Docstoc

MinutesManagersReport17Nov2006

Document Sample
MinutesManagersReport17Nov2006 Powered By Docstoc
					Minutes of Adjourned Council meeting to consider the Development Plan held in
the Mtek Building, Knockaconny, Monaghan on Friday 17th November 2006 at
2.00 p.m.

Chair:         Cllr P McNally, Mayor

Present:       Cllrs Bannigan, Carville, Carthy, Conlon, Coyle, Crowe, Gallagher,
               Humphreys, Keelan, Keenan, Kieran, Martin, Maxwell, McAnespie,
               McElvaney, O‟Brien, P. McKenna, B. McKenna and Treanor

               Mr. D. Nelson, County Manager, Mr. M. Fitzpatrick, Director, Mr. P.
               Clifford, Director of Planning, Mr. A. Hughes, Senior Planner, Mr. P.
               Maguire, Executive Planner, Ms. C. Thornton, Meetings Administrator
               and Ms. A. Mackle, A/Staff Officer.

At the outset Mayor Padraig McNally said that they had spoken with the Hospital
Alliance and they had decided to hold the hospital protest on December 5th. The 6th of
December was budget day and there would be a large number of other groups protesting
with very little media coverage. The Alliance had enquired if Elected Members would
lead the protest to the gates of the Dail. He asked the Members if they intended to
proceed with their protest on December 6th or would they have it instead on the 5th
December.

Cllr Maxwell said he would be happy if the Members were to lead the protest. He also
accepted that the date of the protest should be changed to 5th December.

Cllr B. McKenna asked could a letter be sent to Minister O‟Donoghue‟s office seeking a
meeting in relation to Monaghan Hospital prior to the opening of the Monaghan Leisure
Centre.

The Mayor said that on receipt of a letter from Cllr McElvaney he had sent a request to
the Ministers office asking if he would be available to meet with a deputation.

Cllr B. McKenna said that the Members should not back off, not all Ministers were too
familiar with the Monaghan hospital issue and he felt that they should continue to protest.

Cllr McElvaney said that he supported Cllr B McKenna‟s motion, and asked could a
letter be sent to the Taoiseach requesting a meeting on the day of the protest.

The Mayor said that he had contacted Minister O‟Donoghues office requesting a meeting
and when he received notification he would contact the party whips. He said that he was
not rescinding Cllr Maxwell‟s motion, he was just changing the dates – the decision taken
to protest stood.
The Members resumed consideration of the submissions on the draft Development
Plan which had been adjourned from the 15th November, 2006.

The Mayor asked the Members if the Development Plan meeting scheduled for next
Thursday could be held in the Carrickmacross Workhouse, November 23rd, 2006. The
Members agreed.

The Mayor enquired if the submissions on the Carrickmacross Development Plan could
be taken first to facilitate Cllr McCarthy who had to leave the meeting early.

Cllr Bannigan asked if they finished the Villages and Carrickmacross, could
Castleblayney be dealt with next.

The Members agreed with both proposals.

Carrickmacross – Volume 3:
CK2 – John Kiernan:
CK202 – Mae Kiernan:

Cllr Keenan proposed, Cllr Bannigan seconded,

“propose that No 2 and No 202 be included in the Development Plan of
Carrickmacross for high density housing ”

Cllr Keenan stated that the reason was that this farm is surrounded by areas which are
zoned for development and this would jeopardise this man‟s future in farming.

Cllr Martin said that there is a lot of development in this area. This is a town, as distinct
from a village. We are not dealing with a variation or modification here. This is a new
area. Can Planners elaborate on impact of this proposal on the area?

Cllr Gallagher said that it would it be sensible to zone the piece of ground between the
two portions numbered 202.

Cllr Carthy referred to the photo on page 62. He said that the elevation is not severe.
There are more lands higher within the zoned area. It‟s strange this land wasn‟t included,
considering lands in Lurgans area which are higher were included.

Cllr Kieran asked what is the potential capacity of the zoned areas in Carrickmacross.

Cllr McNally said that there is no other land as close to town centre which hasn‟t been
zoned. Its only yards from Crann Nua. The owner has reason to be aggrieved.

