” published after the NPF.  There were also Housing projections/targets set out in the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy and the Housing Supply Target Methodology for Development Planning.

In respect of the Council’s Plan, figures were then outlined to the Meeting as follows:

Population Targets (NPF and RSES) – 76,560 persons (25,360 Sligo Town)

Housing Allocation (HSTM) – 4,029 units (2,649 in Sligo Town)

Zoning – Proposed Residential and Mixed – 132.5 ha sufficient to deliver 4,566 units.

The Plan had to indicate where those units would go and that was the purpose of the zoning.  In deciding what land should be zoned, there were two essential elements – infrastructural capacity and sequential approach.  Sequential approach was about development from the centre out. When zoning land, priority had to be given to centrally located sites in settlements over more peripheral locations. Key environmental considerations were highlighted as some of the amendments would have the potential to undermine sustainable development and proper planning.

Mr. Moylan continued by setting out the consequences of over-zoning, particularly in the wrong locations.

The process for adoption of the Plan was that the Members were required to consider:

• The Draft County Development Plan – Volumes 1 to 4
• The Proposed Amendments to the Draft County Development Plan
• The Environmental Report (SEA ER) and the additional ER in respect of the Proposed Amendments
• The Natura Impact Report (AA)
• The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) including the additional assessment in respect of the Proposed Amendments and
• The Chief Executive’s final recommendations contained in the Chief Executive’s Report

The Members’ options at the Special Meeting were also clarified –

• Deciding whether to accept (or otherwise) amendments to the Draft Plan is a reserved function,
• If Chief Executive’s recommendation is not agreed, a vote was required to make the Plan with or without that proposed amendment,
• If the accepting of an amendment that would be contrary to the OPR recommendation, the motion had to set out planning reasons for such a decision and
• If the Members resolved to make the plan without the amendment, it would revert back to the Draft Plan.

In conclusion, the wording of the final resolution required to adopt the Plan was displayed to the Members.

If the Plan was adopted at the Meeting, the Plan would become operational six weeks from the date of adoption.  From that date, all Planning applications would be assessed against the new Plan, regardless of when that application was lodged.

Mr. Moylan indicated that he would then move on to Volume 1of the Chief Executive’s Report.

At this point, Councillor Walsh enquired whether queries could be raised in relation to the Presentation or if the meeting was proceeding to Volume 1.  In response, the Cathaoirleach indicated that Councillor Walsh could raise points in relation to the Presentation, should he wish to do so.

Councillor Walsh sought clarification on figures in the draft Plan in the Third Chief Executive’s Report.  He enquired if everything proposed at the meeting was zoned, that it had been indicated it would lead to an increase of 73% over-zoning.  Councillor Walsh said he was asking in the context of Plans completed around the country and gave examples of over-zoning agreed in those Plans.  The Minister had not over-ruled those.  In reply, the Senior Planner said he could give many other examples of where the Minister had intervened.

In support of Councillor Walsh’s comment, Councillor Clarke said he felt the Plan would be for a ten-year period.  Other towns had been allowed to increase their zoning.  Figures presented were based on ancient and not current statistics.  To be held to the current quota would be a disadvantage to Sligo and northwest.

Councillor Mulvey outlined details of where Ireland was bucking the European trend being the only country where construction is growing comparatively.  There was a huge demand for houses, and these would not be built if there was not a demand for a supply.  The lack of supply also resulted in increased house prices.  50,000 homes had been commenced in Ireland in the last year and these were being sold.

In supporting the comments made, Councillor Gilroy said he was concerned at the levels the Council were working at and there was a shortage of housing.  The report had indicated that less than 50% of zoned land was developed between 2011 and the making of the current Plan.  He enquired as to the exact figure under 50%   There was a target of 88% being aimed for but Sligo County Council had to be realistic as to what level of the zoned land will be developed.

The importance of the County Development Plan for the area, as a regional growth centre, was referred to by Councillor Healy.  Members must have a say in what was to be built and they were hearing this from members of the public.  The onus was on the Members to put in whatever houses were required in Sligo.

Councillor Nealon added that it was his understanding that the figure was 18% of zoned land had been delivered in the last Plan.  The Senior Planner advised the meeting that the figure was approximately 20% and this was a very disappointing figure as people needed to build on zoned land but, for whatever reason, they were not.  In terms of implementation of land activation measures, for some reason, Government had been reluctant to introduce the ones that would result in a change, e.g. the Residential Zoned Land Tax.  That should have been introduced in recent years as it would put pressure on people who were hoarding land to do something with it.

In raising a further query on this matter, Councillor Nealon asked that if people are not building on zoned land, would logic not suggest that the Council should over-zone to compensate for the lack of development.  In response, the Senior Planner advised the Members that it was important to zone the “right” land, i.e. if the land is serviced or in areas where it was desirable for the towns or villages to grow with centrally located sites, if there are sufficient facilities in that area to absorb that development, then that would be the right land.  The mistake that could be made was to respond to the argument that the Council had under-zoned land, to take the position that any land that comes forward from a Landowner or a Developer would be zoned.  It had to be done on a planned, evidence-based basis.

Councillor Nealon sought further clarification regarding the term of the Plan, i.e. whether it would be a six or a ten-year Plan.

The Senior Planner advised Members that there was a new Planning Bill going through the Houses of the Oireachtas.  Within that, there was an indication that Development Plans would have a life of ten years instead of the current six.  The Plan for adoption at the Meeting, if adopted, would be under the Legislation as it currently stood.  This Legislation said the Plan would be for six years.

Councillor Walsh wished to thank the Planners for their huge piece of work on the Plan.  18% was the figure and 198 ha of land in County Sligo was undeveloped, zoned land.  That was both the critical message and his concern.  The land that had not been developed was continuing to be zoned and this land was being prioritised.  Research published in December 2023, quoted by the Regulator and the Minister in the RZLT noted that only one in six of land zoned in a CDP is actually developed.  It had been proposed to decrease the amount of land to be zoned by 33ha from the previous County Development Plan to the first draft of the new Plan.  Councillor Walsh felt that the Members of Sligo County Council would be foolish to not over-zone in the new County Development Plan.

In confirming that this would be one of the most important Meetings that the County Council would have, Councillor Taylor, outlined that the difficulty he had with reference to “serviced land”. If the Members did not zone the land and then contacted Uisce Éireann, it was unlikely that they would service it then.  A number of the submissions the Members would be going through at the Meeting from Statutory Bodies were completely false.  Sligo County Council did not have the resources to go through them one by one. 

If the plan was adopted at the Meeting, Councillor Healy enquired whether there would be a review of the Development Plan.

Ms. Davidescu advised the Meeting that, from her reading of the new Legislation, which provided that the life of a Plan would be ten years.  There would be a major review, which included zoning, at five years, i.e. the mid-point of the Plan.  This would give an opportunity to Elected Members to have a say in the Development Plan for their county.  Otherwise, there would be some Councillors who would never have a say in the Development Plan.  In this situation, if Sligo County Council adopted the Plan at the current meeting, based on the current Legislation, the Council would most likely be obliged to vary the Plan in 2025 to bring it in line with the new Legislation.  The last time there were major changes where there were some Articles inserted in the Planning Act specifying how the Planning Authority should deal with the Plan, depending on how close they were to their review point.  If the review of the Development Plan was in the middle, it had to start again.  If close to the next review, then that would commence early.  There would be some transitional provision in the new Legislation indicating the process to the Planning Authority. One option would be to review the current Plan very soon.  Regardless as to whether this was done, at five years there would be a major review so instead of having the major Plan review at six years, as at present, this would happen sooner, even if the life of the Plan is ten years.  It would most likely be prescribed in the next Planning Act what exactly is to be reviewed in five years’ time, but it was expected that it would be zoning.

In relation to the Residential Zoned Land Tax, Councillor Cosgrove said she was urging the Government Parties to implement this tax.

Ms. Clarke, Director of Services, added that this Plan was a six-year Plan.  This was all that could be discussed at this meeting – a Plan to bring Sligo up to 2030.  While there was a new Planning Bill being discussed, it was not Legislation as yet.  In relation to the projections and housing allocations, information was being provided at a national level.  The advice given had to be given as the Executive wished to comply with national Planning Legislation, Regulations and Policies in this area.  It was not possible for them to change it, and it was up to the Members to make the Plan and to decide on the amendments. 