Cllr Carthy said that it is impossible to establish how many houses will be built in a town
like Carrickmacross. There is a difficulty there at the moment with sewerage.
Mr. P. Maguire said that in relation to the sewerage we have received information from
an adjoining developer that sewerage facilities are available on adjoining lands We have
received a faxed letter to confirm this. The access along the Lurgans road is a problem,
this road needs to be upgraded. The Area Engineer is concerned about the junction at
Mullinary. Water supply is a problem as these lands are elevated. The photo on page 62
was taken from the Lurgans road. It‟s a different picture from the Kingscourt road.

Cllr Bannigan asked how can the planners allow access on one side of the road and not
the other.

Mr. A. Hughes stated that we have to draw the line somewhere. The developer will have
to purchase land and buildings at Mullinary to widen the road. This is a serious issue.

Cllr McNally said that the gradient of the road to Lurgans is severe. The cross roads is
the most concerning factor. Little can be done. There are houses either side of junction
which are occupied at moment

Cllr Keenan said that he would agree with comments of Cllr McNally re the bottleneck at
Mullinary. What is the update on the proposed link road?

Mr. P. Clifford stated that the proposal in the draft plan stops at Kingscourt road.

Mr. A. Hughes said that it is difficult to find a route to extend this road from the
Kingscourt to the Shercock road. The engineers can‟t get a route which has no
development on it.

Mr. P. Maguire said that in Carrickmacross there are 127 hectares of land zoned low
density and 141 hectares zoned high density in the draft plan. The subject lands are
approximately 4 ha – will give an additional 30 houses.

Cllr Kieran said that this should be sufficient to accommodate the people from Cllr
Martins leafy suburbs of Dublin.

Cllr McElvaney said that there‟s no point in them coming here. The bus no longer goes
into Carrickmacross town.

Mr. P. Clifford said that this proposal is for high density housing. It is located in an area
zoned low density. He would advise the members to take this into account. He enquired
as to the reasons for the proposed zoning.

Cllr Keenan said that we shouldn‟t be trying to hide Carrickmacross from the public. The
adjoining high density housing to the east of these lands is on land owned by the same
person as this submission.

A vote by show of hands resulted in 17 for, 0 against, 3 abstentions.
CK 7 – Carrickmacross Emmets C.L.G.

Cllr Carthy commended the Carrickmacross Emmets on acquiring a 30 acre site outside
Carrickmacross for new facilities for the club.

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK 7 – Carrickmacross Emmets C.L.G.

Cllr McElvaney said that he was delighted that the County Manager and Mr. Fitzpatrick,
Town Manager have such confidence in the Members making the decisions on the draft
plan submissions as they are not present in the Chamber.

Cllr McNally apologised for the current absence of both the County Manager and Mr.
Fitzpatrick who were both involved with urgent meetings and would be in attendance
later.

CK 12 – Irene Connolly and CK 50 Sean Kelly:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK12 – Irene Connolly and CK 50 Sean Kelly,
Carrickmacross.

CK 13 – Michael Connolly:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK13 – Michael Connolly, Carrickmacross.

CK 16 – Mr & Mrs C Goulding:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK13 – Mr & Mrs C. Goulding, Carrickmacross.

CK 17 and CK 205 – Dympna Byrne:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK17 and CK 205 – Dympna Byrne, Carrickmacross.

CK 18 – Donald and Dympna Magee:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK18 – Donald and Dympna Magee, Carrickmacross.
CK 31, CK298 and CK299 – Peter & Eileen Duffy, Claire (Duffy) Marron & Ian
Marron:

Cllr Keenan proposed, Cllr Bannigan seconded
“ That above submissions (31, 298 and 299)(marked F1) be included in the
Development Plan for Carrickmacross ”

Cllr Keenan stated that the reasons are that at previous discussions with the planners of
Monaghan County Council at a pre-planning meeting in November 05 it was indicated
that subject lands may be re-zoned residential, and as recent as March 06 no reference
was made as to any proposed changes in the zoning.

Mr. P. Clifford circulated a map showing the lands (F1), which had been agreed by the
members, to be zoned for recreational use in the draft plan.

Mr. M. Fitzpatrick joined the meeting and apologised for his absence earlier which was
due to another important meeting. The issue of recreational space in Carrickmacross is
very important. The previous Mayor, Cllr Martin, held a meeting in the Workhouse
about a year ago, where a range of clubs were invited in – the one thing coming out of
that meeting was the need for a recreational area. The Town Council was looking at this
issue. It would be a priority for them. We will only get one chance at this. If we don‟t
zone it for recreational, we have lost a chance and Carrickmacross won‟t recover from
the decision. He has no interest in the land or the landowner and is making a plea to the
members not to change the zoning on this. One of the fields along the top is being
developed by the Council for a football pitch . There will not be a spare piece of ground
here when this is completed. Recreational facilities are required by a number of clubs –
athletics, hurling, soccer, gaelic, plus members of the public who are not members of any
club. He appreciates that other land is being zoned for the G.A.A., but that is for their
use - we can‟t presume it will be available to the general public.

Cllr Carthy said that I am not exaggerating when I say that this is the one issue in terms
of the entire development plan that has caused me the greatest anxiety. The town of
Carrickmacross needs recreational facilities. The Town Manager is right in what he
says. While there is a need for recreational lands, the fact is this Council sold off land not
too far away for a private housing development. We can‟t have „blinkered vision‟. We
need to look at the overall picture. He disagreed with that decision but accepted it. These
landowners have said they will facilitate a compromise. To get some agreement on what
Cllr Keenan is proposing, which is a good development, he wished to propose an
amendment. He has spoken to the landowners in question and asked the Members for
support on the amendment -

Cllr Carthy proposed an amendment, Cllr Keelan seconded:

“ That the shaded area in attached map be zoned for high density housing with the
remainder of land outlined in submissions 31, 187, 298 and 299 be retained as
recreational ”
Mr. P. Clifford said that the green area at the top of the portion will cater for one soccer
pitch. The whole area measures approximately 16 ha. This was agreed at sub-
committee level.

Cllr McElvaney said that there are too many maps circulating. He needed to see the area
outlined on the screen.

Mr. P. Maguire outlined the area on the map.

Mr. M. Fitzpatrick said that the land Cllr Carthy referred to, which was sold to a
developer for private housing, was located on a hill and couldn‟t be used for recreational
purposes. The proposed football pitch takes up every piece of the Council‟s land – there
is barely room to stand around. If Members draw a line across the portion indicated,
where there is a river in the middle, there won‟t be enough space for another pitch.

Mr. P. Clifford said that the whole concept of the plan was that you could walk from the
town centre, along Bath Avenue, access the formal play areas then to the lake and
informal recreational areas. There is a model of this plan in Swords. The lands are sited
between the sewerage plant and an N.H.A. The Council is going to invest approx €20m
in the sewerage works over the next 5 years. There is a proposal here to zone the red area
(zoned industry in the draft) to the north for residential use. This will seriously
compromise the extension of the sewerage works. This area was zoned to provide a
buffer zone around the sewerage plant. The prevailing winds are west and north-westerly
and would carry odours from the plant. The draft has come through consultation with
Town Council and sub-committee. We can‟t meet the needs of every individual. This
land was never zoned before. Proper planning should be for the greater good of the area,
not the individual need. Do you want us to scrap the plans for the extension of the
sewerage plant and move further out of town?.

Cllr Humphreys said that the towns were not considered by the sub-committee.

Mr. P. Clifford replied – that‟s correct, apologies.

Cllr McNally said that for every acre of lands zoned recreation, that we take out of the
draft plan, we should highlight it somewhere else. It may be that land for recreational use
should be distributed more evenly. We won‟t have recreational land if we don‟t provide
for it. This is the greatest challenge we will face in Carrickmacross.

Mr. M. Fitzpatrick stated that as Town Manager he is calling for the zoning of these lands
to be retained as recreational. He could be moved from Carrickmacross at any time. He
has no personal interest in it. This is a major issue and the Members will have to decide.
Cllr Carthy made a strong case for a constituent. He (Town Manager) is not interested in
who owns the land. There is a greater issue at stake here, not about one person feeling
compromised because his land is zoned differently. It is the members exclusive right to
decide.
Cllr Bannigan stated that there are a lot of very valid arguments on all sides. There is a
need and demand in Carrickmacross for recreational lands. The Council may be the only
people who will drive this. The development will never happen if the landowner is not
willing to dispose of the land.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said that there is the option of CPO. Land can be compulsorily acquired
where there is a given need and recreation is a given need.

Cllr Keenan suggested that this matter be discussed over the tea break. He couldn‟t agree
that a man‟s land would be compulsorily acquired for recreational purposes. He felt that
putting all such lands on one side of the town would not solve the problem.