Councillor E. McSharry indicated that she had a concern with the length of time involved due to the data available at present and the dynamic situation the Councillors were in.  That data changed very quickly.  In terms of zoning serviced land, there was an extended period of time involved.  Councillor McSharry said that she felt, within that time, those areas could be serviced.  Making a decision on a six, or possibly a ten, year period was an extended period.

The Senior Planner informed the Meeting that he was anxious to proceed to consider the amendments as indicated by the Members.  Before doing so, he summarised two of the key submissions received from the Prescribed Bodies.  The first of those was from the Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR) and the second was from the Northern and Western Regional Assembly (NWRA).

Section 4, Volume 1 referred to the OPR submission (Submission 80) 

This contained eight material amendments without any additional observations.  The OPR had indicated that “if the Council decides not to comply with the recommendations of the Office or otherwise makes the Plan in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the recommendations of the Office, the Chief Executive must inform the OPR accordingly and state the reasons for such decision.”

The OPR had been satisfied, in general, with the way Sligo County Council had dealt with previous recommendations of the OPR on the draft Plan and how the Council had complied with their five previous recommendations.  However, there were many proposed additions to new residential zoning in Sligo town, e.g. that notwithstanding the Chief Executive’s determination that sufficient land would be zoned within the Plan to accommodate the increased housing target.  These had put forward far in excess of what was required to meet the housing targets.  On page 18 of the document, the Chief Executive confirmed that he agreed with the concerns of the OPR and set out the details of same.  This represented a 51% increase above the area zoned for new residential uses in the Draft Plan.

The OPR had set out the amendments that were the subject of their concern – PAZ 9, PAZ 11, PAZ 12, PAZ 13, PAZ 14 and PAZ 15 (all in Sligo town) and the basis of their concerns relate to their location, that they do not comply with the sequential approach or in terms of serviced infrastructure.  They had further concerns in relation to the impact on the archaeological landscape in PAZ 11 and 12.  Concerns were also raised in relation to the environment and flood risk.

Recommendation 1 from the OPR (on page 20) was that the Planning Authority was required to make the Plan without the following material amendments (all in Sligo town):

• PAZ 9
• PAZ 11
• PAZ 12
• PAZ 13
• PAZ 14
• PAZ 15

Members were not asked to decide on those amendments at that time in the Meeting.  Each amendment would be considered individually in Volume 3

 

Issue 2 – Support Towns

There were ten proposed amendments that the OPR were opposed to in terms of location, service infrastructure, potential environmental effects and flood risk.

Recommendation number 2 was that those nine amendments should not be made.

 

Issue 3 – Satellite villages and villages with special Tourism functions

Ballysadare – PAZ 42, PAZ 43, PAZ 45 and PAZ 46

Strandhill – PAZ 56, PAZ 57 and PAZ 58

Easky – PAZ 60 and PAZ 61

The OPR recommendation was that these proposed amendments to zoning would not be made.

 

Issue 4 – Other villages

There were six proposed amendments to zoning under this heading.

PAZ 64 (Ballintogher)

PAZ 73 (Cliffony)

PAZ 68 (Castlebaldwin)

PAZ 76 (Curry)

PAZ 79 and PAZ 80 (Gorteen)

The OPR had recommended that these proposed amendments to zoning should not be made.

 

Under Theme 2 of the OPR’s submission, Zoning for non-residential uses, there were eight PAZ references that the OPR were opposed to and recommended would not be made:

PAZ 10 (outskirts of Sligo town)

PAZ 34 (outside Enniscrone)

PAZ 41, PAZ 44 and PAZ 46 (outside Ballysadare)

PAZ 59 and 62 (Easky)

PAZ 81 Monasteraden.

 

Theme 6 – Access to national roads

Under PA 180 (proposed to include text into the Plan stating – Where direct vehicular access onto national primary roads cannot be avoided, a Departure from TII Publications Standards DN-GEO-03060 with justification shall be required). 

This would be discussed when that amendment was being considered. 

 

Theme 7 – Greenways and recreational infrastructure

The recommendation was that, having regard to NPO 22 to facilitate greenways, and NPO 60 to conserve and enhance natural heritage in a manner appropriate to its significance, the Planning Authority is required to make the Plan without material amendment PA-105.

Again, this matter would be dealt with under Volume 2.

 

Theme 8 – Flood risk management

The OPR had listed a number of PAZ references and stated that they had not passed the justification test –

PAZ 15 in Sligo Town

PAZ 18, PAZ 19 and PAZ 23 in Ballymote

PAZ 23 in Enniscrone (a note had been inserted by the C.E. confirming this should be PAZ 34)

PAZ 62 in Easky

PAZ 63 in Ballinafad

PAZ 76 in Curry and

PAZ 79 and PAZ 80 in Gorteen.

 

Section 5 was the Northern and Western Regional Assembly (NWRA) submission.

This submission contained nine recommendations.  On page 40 of Volume 1, the NWRA indicated that there were 16 amendments proposed to the draft Sligo County Development Plan and seven of those merited consideration to the role of Sligo as a Growth Centre.

Similar to the concerns of the OPR, the NWRA listed six in Sligo town as follows:

PAZ 9, PAZ 11, PAZ 12, PAZ 13, PAZ 14 and PAZ 15

These represented significant amendments to the Sligo town Plan that would constitute an increase of approximately 66.78 ha of new Residential zoned land, primarily at the periphery of the plan area or outside the plan area.  The Assembly did not support the zoning of the additional lands for residential use under the proposed amendments listed above.  The reasons for their decision were also set out.

 

Section 6 – Submission 84 from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage/Development Applications Unit.

Their recommendations would be dealt with as the relevant, proposed amendments were being considered by the Members.

In relation to proposed amendments to zoning, the Department had indicated their concerns relating to eight proposed amendments

PAZ 4, PAZ 5, PAZ 9, PAZ 13, PAZ 14, PAZ 15, PAZ 16 and PAZ 58.

Primarily relating to archaeological concerns at two sites in the town.  Again, these items would be dealt with as each PAZ was reached during the meeting.

 

Section 7 – Submission 1 - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

This dealt with the SEA Process and was generally advice to the Local Authority regarding preparation of the Plan.

 

Section 7 – Submission 2 – Health and Safety Authority (HSA)

The HSA had indicated that a correction was required in relation to updated information in relation to Seveso sites (set out on page 53 of Volume 1)

“The submission indicates that in previous correspondence, i.e. submission on the Draft Plan – the HAS brought to the Council’s attention “that Lough Gill Distillery Ltd. is a Seveso establishment and that mention of this establishment would be expected to be found in the development plan.”

 

Section 7 - Submission 35 – Department of Education

This submission contains several observations on certain Proposed Amendments summarised as follows:

Issue 1 – Sligo town population increase

Issue 2 – welcome Proposed amendments (PA 100 – supporting schools in upgrading, modernising and expanding) and PA 64 (investigating the feasibility of a walking/cycling route to the Primary School in Strandhill).

 

Submission 39 – Transport Infrastructure Ireland

This submission contained observations on certain Proposed Amendments and these would be dealt with under Volume 2.

They had also indicated that in some of the village plans, there were five proposed amendments they had indicated were outside the speed control zone and they asked that those amendments would be reconsidered.

 

Submission 52 - Land Development Agency

They had pointed out an error on Table 33.3 of the Plan relating to house types.  This was recommended to the Members for changing.

 

Submission 69 – Uisce Éireann

Welcomed the inclusion of a list of amendments arising from its initial submission on the Draft Plan. It questioned the need for disproportionate rezoning in rural settlements.  Any increase would require a strategic network and upgrades.  Essentially, they were indicating concern about some of the additional zonings proposed.

 

Submission 70 – National Transport Authority (NTA)

Submission 88 – Office of Public Works (OPW)

This submission had raised concerns with some of the amendments which may have potential to fail the justification test from the point of view of flood risk assessment.

 

Section 8 – Submissions not related to Proposed Amendments

 

VOLUME 2

The Senior Planner asked if the Members wished him to go through Volume 2 item by item (i.e. 222 amendments to text in the written statement itself).  It was expected that the Proposed Amendments to Zoning (PAZ) would be gone through individually.  Volume 2 contained straightforward amendments proposed by the Chief Executive to text. 

There was one amendment that the Chief Executive had recommended would not be made and this would be discussed.  There were a number of amendments the Chief Executive proposed would be made, subject to modifications and, thereafter, the Members could raise any other amendments they wished to specifically discuss.