Cllr McNally said that Inver College have provided a fine area for this purpose. We
have to agree lands either inside or outside the black line.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said that if you zone lands inside or outside the black line, if the
landowner refuses to sell then the only option to acquire it is by CPO. He didn‟t think the
CPO argument should be used here today.

Cllr Carthy said that he would regret it if CPO process had to be used. He said that if
there is a reasonable prospect of a compromise, it should be pursued.

Cllr McNally adjourned decision until after tea break to allow for discussion.

Cllr B. McKenna said that all recreational zoning is south of Carrickmacross. There is
very little to the northern side. Carrickmacross Emmets land has been zoned for high
density housing. Can someone not do a deal with the Emmets club. There is a substantial
number of houses being built there. Where will these children go for recreation? He is not
arguing for or against the submission.

Mr. M. Fitzpatrick said that Carrickmacross Emmets needed extra land and went out and
secured it.

Cllr McNally asked if we canzone an area outside the black line without a submission.
People will be advantaged or disadvantaged no matter where they live. If we take
recreational land out and don‟t pin point a replacement we are falling down in our duty.

Mr. P. Clifford said that 10% of open space in each residential development is only a
very small area. There is no where to locate a town park.

Cllr McElvaney said that the Planners are the people who sold Carrickmacross out by
recommending that Carrickmacross Emmets‟ land be zoned for high density housing.
Cllr McNally said that that‟s an unfair comment. The decision is based on fact that the
Emmets have purchased 30 acres elsewhere. They were practically a homeless club, they
played their home matches all around the place.

Mr. A. Hughes referred the Members to page 4 of the Manager‟s Report where the
Carrickmacross Emmets‟ submission was assessed. Their move to a new ground was a
planning gain and provided more recreational facilities for the town

The meeting adjourned for tea break.

On resumption Cllr McNally indicated that they had a compromise document signed by
four out of the five members for the Carrickmacross electoral area, as follows:

Cllrs Carthy and Keenan proposed, Cllrs Keelan and McNally seconded:

That submissions 31, 47, 187, 298 and 299 be dealt with together and amended as
per attached map – blue - high density housing; yellow - recreational

At this stage Cllr O‟Brien declared an interest in relation to submission 187 and absented
himself from any debate or vote on the matter.

Mr. Fitzpatrick accepted the revised proposal as a fair compromise that will allow for
provision of additional facilities.

Cllr Martin enquired from the Planners if the proposal looks after the sustainable
development end of things.

Mr. A. Hughes replied that it‟s not the solution the Planning Department would have
come up with but that is was workable.

Cllr Martin said that these are 100% decent people. They are not property developers. If
the proposed area wasn‟t suitable for a football field, how could it be suitable for
housing. He is concerned about the protection of wild life and the provision of a wild life
pond. He commended Mr. Fitzpatrick for a very passionate address. This was the most
enjoyable debate in all the meetings so far. He enquired as to the suitability from a
planning point of view.

Mr. A. Hughes said he believed the proposal is workable and complies with the proper
planning and sustainable development of the town.

Cllr Martin said that this was a very professional submission. Thankfully we live in a
democracy. He doesn‟t make judgements on people regardless of politics. These people
are lifelong friends of his and very decent people and he didn‟t speak against the
proposal. He indicated he would be abstaining on this one.
Cllrs Keenan and Carthy indicated they were withdrawing their original proposals in
favour of this one.

A vote by show of hands resulted in 17 for, 0 against, 1 abstention (2 absent).

CK 33 – Dympna Byrne

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK33 – Dympna Byrne, Carrickmacross.

CK 36 – Colin and Geraldine Duffy:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK36 – Colin and Geraldine Duffy, Carrickmacross.

CK38 including submissions 40, 94, 96, 97, 118, 199, 160, 224, 241, 303:

Cllr McNally referred to the proposed route of the road particularly through the Coill
Rock area and enquired if the route could be pushed further out.

Mr. P. Clifford said that this issue posed the main difficulty at the consultation meeting in
Carrickmacross. Lough Fea is close by. There are engineering aspects to be considered.
If the road is too far out of town it won‟t serve the purpose it is provided for. It is an
indicative route at this time and is subject to change. The purpose of showing the route is
to highlight the need for the link road and to prevent development in that area that may be
inappropriate or that may prejudice the future development of the route.

Cllr McNally suggested an alternative route and circulated a map with this highlighted on
it.

Cllr Bannigan said that we are a long way from exact route, if we don‟t know the route
we can‟t decide the policy.

Mr. A. Hughes stated that unless there is a line on the map or a policy included in relation
to the road which protects the corridor we may have to move the road out. If the
members accept the principle that there is a need for a route for this road then engineering
considerations will determine the exact line. Developers have already enquired about
building along this corridor and this may prejudice the line of the road – in the time that
is lost before the draft plan is adopted a planning application could be lodged and be
granted. The Engineer has looked at the route for this road and feels that this is the best
possible location.

Cllr Carthy asked that the minutes record that the members expressed concerns about this
particular route, so that consultants will be aware that there is opposition to the current
route.
Cllr Martin stated that he doesn‟t want any indicative route for this road decided today.

Cllr Martin proposed, Cllr Keelan seconded

“ That the proposed indicative road route recommended to be retained and
protected in the Development Plan is hereby rejected and that we fully support the
content of submissions CK 38, 40, 94, 96, 97, 118, 119, 160, 224, 241, 303 ”

Cllr McNally said that he spoke to the Council‟s engineer, who confirmed he put the line
of the road on the map.

Mr. P. Clifford stated that the line on the map was done by the Engineer who was
primarily following a route to avoid existing development on the ground. We need to at
least safeguard the entry and exit points on the map.

Mr. A. Hughes said that unless there‟s a policy included in the plan, the access points of
the road will be lost.

Cllr Keenan said that we can‟t do away with the beginning and end of the route. The
problem is in the centre. The developer is ready to move in on some of these lands.

Cllr Maxwell asked can we not protect the entry and exit points and for a distance of
approx. 300 metres.

Cllr Bannigan stated that if you protect the two end points and a planning application
comes in that would develop part of the road that would indicate the route.

Mr. P. Clifford replied that it is a corridor we are protecting, the Engineering Department
will decide the exact route.

A vote by show of hands on Cllr Martin‟s proposal resulted in 15 for, 0 against 5
abstentions.

Mr. P. Clifford stated that a policy is needed to protect the entry and exit points.

Cllr McElvaney stated that the vote was passed. The route of the road has been rejected.

Cllr Martin said that he will not support a policy on entry and exit points when he doesn‟t
know the route of the road.

Mr. P. Clifford said that there is no way we can design a road in three weeks. He
suggested that the planners provide a wording for a policy and a map in support of it. He
asked if he can bring it back to the members on Monday.

Cllr Carthy indicated he had to leave the meeting.
Cllr McNally said he was proceeding to consider the Carrickmacross Plan.
Cllr B. McKenna said that as Cllr Carthy has left the meeting he was proposing the
members should revert to consideration of the Tier 5 Villages report. Sinn Fein facilitate
requests from other members but the other members don‟t always facilitate Sinn Fein‟s
requests. Cllr Carthy had suggested that consideration of the Carrickmacross plan would
not continue in his absence.

Cllr McNally said that he was continuing with the Carrickmacross Plan.

Cllr B. McKenna said he would remember Cllr McNally‟s decision in the future.

Cllr McNally said that he took exception to Cllr B. McKenna‟s remark and said he had
gone out of his way to facilitate Cllr Carthy by bringing forward consideration of the
Carrickmacross plan. He had also facilitated requests from Cllr Crowe and Cllr Conlon.

Cllr Keelan proposed, Cllr B. McKenna seconded
“ That we proceed with consideration of the Tier 5 Villages Report ”

A vote by show of hands resulted in 7 for 3 against, 6 abstentions.

Tier 5 Villages (Volume 8) (continued)

Oram
Submissions 132 – Terry & Roisin Carragher; 133 – Peter Finnegan & Amanda
Casey; 131 – Ted & Mary Finnegan:

Cllr Carville proposed, Cllr Keenan seconded

“ That the following policy be added to the Development Plan for the village of
Oram – Any developments on the area covered in submissions 131, 132 and 133
shall be in strict conformity with the landscape and character of the area and must
maintain the building line already in existence ”

Cllr Carville stated that these submissions relate to the same piece of ground.

Cllr Crowe said that there is an actual permission on that site. This man was shocked
when he saw these submissions. At no stage would he put a large development in there.
He had spoken to all parties. The land is located between the two houses. This man
didn‟t ask for it to be zoned.

Cllr O‟Brien said that main concern of the families is that this piece of ground has
planning permission for two buildings. One has started. Planning permission was granted
with building line in line with bungalow already constructed. The bungalow on left hand
side faces onto another road. The families are concerned that houses would be built in
front of them. What does the plan mean “to consolidate existing development”.
Cllr Conlon asked what is to the north of 131.