Councillor Queenan sought clarification on the map for the new “buffer zone” in Enniscrone and the proposed bypass for Enniscrone and whether this amendment had been included in Volume 3. Mr. Moylan confirmed that it had been included in Volume 2 and was the first amendment he had intended discussing.

Regarding “buffer zones”, that decision had been made at the previous meeting.  In preparing the draft Plan, a number of green belts around villages and towns were reduced in size.  The Members had not made any change to that and had accepted those at the draft Plan stage.

Councillor Queenan thanked the Senior Planner for the information and clarification.

 

The first matter to be dealt with would be the under Proposed amendments (PA) as set out in Volume 2 was

PA 50 Addition/deletion to/from Traffic and circulation objective EN-TCO-10; deletion of EN-TCO-10(A) – road corridor to the south of the town (Enniscrone) based on submissions 175 (Seamus Tuffy) and 176 (David McGowan)

This was the only proposed amendment to text that the Chief Executive had recommended that the Plan would be made without that amendment.

Following a discussion on PA 50, it was 

Proposed by Councillor J. Queenan
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

 AND AGREED

 “To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

 

PA 14 Insert an additional Strategic settlement policy SP-S-3 under the heading “Towns” based on submission 113 – Arts Council.

Agreed

 

PA 20 Additional strategic housing objective SO-HOU-3 based on submission 103 – NWRA

Agreed

 

PA 39 Insert additional Compact growth policy P-CG-6 in Section 10.4 based on submission 102 – National Transport Authority (NTA)

Agreed

 

PA 42 Addition to the public realm objective O-PR-2 based on submission 133 from Easky Enhancement Association

TII had recommended that a minor modification be made to the objective requesting that a design report (Design Phase Procedure for Road Safety Improvement Schemes, Urban Renewal Schemes and Local Improvement Schemes) would be completed and submitted.

Councillor Gilroy indicated that he felt that this would be another layer of bureaucracy that would slow up Public Realm Strategies at these locations.  There would be so many reports, taking years to do.

Mr. Moylan clarified that any proposal with access onto a national road had to undertake that work anyway.  A consultation process had been undertaken, inviting submissions from Prescribed Bodies and they had given advice, he felt that the Planning Authority should take it on board.  This was advice to make people aware of the requirement. 

Following further discussions, the Senior Planner advised the Members that it would be Local Authority Staff that would be preparing these.

Councillor Casserly enquired about the timeframe for the preparation of such a report and whether it would cause delays.  Mr. Moylan informed the Meeting that, on national roads, this report would have to be done anyway so it would not add time to the preparation of the Scheme.

Ms. Clarke confirmed that this was requested to be added as a modification and it was a choice for the Member if they did not wish to include it.

Agreed

 

PA 54 Include additional objective G in Section 15.3.3 Transport, circulation and parking - Supplementary C. E. recommendations on Transport

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor B. Gallagher

 “To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed without the modification.”

 A vote was called on this proposed amendment which resulted as follows:

FOR:    Councillors Brennan, Clarke, Gallagher, Gilroy, MacSharry, T., McSharry, E., Mulvey, Queenan, Taylor and Walsh (9)

AGAINST:       Councillors Bree, Casserly, Cosgrove, Gibbons, Healy, Mullaney and Nealon (7)

ABSENT:         Councillor O’Boyle (1)

The Cathaoirleach declared the resolution CARRIED.

 

Proposed amendments – PA 63, PA 136, PA 199, PA 201 and PA 203

PA 63 – Additional new objective D in Section 18.3.3 Transport and circulation (Supplementary C.E.’s recommendations on Transport)

PA 136 – Include three additional cycling and walking objectives under the heading Active travel along national roads (Supplementary C. E.’s recommendations on Transport)

PA 199 – Include additional objective B in Section 43.2.1 Transport and circulation (on foot of submission 137 – Tom Watters)

PA 201 – Additions/deletions to/from objective B in Section 46.2.2 Transport and circulation (Supplementary C. E.’s recommendations on Transport)

PA 203 – Include additional objective 48.2.3.C (based on submission 35 – Michael Kirby)

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor B. Gallagher

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed without the modification.”

A vote was called on this resolution which resulted as follows:

FOR:    Councillors Brennan, Clarke, Gallagher, Gilroy, MacSharry, T., Mulvey, Queenan, Taylor and Walsh (9)

AGAINST:       Councillors Bree, Casserly, Cosgrove, Gibbons, Healy, Mullaney, Nealon and O’Boyle (8)

ABSENT:         Councillor McSharry, E. (1)

The Cathaoirleach declared the resolution CARRIED

 

Proposed amendment – PA 80 Insert an additional Biodiversity policy based on submission 124 – Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (DHLGH)

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 83 – in Section 24.1 Biodiversity, insert a new Artificial lighting at night objective based on submission 124 Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (DHLGH)

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 105 – include additional text under the heading Greenways in Section 27.7.4 Outdoor recreational amenities

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 110 – include an additional word (agricultural) in policy P-MEQ-2 in Section 28.2.4 Mineral extraction and Quarries based on Submission 100 – Sligo County Councillors’ Planning Group.

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 115 – include additional policy P-TOU-9 in Section 28.3 Tourism development based on submission 194 – Fáilte Ireland

Proposed by Councillor D. Bree
Seconded by Councillor G. O’Boyle

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

A vote was called on this resolution which resulted as follows:

FOR:    Councillors Bree, Brennan, Casserly, Cosgrove, Gibbons, Mullaney, Mulvey, O’Boyle and Walsh (9)

AGAINST:       Councillors Clarke, Gallagher, Gilroy, MacSharry, T., McSharry, E., Nealon, Queenan and Taylor (8)

ABSENT:         Councillor Healy (1)

The Cathaoirleach declared the resolution CARRIED

 

Proposed amendment – PA 171 – Additions/deletions to/from Section 33.3.5 Distance between dwellings (Supplementary C. E. recommendations on issues arising from SRDCS Guidelines)

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 172 – Additions/deletions to/from Section 33.3.7 Public open space in multi-unit schemes (Supplementary C. E. recommendations on issues arising from SRDCS Guidelines)

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 173 - Additions/deletions to/from Section 33.3.8 Private open space and Table 33.3 Minimum net garden size for houses (Supplementary C. E. recommendations on issues arising from SRDCS Guidelines)

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 178 – Deletion of last sentence in the final bullet point in Section 33.4.4 Site boundaries based on submission 100 – Sligo County Councillors’ Planning Group

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 180 – Additions/deletion to the first paragraph under the heading Sight distances for access onto national roads in Section 33.9.1 Access onto national roads (Supplementary C. E. recommendations on Transport)

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 187 – Additional text after the four bullet points in Section 33.11 Energy and telecommunications infrastructure based on submission 47 – Transport Infrastructure Ireland (T.I.I.)

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 191 – Include additional subsection minimising light pollution in Section 33.2.14 illumination and spread of light

Agreed

 

Proposed amendment – PA 194 – insert additional objective D in Section 41.2.1 (Supplementary C. E. recommendations on miscellaneous issues)

Agreed

These had been all the amendments that the Chief Executive recommended either rejection of or modification of. The Senior Planner then gave Members the opportunity to discuss specific amendments, should they wish to do so.

 

Councillor Walsh referred to Proposed amendments 2, 3 and 11 in light of the Housing allocations. 

Mr. Moylan said PA 2 related to adjusting the Core Strategy to bring it into line with housing allocations provided to the Planning Authority at either national or regional level.  A submission had been received from Declan Brassil and Company on behalf of Beldare Homes arguing that the figures were too low.  In contrast, both the NWRA and the OPR indicated that they were in agreement with the proposed amendment being made and confirmed that it would give the Plan greater consistency with the RSES and the NPF and the HSTN figures.  In response, the Chief Executive had stated that no updated population projections or Housing targets have been formally issued by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage at the time of drafting the report.  There was no national or regional basis for increasing the housing allocation above the figure revised in the OPR’s previous recommendation.  The positive comments of the OPR and NWRA in relation to proposed amendments PA 2 and PA 11 were noted and no further modifications to those proposed amendments were required.

The Chief Executive’s recommendation was to make the Plan with the amendment as proposed.

In response, Councillor Walsh said he was not clear on what was being amended.  The tables have not been amended and this problem had been outlined in the submissions.  He was extremely frustrated at an Independent Regulator that has not seen the issues that he had outlined and requested that PA 2, PA 3 and PA 11 would be taken together.  He believed that there were some inaccuracies and he outlined the tables in question (Revised Core Strategy Table) and (Settlement Strategy)

Mr. Moylan confirmed that the amendments were consistent with national and regional policies.  What the Members were being asked to consider was to make the Plan with or without those amendments.  If it was without the amendments, the Council would revert to the lower figures.