Mr. A. Hughes replied – former mushroom houses. A house has been built there now.

Cllr Coyle stated that the important thing is that we are safeguarding the building line.

Cllr McNally asked id the Council can enforce these motions?

Mr. A. Hughes referred to page 154 of the draft development plan, policies HG 4 and HG
5 which states that residential development shall respect the character of the area and
reflect the best local traditions in terns of design, form, mass and finishes. He did not feel
it is necessary to put down this motion as the policy is already built in to the draft plan.

Cllr Crowe said that he would rather that he did not have to vote on submissions and
would accept the bonafides of the Planning Officer.

Cllr Carville said that it‟s only re-affirming what‟s already there. The main issue is that
the building line be maintained. Can the planners give a guarantee that the building line
will be maintained and can it be recorded in the minutes?

Mr. D. Nelson stated he would be opposed to the planners giving such guarantees. The
members would set a precedent here whereby every single field could get protection.
The policies laid down in the draft plan give enough protection. How would some new
planner a few years down the line be aware of a decision at a meeting some years
previously?

Mr. A. Hughes said that he can‟t give a guarantee on this, but taking account of the policy
that is already there it is his opinion that the building line would have to be maintained.

Cllr Bannigan asked that if we vote on the motion can it be enforced?

Mr. A. Hughes replied – Yes, we can enforce it

Cllr Coyle said if this motion is passed it relates only to this piece of ground.

A vote by show of hands resulted in 9 for, 6 against, 1 abstention (4 absent)

Mr. D. Nelson stated that this was absurd as- we now have a policy for one field in the
development plan for the county.


Submission 256 – Tony Carville, Oram:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission 256 – Tony Carville, Oram.
Submission 87 – John McGuinness, Oram:

Cllr Bannigan proposed and Cllr. Coyle seconded that

“ That submission no 87 in Oram be included in the development limit for Oram ”

Cllr Bannigan stated that these lands are located close to the regional road and are
adjacent to the centre of the village and all services and are suitable for development.
Full access can be achieved through discussion with third parties.

Cllr Coyle support the inclusion of these lands for the reasons outlined by Cllr Bannigan.
Access will be relatively easy to achieve, he stated.

Cllrs Carville, Crowe and O‟Brien also supported the inclusion.

Mr. A. Hughes said that he believes there may be access issues with these lands and the
potential for overlooking the existing houses is quite strong. The lands already zoned
within the development limits for Oram can accommodate an additional 800 persons. It
is not considered necessary that these lands are zoned.

Mr. P. Clifford said that these lands are elevated and the privacy of the existing eleven
residences will be seriously compromised if this land is zoned for residential housing. It
will require an access from one of them to access these lands.

Cllr Bannigan said that these lands don‟t require access from any of the existing houses.
There is access onto the regional road. He doesn‟t accept that the privacy of the eleven
will be affected by the zoning of this land.

Mr. P. Clifford asked what are the reasons for zoning this land.

Cllr McElvaney replied – the same reasons that the Council built houses here.

Cllr Bannigan said that he had already given reasons when proposing the motion.

A vote by show of hands resulted in 13 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions (4 absent)

Submission 282 – Tom McBride, Oram:

Cllr Crowe proposed, Cllr Carville seconded

“ propose that submission No. 282 (Thomas McBride, Oram) be included within the
development limits of Oram ”

Cllr Crowe said that these lands are in the heart of Oram village which is a thriving
village. The County Council has built a number of houses here and there is still not
enough. 25% of the land is within 100m from the perimeter fence of the sewerage works
and this can be used for the 10% green area. Mr. McBride has a bungalow here which
can be demolished to provide for development. Oram is one of the most sought after
villages to live in. There is a serious need for private and affordable housing. This is a
fantastic site. It is within a 20 mile radius of Monaghan, Dundalk, Carrickmacross and
Armagh. Oram village is well place to ease the pressure for housing in Castleblayney
town. There are two places of worship. It is close to the shops and school and is abutted
by public footpaths and lighting.

Cllr Carville supported the inclusion of these lands for the reasons outlined by Cllr Crowe
saying that this site would offer options for a mix of housing development in the village –
private/social/affordable.