Councillor Walsh responded that this would not be so if there were inaccuracies in it and this was the problem.

The Members were considering the amendments.  They had been proposed, put on public display, a submission had been received from the OPR and NWRA stating that they were satisfied that the amendments bring the Plan into line and are more consistent with housing allocations at national and regional levels.

Councillor Walsh outlined further figures outlined in the tables and the difficulties he had with same.

Ms. Davidescu referred to clarification she had given at the previous meeting where the figures from the Department are not linked to each other. One set of calculations for population target and a completely different set of calculations from another section of the Department regarding housing targets.  That had been clearly specified in the draft Plan and presented at the previous meeting. This had been accepted by the OPR and a review of both Tables had been carried out in accordance with what the Planning Authority had been told.  It was not possible, at that time, to correlate additional population with additional housing numbers.  There were far more houses required than population targets would suggest. 

Councillor Walsh said that there lay the problem as it was the Members’ job to maximise the numbers and if the Homeless Section was examined, the data there was also extremely poor.

Ms. Davidescu informed the meeting that she had raised the same questions with the Department when the Plan was being drafted in relation to the figures for Homeless and Overcrowding. 

The Senior Planner again highlighted to the meeting that a lot of the figures in the tables were not derived from the Planning Authority but had been given to them by the Department.  Having looked at the motion from Councillor Walsh, the Senior Planner said that ultimately what was being proposed was to make the Development Plan with the amendment subject to a modification.  The proposed modification would be to acknowledge the cumulative underestimate of demand of 542 units by increasing the housing allocation from 4,029 to 4,571.  That is suggesting that you want a modification done to change the table by increasing the number of units by 542.  The Senior Planner indicated that this was not a minor modification.

In taking the points made, Councillor Walsh said that the table was inaccurate and the Regulator did not do its job in this case.  This meant that the whole Plan was flawed.  There was close to 1,000 more homes if the figures

The Senior Planner reiterated that the decision before you is to make the amendment, to reject the amendment or minor modifications could be proposed.  Proposing to add a further 542 units to the table was not a minor modification. Councillor Walsh said that the figure was closer to 1,000 when the two mistakes he was referring to were taken into account.

Either way, the Senior Planner stated that this was not a minor modification and, therefore, legally it could not be made at this stage in the process.

Councillor Walsh said that this should be flagged with the Department and he asked that it would be recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting that the table was inaccurate.  The Members had flagged that it was inaccurate by close to 1,000 units and the Regulator should have picked up on that.  416 units had been subtracted twice and should not have been.

As seconder of the motion, Councillor Gilroy noted that the Members only had the choice of the numbers in the table or the lower figure.  He enquired whether they could go for the higher figure with a note indicating that they felt that the figures were flawed and that it was the opinion of the Members that the figures were flawed and would need to be adjusted at the relevant level.  It was expected that a lot of the amendments would be going to the OPR and that they could come back and get their Ministerial Order to take this on board.  Efforts had to be made to stop any mistake if there was one.

Councillor Walsh understands where the Senior Planner was coming from as it was extremely poor how the data had been collated from different Bodies and released at different times.  The Members, however, had been given a mandate to ensure that there was enough land zoned in the county for the next ten years.  The inaccurate table was the basis for the whole Plan.

Councillor Clarke added his support for the points raised by Councillor Walsh and Councillor Gilroy.  The OPR did not have the correct numbers and the sections of the Department were contradicting themselves.  As Councillor Walsh had pointed out, it would be reckless of the Members to adopt a Plan that did not fulfil the maximum zoning ability and would leave the county with a shortfall of almost 2,000 houses over the life of the Plan

Following further queries from Members and clarification by the Planning staff, the Chief Executive advised the meeting that he was getting nervous,  because the same language had been used in an email he had received from a Developer the previous evening that was now being used at the Meeting.  The Members were either adopting a County Development Plan because they were Elected Members or it was a Developer led County Development Plan.  The e-mail had contained the wording that the person would not stand for what was being put forward.  The Chief Executive took great umbrage at that statement.  It was a democratic process and an open and transparent process.  The Council needed to be careful.  Experts were telling the meeting what land should be zoned.  The Members and Executive were either listening to their own experts or they were not.  It was not an a la carte menu and the advice given needed to be considered. 

Councillor Queenan referred to comments from Councillor Walsh where he had said that the Council should zone substantially more land than was being proposed and he sought clarification if he was off the mark or accurate.  In response, Mr. Moylan said that the Members were going to consider each of the proposed zoning amendments individually when going through Volume 3. 

Councillor Queenan said the argument from both Councillor Walsh and Councillor Gilroy was that not enough land had been zoned. 

The Cathaoirleach said that while that may be part of the argument, there was also the issue about the legality and his concern was that this was not a minor amendment.  If it was not a minor amendment, it had to be ruled out of order.  He was not arguing with Councillor Walsh but saying that it was his difficulty.

The Chief Executive responded that Ms. Clarke had outlined at the outset that a Plan had to be prepared based on the information, advice and guidelines given by the Department.  There may be a need to zone additional land but, legally, as it stood at that time in the process, it was not possible.  There had to be, as set out by the Senior Planner, a hierarchical approach for the way the numbers were developed.  That started with the Minister who would then give it to the NWRA who in turn then gave Sligo County Council the figures to work with.  The Council could not come up with their own figures, feed that into the NWRA and feed that into the Housing Department.  He fully understood that the Members wanted to zone additional land.  There may be a need to do that.  Legally, as it stood at that time, the Executive of Sligo County Council had to work within the parameters given to them.  The information was then given to the Members.  After that, if the Members made a decision to continue to zone additional land, everyone knew it was going back to the OPR and the Minister.  It was highly unlikely that all the lands would go through, based on what he had seen from the submissions but that was what they would work through.  The Council could not change the situation and what was being looked at was a new model.  The Chief Executive could not take an independent model and the Council had to use the information given to them.  This message seemed to be getting lost.

The Senior Planner added that what the Members were considering was to make or reject the amendments.  It had been highlighted that by changing the table and adding a large number of units was not a minor modification and, therefore, could not be made.  He understood the predicament that put the Elected Members in.  What he was suggesting, should they not wish to reject the amendment and go back to the reduced figures, was that in accepting the amendment the OPR could be informed that the Elected Members pointed out some issues they had with the information that had been prescribed to the Council at national level.  The Members had the choice to accept the amendment.  If they did so and they were informing the OPR of their acceptance, the Senior Planner would point out the reservations that Members had about that amendment.

Councillor Walsh said that this needed to be a separate item of correspondence to the motion, if agreed.  There were issues with two tables – 3.2 and 5.2 – and the Members believed that they were inaccurate.

The Senior Planner noted that, based on information provided to the Members, they felt that they were inaccurate.  The decision they had, was to accept the amendment or to reject those figures or to accept the amendment and accept the figures and, in any correspondence, or notification that had to be given to the OPR point out the reservations and what the Members had alleged were inaccurate.  The Planning Authority had five days in which to issue notice to the OPR of whatever decision was made at the Meeting.  When a draft of that correspondence had been prepared, the Senior Planner would circulate that to the Members.  His suggestion was that the Members accept the amendments on PA 2, PA 3 and PA 11 as proposed.

Councillor Clarke welcomed Mr. Moylan’s comments and noted that he had taken on board what the Elected Members had said.  The Chief Executive was advised not to worry about any e-mails received as the Elected Members were competent enough to make their own decisions.  They were not under any pressure from anybody.

The Chief Executive clarified that it was not what he had said.  What he had been saying was that the Council had to be very careful.

The Cathaoirleach asked for confirmation from the Members that the recommendation from the Senior Planner was acceptable.  Mr. Moylan added that the motion, as submitted, would need to be withdrawn and Councillor Walsh confirmed that he would be withdrawing it.  Mr. Moylan reiterated that in any submission he would be making to the OPR he would be pointing out the information provided to him by the Members and a copy would be issued to the Members in advance of issuing it to the Office of the Planning Regulator.

The Cathaoirleach sought confirmation and the Members agreed to this proposal from the Senior Planner.

Mr. Moylan again enquired if the Members had any other issue they wished to raise in Volume 2.

In reply, Councillor Queenan said he did not see any reference in Volume 2 to Rural Planning and Mr. Moylan clarified that the Members were considering at this Meeting were amendments to the draft Plan. 

In this regard, it was noted that

PA 15 – Additions to Item A of the Strategic settlement policy for Rural Areas under Urban Influence, SP-S-9 (final resolution of 22^nd April, 2024 – to amend the Draft Plan in accordance with the Second C. E.’s Report, subject to further amendments proposed and adopted at the Special Meetings of the 15^th and 22^nd April, 2024. Submission 48 – Robert Keran Consulting on behalf of Beldare Homes.

and

PA 16 - Additions to Item A of the Strategic settlement policy for Green Belts and Sensitive Areas, SP-S-11 (final resolution of 22^nd April, 2024 – to amend the Draft Plan in accordance with the Second C. E.’s Report, subject to further amendments proposed and adopted at the Special Meetings of the 15^th and 22^nd April, 2024)

referred to the same content in relation to Green Belts.

PA 45 – Deletions from the strategic urban roads objective SO-UR-2 in Section 11.3.1 Transport and mobility based on supplementary C. E.’s recommendations on Transport.

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor M. Casserly

 AND AGREED

 “To make the Development Plan without the amendment modified.”

Prior to adjourning for a brief period, the Senior Planner sought the Members’ confirmation that all amendments in Volume 2 were agreed and this was confirmed.

 

Adjournment:

The Meeting adjourned at 12.50 p.m. and resumed at 1.25 p.m.  On adjourning the meeting, the Cathaoirleach asked that the Members would be allowed to take a brief break without being lobbied while outside the Chamber.

 

Volume 3 – Final Chief Executive’s recommendations on Proposed amendments to zoning (PAZ)

This report contained 86 proposed amendments to zoning and these would be dealt with individually, in order. 

Proposed amendments to zoning (PAZ):

 

PAZ 1 Rectify colour on Sligo town zoning map (based on the OPR submission 184, Observation 3).

Agreed

 

PAZ 2 Change the zoning of 0.04 ha from eRES to OS (based on submission 69 from Paul Brady)

Agreed

 

PAZ 3 Change the zoning of 0.78 ha from OS to TC2 (based on submission 127 Virtus Planning Consultants on behalf of Sligo Rovers Football Club).

Agreed

 

PAZ 4 Change the zoning of 0.38 ha from OS to nRES at Oakfield

(based on submission 138 – MKO Planning Consultants on behalf of Novot Holdings Ltd.)

Agreed

 

PAZ 5 Change the zoning of 0.66 ha at Carrowroe from OS to nRES and include in the SLR

(based on submission 138 – MKO Planning Consultants on behalf of Novot Holdings Ltd.)

Agreed

 

PAZ 6  Change the zoning of 0.04 ha from OS to eRES at Maugheraboy

(based on submission 148 – Enda O’Brien)

Agreed

 

PAZ 7  Change the zoning of 1.32 ha in Cranmore from OS to eRES

(this amendment was proposed by the Chief Executive for reasons set out in the second Chief Executive’s Report)

Agreed

 

PAZ 8 Change the zoning of 0.09 ha in Rosehill from CF to OS

(this amendment was proposed by the Chief Executive for reasons set out in the second Chief Executive’s Report)

Agreed

 

PAZ 9 Change the zoning of 2.48 ha of nRES from the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) at Farranacardy

(on foot of submission 24 – Bury Architects on behalf of Blackmud Developments)

 

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor L. Brennan

 AND AGREED

 “To make the Development Plan with the proposed amendment by the Chief Executive as the information given in the Third CE Report is flawed in that water, foul and surface water sewers are both available on site contrary to the UE submission.  The NWRA refers to Section 5 of this Report, and claims that it is not sequential but is fully serviced and connects directly to existing residential and Sligo County Council has awarded a contract for the construction of footpaths to these sites. In Section 4 of this Report the OPR acknowledges that these lands are Tier 1 Fully Serviced and although not scoring highly on the sequential capacity Audit it is about 800m from the ATU which needs accommodation for Staff and Students.  The DHLGH refer to areas of Natural Habitats and ecological corridors.  The attached photo of the lands when acquired by Blackmud show the site completely cleared and little or no vegetation and the present of natural habitats now is indicative of the care taken by the owners (See Fig PAZ9 (A) and PAZ9 (B) attached.”

Councillor Bree asked to be recorded as dissenting.

 

PAZ 10  Change the zoning of 1.96 ha from unzoned to BIE

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed contrary to OPR recommendation. 

Live planning application on site.  Similar to other developments in the current WILT zone.  Site is a prime location adjacent to the Belladrehid and the Carraroe exits on the N4.  Similar developments including waste management, light industry, logistics have been carried out in the area.”

 

PAZ 11   Change the zoning of 3.06 ha of Green Belt to 2.46 ha nRES and 0.6 ha OS

Proposed by Councillor E. McSharry
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed -

To amend the Draft County Development Plan.  The zoning map PAZ-11 previously known as S106 in relation to the Kilcawley lands at Tonaphubble, Sligo, Folio number 16207 amend the Plan so that the lands be included within the Development Limit (which it is in the current Development Plan) and be zoned for Residential Zoning nRES and OS (not Green Belt).

The reason we are changing the zoning is because in the current development plan the lands are zoned SLR, residential.  The lands are Tier 1 serviced lands with pedestrian access to the town centre which is within walking distance.

The lands are close to public transport routes, public parks, sports complex, churches and schools.”

A vote was called on this resolution which resulted as follows:

FOR:    Councillors Brennan, Casserly, Clarke, Cosgrove, Gallagher, Gibbons, Gilroy, Healy, MacSharry, T., McSharry, E., Mullaney, Mulvey, Queenan, Taylor and Walsh (15)

AGAINST:       Councillors Bree, Nealon and O’Boyle (3)

The Cathaoirleach declared the resolution CARRIED.

 

PAZ 12   Change the zoning of 1.40 ha from GB to nRES (on foot of submission 171 – MKO Planning Consultants on behalf of Gary Mullane and Alan McCarrick).

Proposed by Councillor P. Taylor
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reasons for Decision:

• Site is within settlement boundary
• Site is adjacent to existing development
• Site is serviced and
• Site is in proximity to Public Transport.”

A vote was called on this resolution with the following result:

FOR:    Councillors Brennan, Casserly, Clarke, Cosgrove, Gallagher, Gibbons, Gilroy, Healy, McSharry, E., Mullaney, Mulvey, Queenan and Taylor (13)

AGAINST:       Councillors Bree, MacSharry, T., Nealon and O’Boyle (4)

ABSTAINED:   Councillor Walsh (1)

The Cathaoirleach declared the resolution CARRIED.

 

PAZ 13  Remove 27.08 ha of nRES from the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) on foot of submission 172 – McCutcheon Halley Planning Consultants on behalf of Margaret and Walter Burke)

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor M. Casserly

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.”

Cllrs. Bree and O’Boyle asked to be recorded as dissenting.

 

PAZ 14, 15 and 16

14 - Change the zoning of 10.26 ha from GB to nRES (on foot of submission 179 – Virtus Planning Consultants on behalf of Altitude Distribution Ltd.)

15 – Change the zoning of 23.19 ha from GB to nRES and include in the Strategic Land Reserve (on foot of submission 179 - Virtus Planning Consultants on behalf of Altitude Distribution Ltd.)

16 – Change the zoning of 3.35 ha of GB to OS (on foot of submission 179 - Virtus Planning Consultants on behalf of Altitude Distribution Ltd.)

Proposed by Councillor M. Casserly
Seconded by Councillor F. Nealon

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR

Reason for Decision

The 2024 ESRI Report indicates that the housing projections in the draft plan have underestimated the quantity of land required to be zoned to meet growth demands.”

A vote was called on this resolution which resulted as follows:

FOR:    Cllrs. Brennan, Casserly, Clarke, Cosgrove, Gallagher, Gibbons, Healy, MacSharry, T., McSharry, E., Mullaney, Mulvey, Nealon, Queenan, Taylor and Walsh (15)

AGAINST:       Councillors Bree, Gilroy and O’Boyle (3)

Following the vote, the Cathaoirleach declared the resolution CARRIED.

 

PAZ 17 Change the zoning of the strip of land (1.14 ha) located within Flood Zone A in the western part of the town (Ballymote) from nRES (SLR) to OS and move the indicative road corridor to the east.

Agreed

 

PAZ 18  Extend the development limit and change the zoning from GB to 1.12 ha nRES and 0.94 ha OS (based on submission 75 – Virtus Planning Consultants on behalf of Niall and Lewis Rhatigan).

Agreed

 

PAZ 19   Extend the development limit and change the zoning of 3.07 ha from GB to nRES and include in the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) (based on submission 75 – Virtus Planning Consultants on behalf of Niall and Lewis Rhatigan).

Agreed

 

PAZ 20 Extend the development limit and change the zoning of 1.70 ha from GB to nRES (based on submission 89 – Eamonn O’Dowd).

Agreed

 

Councillor D. Mulvey excused himself from the Meeting for the discussion on PAZ 21.

 

PAZ 21 Remove 2.77 ha of nRES from the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) on foot of submission 23 – John and Marie Perry.

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

 

PAZ 22 Extend the development limit and change the zoning of 0.99 ha from GB to nRES and include in the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) on foot of submission 174 – Sean Vesey.

Agreed

 

PAZ 23  Change the zoning of 2.49 ha from GB to nRES and include in the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) on foot of submission 174 – Sean Vesey.

Agreed

 

PAZ 24  Include 1.23 ha in the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) Enniscrone based on submission 2 – Kathleen and Seamus Leonard.

Agreed

 

PAZ 25 Change the zoning of 0.09 ha from OS to eRES (Enniscrone) based on submission 10 – Patrick Maughan

Agreed

 

PAZ 26 Extend the development limit and change the zoning of 0.77 ha from GB to eRES and nRES (Enniscrone) based on submission 12 – Patrick Maughan.

Agreed

 

PAZ 27 Change the zoning of 0.15 ha from CF to nRES (Enniscrone) based on submission 29 – Frank Mulrennan.

Agreed

 

PAZ 28 Change the zoning of 0.05 ha from OS to eRES (Enniscrone) based on submission 50 – Michael Conmy/Bury Architects on behalf of Shane Scott.

Agreed

 

PAZ 29  Change the zoning of 0.05 ha of lands from OS to eRES (Enniscrone) based on submission 52 – Michael Conmy/Bury Architects on behalf of Sarah Coleman.

Agreed

 

PAZ 30  Change the zoning of 0.19 ha to the rear of Sligo County Council’s Area Office from MIX to BIE based on Submission 100 – Sligo County Councillors’ Planning Group.

Agreed

 

PAZ 31 Change the zoning of 0.26 ha from OS to nRES to accommodate 2 residential units on foot of submission 25 – Bury Architects on behalf of Fergal Cawley.

The Cathaoirleach agreed to defer this item for consideration at a later time in the meeting.

 

PAZ 32 Change the zoning of 1.81 ha from GB to nRES to accommodate one house for the landowner on foot of submission 56 – John Tuffy).

Following a brief discussion, it was agreed to defer PAZ 31, PAZ 32, PAZ 33, PAZ 34 and PAZ 35 as Councillor Queenan wished to prepare some supporting documents for approval by the Members.  These items would be dealt with at a later point in the meeting.

 

PAZ 36 Extend the development limit and change the zoning of 1.66 ha from green belt to nRES and include in the SLR (Strategic Land Reserve) western edge of town centre (Tubbercurry) based on submission 21 – Roger McCarrick.

Agreed

 

PAZ 37 Change the zoning of 0.49 ha of lands from GB to eRES (Eastern edge of town centre – Tubbercurry) based on submission 146 – Patrick Brennan on behalf of the Brennan Family.

Consideration of this proposed amendment to zoning was deferred until later in the meeting.

 

PAZ 38 Change the zoning of 0.14 ha from OS to nRES on foot of submission 122 – James O’Hara on behalf of Kevin Maye.

Agreed

PAZ 39 Change the zoning of 0.83 ha from GB to nRES on foot of submission 130 – James O’Hara on behalf of Trevor Matthews)

Proposed by Councillor P. Taylor
Seconded by Councillor B. Gallagher

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

Councillor D. Bree wished to be recorded as dissenting on this matter.

 

PAZ 40 Change the zoning of 2.68 ha from Community Facilities (CF) to Natural Resource Reservation (NRR) on foot of submission 32 – Peter Kinghan on behalf of Harrington Concrete.

Proposed by Councillor P. Taylor
Seconded by Councillor B. Gallagher

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

Councillor D. Bree and Councillor G. O’Boyle wished to be recorded as dissenting from this decision.

Cllrs. D. Gilroy and Councillor T. Walsh abstained from the agreed resolution.

 

PAZ 41 Change the zoning of 2.77 ha from GB to BIE on foot of submission from Vincent Hannon Architects on behalf of Carty Contractors Ltd.

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the proposed amendment.”

 

PAZ 42 Change the zoning of 3.36 ha from GB to nRES on foot of submission 154 from MFA Consulting Engineers on behalf of Michael Scanlon

Proposed by Councillor A. Gibbons
Seconded by Councillor T. Healy

AND AGREED

“That this local authority directs the manager to amend the draft county development plan 2024 to 2030 by rezoning previous submission ID:S – 154 lands to the north of Ballisodare village form GB to nRES.”

 

PAZ 43 Change the zoning of 1.68 ha from CF to nRES on foot of submission 160 from McCutcheon Halley Planning Consultants on behalf of Cathal O’Connor and David McMunn

Consideration of this proposed amendment to zoning was deferred until later in the Meeting.

 

PAZ 44 Change the zoning of 2.29 ha from GB to BIE on foot of submission 160 from McCutcheon Halley Planning Consultants on behalf of Cathal O’Connor and David McMunn

The Cathaoirleach agreed to defer consideration of PAZ 44, PAZ 45 and PAZ 46

Agreed

 

PAZ 37 Change the zoning of 0.49 ha of lands from GB to eRES (eastern edge of town centre – Tubbercurry)

Proposed by Councillor B. Gallagher
Seconded by Councillor P. Taylor

 AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

 

PAZ 31 Change the zoning of 0.26 ha from OS to nRES to accommodate 2 residential units (Enniscrone) on foot of submission 25 – Bury Architects on behalf of Fergal Cawley.

Proposed by Councillor J. Queenan
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

 AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

 

PAZ 32 Change the zoning of 1.81 ha from GB to nRES to accommodate one house for the landowner on foot of submission 56 – John Tuffy.

Proposed by Councillor J. Queenan
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

 

PAZ 33 Change the zoning of 0.79 ha from GB to nRES (Enniscrone) on foot of submission 164 – Bury Architects on behalf of Bernard Fox/Pentico Consulting).

Proposed by Councillor J. Queenan
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

 

PAZ 34  Change the zoning of land to the south of Enniscrone town on foot of submission 82 – McCabe Architects on behalf of Aidan Gregory Feeney and Brendan Feeney.

Proposed by Councillor J. Queenan
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

 

PAZ 35 Change the zoning of 2.08 ha in Carrowhubbock from GB to nRES and include in the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) on foot of resolution 43 agreed at Special Meeting on 22^nd April, 2024.

Proposed by Councillor J. Queenan
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision

“The Property Owner is requesting that 2.08 ha zoned from GB to nRES and included in SLR.”

Mr. Moylan reiterated to the Members that reasons given in making amendments to the County Development Plan must be Planning related reasons.

 

PAZ 43 Change the zoning of 1.68 ha from CF to nRES on foot of submission 160 – McCutcheon Halley Planning Consultants on behalf of Cathal O’Connor and David McMunn

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor P. Taylor

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for decision – Housing need in Ballisodare, satellite town in Co. Sligo.  These lands are fully serviced.  Full Environmental assessments will be conducted and form part of any future Planning applications.”

Agreed with Councillor D. Bree, Cathaoirleach recorded as dissenting.

 

PAZ 44 Change the zoning of 2.29 ha from GB to BIE on foot of submission 160 – McCutcheon Halley Planning Consultants on behalf of Cathal O’Connor and David McMunn

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor P. Taylor

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – In relation to the area being in an 80 km speed zone, this can be dealt with in the upcoming Speed Review, in line with Active Travel Plans.  Can be serviced with an on-site wastewater treatment system.  The site is serviced by an existing entrance.”

 

PAZ 45 Change the zoning of 1.11 ha from GB to nRES on foot of submission 160 – McCutcheon Halley Planning Consultants on behalf of Cathal O’Connor and David McMunn

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor P. Taylor

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – there is an existing sewer line adjoining the site.  The site is directly adjoining the CSO boundary with a small development currently under construction beside it.”

Agreed with Councillor D. Bree, Cathaoirleach and Councillor G. O’Boyle recorded as dissenting.

 

PAZ 46 Include 7.37 ha in the SLR including 3.26 ha of nRES and 4.11 ha of BIE, at western edge of Ballysadare on foot of Resolution no. 47 from Special Meeting of 22^nd April, 2024.

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment subject to the following modification:

The landowner of this site has clearly set out that they do not want these lands zoned.  To zone this site will result in Ballisodare not being able to meet its housing allocation and furthermore Sligo as a county.  There would be a tax implication to the landowner who is a farmer and who wants to continue farming their land.  Uisce Éireann fail to recognise that third-party agreements for servicing this site would be required which would further reduce the likelihood of it being developed in the lifetime of the plan.

As a result of the above, the CE’s recommendation is rejected and the land should be zoned as per the proposed amendment.”

 

PAZ 47 Change the zoning of 0.24 ha from eRES to MIX based on submission 49 – Liam Lipsett.

Agreed

 

PAZ 48 Change the zoning of 0.16 ha from MIX to OS based on submission 73 – Office of Public Works.

Agreed

 

PAZ 49 Change the zoning of 2.49 ha from nRES (SLR) to GB (Green belt)

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor T. Walsh

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan without the amendment.”

 

PAZ 50 Change the zoning of 0.34 ha from eRES to GB (site to the west of Glenview Park)

Agreed

 

PAZ 51 Include 0.81 ha of nRES in the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR)

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor B. Gallagher

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed because the description of the land as fully serviced is flawed and an inaccurate description.  There is no footpath servicing this site and as a result it cannot be tier one.”  (Photo of the location in question was attached).

Prior to discussion on PAZ 52, the Cathaoirleach excused himself from the Meeting.

Leas-Cathaoirleach, Councillor Edel McSharry took the Chair while the Cathaoirleach was absent.

 

PAZ 52 Change the zoning of 0.83 ha from BIE to TOU based on submission 20 – Declan Byrne and Terrence McGowan on behalf of DAT Property Ltd.

Agreed

 

The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair at this time.

 

PAZ 53 Change the zoning of 0.32 ha of land from BIE to TU based on submission 116 – Brian Minogue/Tom Phillips and Associates on behalf of Bristow Ltd.

Agreed

 

PAZ 54 Extend the development limit to include lands to the south of the Surf Centre (0.18 ha) and change zoning from GB to Mixed uses based on submission 166 – Strandhill Golf Club.

Agreed

 

PAZ 55 Change the zoning of 47.45 ha (Strandhill Golf Course) from GB to OS (Open Space and Recreational Amenities) on foot of submissions 166 and 196 – Jennings and O’Donovan on behalf of Strandhill Golf Club.

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy 

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed.”

 

PAZ 56 Change the zoning of 0.64 ha from GB to nRES on foot of submission 8 – Orla Carew.

Proposed by Councillor T. MacSharry
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – in the interests of providing Housing for the family.”

 

PAZ 57 Remove 4.02 ha of nRES from the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) on foot of submission 168 – MKO Consultants on behalf of Tony McCaul and Patrick Carty.

Two resolutions had been submitted to the Cathaoirleach under this heading.  These were taken in the order received.  A vote was taken on both resolutions with the following results:

Proposed by Councillor F. Nealon
Seconded by Councillor N. Cosgrove

“To make the Development Plan without the proposed amendment.”

FOR:    Councillors Bree, Casserly, Cosgrove, MacSharry, T., McSharry, E., Nealon and Queenan (7)

AGAINST:       Councillors Brennan, Clarke, Gallagher, Gibbons, Gilroy, Healy, Mullaney, Mulvey, O’Boyle and Taylor (10)

ABSTAINED:   Councillor Walsh (1)

The Cathaoirleach deemed this resolution LOST.

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor A. Gibbons

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed as these lands are adjacent to lands where the local authority intends to build adjacent to this site and any infrastructure shortfalls will be resolved by services needed on this site.  Housing is urgently required in this area and the land previously zoned has not been developed to meet this need.

FOR:    Councillors Brennan, Clarke, Gallagher, Gibbons, Gilroy, Healy, Mullaney, Mulvey, O’Boyle and Taylor (10)

AGAINST:       Councillors Bree, Casserly, Cosgrove, MacSharry, T., McSharry, E., Nealon and Queenan (7)

ABSTAINED:   Councillor Walsh (1)

The Cathaoirleach deemed this resolution CARRIED.

 

PAZ 58   Remove 3.78 ha of nRES from the Strategic Land Reserve (SLR) on foot of submission 169 – Vincent Architects on behalf of Omnicrest Ltd.

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment against the recommendation of the OPR.”

Agreed with the Cathaoirleach, Councillor D. Bree, asking to be recorded as dissenting.

 

PAZ 62 Change the zoning of 1.20 ha from GB to TOU on foot of Resolution 46 of 22^nd April, 2024

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – Easkey is a rural village on the Wild Atlantic Way with a farming community, no industry.  Tourism is the only possibility of growth.  There is not enough land zoned for tourism.”

 

PAZ 63 Extend the development limit (Ballinafad) and change the zoning of 0.49 from GB to RV based on submission 5 – Keith Carty

Proposed by Councillor P. Taylor
Seconded by Councillor L. Brennan

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – the submission made by the OPR is incorrect.  The area of ground to be zoned to RV is not in Flood Risk Zone.  Both submissions from Uisce Éireann and the OPW are also incorrect.”

 

PAZ 59 Reduce the development limit and change the zoning of 1.15 ha from BIE to GB based on submission 34 – Joseph Dunphy.

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor J. Queenan

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – this Farmer is an active Dairy Farmer and will never be available for any other development.”

 

PAZ 60 Change the zoning of 3.98 ha from GB to nRES on foot of submission 33 – Brendan Kilrehill.

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor J. Queenan

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – this is the only land available for housing development in Easkey.  There is a substantial need for housing in the area.”

Agreed with Cathaoirleach, Councillor D. Bree and Councillor G. O’Boyle requesting to be recorded as dissenting.

 

PAZ 61 Change the zoning of 0.31 ha from nRES to GB on foot of submission 188 – Declan Brennan.

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor J. Queenan

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – this is farm land and will not be available for development and should stay as green belt.”

 

Prior to the discussion regarding PAZ 64, Councillor T. Walsh excused himself from the meeting.

 

PAZ 64 Change the zoning of 2.97 ha from GB to RV

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor D. Mulvey

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed as these lands are adjacent to lands that are developed and would be sequential expansion of the village.  Housing is urgently required in this area and the land previously zoned has not been developed to meet this need.”

Agreed with Cathaoirleach, Councillor D. Bree requesting to be recorded as dissenting.

PAZ 65 Extend the development limit (Bunninadden) and change the zoning of 1.26 ha from GB to RV based on submission 22 – Rosarie Perry.

Agreed

PAZ 66 Amend the Plan limit to omit 0.59 ha from the Green belt around Carney village on foot of submission 95 – Michael Haran

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor M. Casserly

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed as these lands are part of a family holding and are required for a family member to build a single house.  This property is on a private road and including the lands in the Green Belt for future development would not be appropriate adjacent to lands that are developed and would be sequential expansion.”

 

PAZ 67 Change the zoning of 0.44 ha from TU to OS (Castlebaldwin) based on submission 73 – Office of Public Works

Agreed

 

PAZ 68 Change the zoning of 1.43 ha from GB to RV on foot of submission 84 – Martin Cassidy on behalf of Sophia Jonson.

Agreed

 

PAZ 69 Extend the development limit (Cliffoney) and change the zoning of 0.27 ha Green Belt of 0.13 ha RV and 0.14 ha OS based on submission 11 – Brid Kelly

Agreed

 

PAZ 70 Extend the development limit (Cliffoney) and change the zoning of 0.87 ha from GB to RV based on submission 11 – Brid Kelly

Agreed

 

PAZ 71 Change the zoning of the Community Hall, Cliffoney from RV to CF (0.03 ha) based on submission 137 – Tom Watters

Agreed

 

PAZ 72 Change the zoning of 0.05 ha from CF to RV on foot of submission 81 – Killian Harkin.

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor T. Walsh

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed as the adjacent lands are more likely to become available as a community facility if the property owner were able to build one house for a family member.  The current zoning has been in place for 13 years and the property has not been used for CF.  If the plan remains the same the result will remain the same.  Trying something new could promote safer active travel within the village and provide a safe set down for the school as well as providing a space for a playground or bottle bank.”

 

Prior to the discussion on PAZ 73, Councillor M. Casserly excused herself from the meeting.

PAZ 73 Change the zoning of 2.27 ha from GB to RV on foot of submission 141 – Martin Timoney

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – There are no dwellings to rent in north Sligo and no affordable dwellings.  Site is already serviced and adequate wastewater treatment is available in the village.  Public footpath within 50 metres of site.”

 

Suspension of Standing Orders:

It was proposed by Councillor J. Queenan
Seconded by Councillor D. Mulvey

AND AGREED

“That Standing Orders would be suspended to allow the business of the Meeting to continue after 5.00 p.m.”

 

The Senior Planner, Mr. Moylan, again emphasised that Members should not be referring to personal details of citizens as a reason for an amendment. 

 

PAZ 73 (continued)

Following further discussions, consideration of PAZ 73 was deferred to be dealt with later in the meeting.

 

PAZ 74 Reduce the Plan limit to exclude 0.24 ha from the GB based on submission 144 – Matthew and Monica Kennedy

Agreed

 

PAZ 75 Reduce the Plan limit to exclude 0.51 ha from the GB based on submission 159 – Chris Kennedy

Agreed

 

PAZ 76 Change the zoning of 2.89 ha from GB to RV on foot of submission 205 – Brian Roche, Consulting Engineer on behalf of John Howley.

Proposed by Councillor B. Gallagher
Seconded by Councillor P. Taylor

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – sewer connection 65 metres from front of site and beside Funeral Home.  Site is higher than village so no issue with flow.  Two other houses built on so-called flood plain, 60 metres from back of site.”

Agreed with Cathaoirleach, Councillor D. Bree and Councillor G. O’Boyle requesting to be recorded as dissenting.

 

PAZ 77 Change the zoning of 0.49 ha of land (Dromore West) from RV to CF based on submission 94 – M. Flynn

Agreed

 

PAZ 78 Change the zoning of 0.15 ha from GB to RV on foot of submission 104 – Bury Architects on behalf of Aishling Munnelly

Consideration of PAZ 78 was deferred for decision at a later point in the meeting.

 

Prior to the follow up discussion on PAZ 73, Councillor M. Casserly again excused herself from the meeting.

PAZ 73 Change the zoning of 2.27 ha from GB to RV on foot of submission 141 – Martin Timoney

Proposed by Councillor T. Walsh
Seconded by Councillor D. Gilroy

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – There are no dwellings to rent in north Sligo and no affordable dwellings.  Site is already serviced and adequate wastewater treatment is available in the village.  Public footpath within 50 metres of site.”

Agreed with the Cathaoirleach, Councillor D. Bree and Councillor G. O’Boyle requesting to be recorded as dissenting.

 

Prior to the discussion on PAZ 79 and PAZ 80, Councillor Taylor excused himself from the Meeting.

PAZ 79 – extend the development limit (Gurteen) and change the zoning of 0.26 ha from GB to RV based on submission 206 – Marcus and Karen Jackson

PAZ 80 - extend the development limit (Gurteen) and change the zoning of 0.91 ha from GB to RV based on submission 206 – Marcus and Karen Jackson

Proposed by Councillor B. Gallagher
Seconded by Councillor M. Clarke

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision –

• Services are in close proximity to the site.
• Good location for development.
• Gurteen needs development.
• Demand for housing in the village, particularly high at the present time.”

Agreed with Cathaoirleach, Councillor D. Bree and Councillor G. O’Boyle requesting to be recorded as dissenting.

 

PAZ 81 Change zoning from GB to CF and zone adjoining unzoned land to CF (1.3 ha in total) on foot of submission 203 – Caroline Gray.

Proposed by Councillor P. Taylor
Seconded by Councillor B. Gallagher

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment contrary to the recommendation of the OPR.

Reason for Decision – the only land that is available for Community Facilities in village.”

PAZ 82 On the Ballygawley Development Limit map, amend the Development Limit to exclude 0.31 ha lands located within Flood Zone B to the south of the village based on submission 73 – Office of Public Works (OPW)

Agreed

 

PAZ 83  On the Rathcormac Development Limit map, amend the Plan Limit to exclude the 1.83 ha site from the GB based on submission 139 – Declan Gallagher

Agreed

 

PAZ 84 On the Rathcormac Development Limit map, extend the Development Limit to include 0.94 ha on foot of submission 135 – Ken and Natasha Gallagher

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor T. Walsh

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed as the lands have been used as a haulage yard and other trades for over 60 years and it would be sequential development of the village to compliment the Market on the opposite side of the N15.”

 

PAZ 85 Remove the Green Belts round the five unserviced villages – Ballygawley, Banada, Rathcormac, Ransboro and Tourlestrane

Proposed by Councillor D. Gilroy
Seconded by Councillor T. Walsh

AND AGREED

“To make the Development Plan with the amendment as proposed at the meetings on April 15^th and 22^nd 2024.  The guidelines do not recommend any Zoning in un-serviced villages.  Should UE bring forward proposals with delivery timelines this should then and only then lead to the zoning of these villages.”

 

PAZ 86  Change the zoning of 0.15 ha (behind Ocean Wave Lodge, Strandhill) from GB to MIX based on Resolution 13 of Special Meeting held on 15^th April, 2024.

Agreed

 

PAZ 78 Change the zoning of 0.15 ha from GB to RV

Proposed by Councillor M. Clarke
Seconded by Councillor J. Queenan

AND AGREED

“This site can be serviced in the lifetime of this Plan and will be the subject of Planning Permission in the near future.”

The Senior Planner sought confirmation from the Members that they had dealt with all matters in volume 2 and gave them another opportunity to raise any outstanding items.  Members agreed that they had raised all the items at that time.

Councillor Walsh asked for an outline of the process and if it would come back before the Council Members after this meeting.

The Senior Planner outlined in detail the process involved to date and following the Meeting, should the Plan be made. A number of slides were also displayed at the meeting to set out the information clearly.

Proposed by Councillor M. Casserly
Seconded by Councillor D. Bree

“Having considered the proper planning and sustainable development of the area to which the Development Plan relates, the statutory obligations of the local authority and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government,

AND having considered the Draft Sligo County Development Plan 2024-2030, the Proposed Amendments and the Third Chief Executive’s Report on submissions and observations received under Section 12 (8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 on amendments (material alterations) proposed to the Draft CDP 2024-2030,

AND having considered the Environmental Report (SEA ER) and the additional ER in respect of the proposed amendments, the Natura Impact Report (AA) for the Draft Plan and the proposed amendments and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Report (SFRA), including the additional assessment in respect of the Proposed Amendments,

it is hereby resolved, in accordance with Section 12(10)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, to make the Sligo County Development Plan 2024-2030:

• with those amendments that have been agreed
• with those amendments that have been agreed subject to minor modifications
• without those amendments that were not agreed.”

Councillor D. Gilroy asked to be recorded as dissenting with Councillor T. Walsh and Councillor M. Clarke abstaining.

The Chief Executive, in response to a query regarding deferring a decision on the Plan, noted that the full day had been spent dealing with amendments made as per motions from the Members.  Members were also advised of details relating to the date of an upcoming Court Case.  This Case could not be dealt with should the Plan not be made.

The Cathaoirleach confirmed that the Legal Opinion in relation to the matter would be circulated to the Members. The meeting was advised that the Chief Executive had received correspondence addressed to the County Manager, despite being in the role of Chief Executive since 2021 (a role that was in place for ten years).

In response to a request for clarification as to the process if the Plan was not made at the meeting, the Senior Planner advised the Members that it did not make sense to look to defer the decision.  Members were allowed to consider the proposed amendments.  At this meeting, they had gone through them all.  It would not be open to them to go back over the amendments at a deferred meeting.

On behalf of the Members, Councillor Queenan thanked the Cathaoirleach for his patience and noted that the Plan should now be adopted. 

The Cathaoirleach indicated that he had a motion with one dissenting and two abstaining, and declared the motion carried.

He thanked the Chief Executive, Senior Planner and staff at the Meeting.  In noting that the Plan had now been made, on some issues the Council had to await the decision of the Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR).

 

END OF MEETING:

The business of the Meeting concluded at 5.30 p.m.

 

 

 

Meeting Date 30/09/2024