Cllr Coyle supported the submission. He said that this village suffered as a result of the
border over the years. The local GAA club is providing facilities there. These lands are
located right in the centre of the village.

Cllr McElvaney proposed a vote of good wishes for a speedy recovery be extended to
“Big Tom” McBride. This was seconded by Cllr Carville.

Cllr Martin asked if this is exclusively a quantity call and what about the impact on the
sewerage treatment plant. What‟s the planners views?

Mr. P. Clifford stated that the local authority housing is located 28m from perimeter
fence. The actual plant is located well back from the fence. There is spare capacity at the
moment for another 16 houses.

Mr. A. Hughes – prior to lands zoned today – the lands within the development limits in
the draft plan could accommodate an additional 800 people. In relation to the distance
from the treatment plant there is a policy proposed for consideration by the members
providing for buffer zones between residential development and waste-water treatment
plants.

A vote by show of hands resulted in 16 for, 0 against, 1 abstention (3 absent)


Scotshouse:
Submission 183 – Michael Mullin, Scotshouse:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission 183 – Michael Mullin, Scotshouse.
Submission 238 – Francis O‟Brien, Scotshouse:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission 238 – Francis O‟Brien, Scotshouse.


Tydavnet:
Submission 153 – Gerard Sherlock, Tydavnet:

Cllr Bannigan proposed, Cllr Pat McKenna seconded

“ That submission 153 be included in the development limit for Tydavnet ”

Cllr. Bannigan stated that these are two small portions of land, marked on the map as
153(A) and 153(B). They are adjoining the development limit and are suitable for
development.

Cllr McNally said that this man provided the site for the sewerage works in Tydavnet.

Mr. P. Clifford replied stating that the Council paid him for it.

Cllr Pat McKenna said he supported the proposal of Cllr Bannigan. As stated by Cllr
McNally this man provided site for sewerage works.

Cllr Martin asked if development would be allowed on this site as it‟s close to the
sewerage works

Mr. P. Clifford stated that the lands are close to the sewerage works and this creates
environmental problems. One-off houses can be granted permission outside the
development limits in accordance with the sustainable rural housing guidelines.

Cllr Kieran asked, that having regard to what Mr. Clifford said, should the field adjoining
the sewerage works have been included within the development limits.

Mr. A. Hughes said that he didn‟t think it‟s suitable for development due to proximity to
sewerage works.

Cllr B. McKenna asked that in relation to submission 153(A) and 153(B) – how far will
100m limit impact on these sites?

Mr. A. Hughes replied – it will go well into 153(B) say 50m and less into 153(A) say
25m.

Cllr B. McKenna said that this applicant is not interested in selling houses. He would be
interested in getting planning permission for field at entrance to sewerage works.
Mr. P. Clifford said that there was no mention of this in his submission. If the land is
zoned, there will be a presumption to grant and compensation issues may arise. The land
could be sold in the morning if it was zoned.

Cllr McElvaney said that this applicant provided a site for a sewerage works. This is poor
gratitude for this man. Why is the limit 100m here and 50m elsewhere? He stated that he
will be supporting submission.

Cllr Kieran said that we should be creating a buffer zone with the black line.

Mr. P. Clifford said that if the Members are zoning land for residential development, then
there is a presumption to grant planning. Compensation issues arise when planning is
refused for reasons other than infrastructural reasons as stated in Schedule Four of the
Planning & Development Act 2000.

Cllr McNally asked are we foolish to zone land in view of that?

Cllr Bannigan said that it‟s already been done in Tydavnet.

Cllr Maxwell said that it‟s up to the Members to decide distance from sewerage works.

A vote by show of hands resulted in 15 for, 0 against, 1 abstention.


Submission 164 – Patrick Murtagh and Michael McKenna, Tydavnet:

Cllr Maxwell proposed, Cllr B. McKenna seconded

“ propose submission 164 be included ”

Cllr Maxwell stated that this land abuts the development limit, it‟s beside the village, its
low lying, close to sewerage works and is easily serviced.

Mr. A. Hughes referred the Members to the assessment on page 406. There are a series
of dangerous bends on the road when approaching the site from either the south eastern
or western directions. Extensive over-zoning of lands is considered unsustainable, results
in a scattered form of development and is an uneconomical use of resources and should
be avoided.

Cllr Martin noted Mr. Hughes‟s comments about serious bends and asked what is the area
of the fields being proposed for inclusion.

Mr. A. Hughes replied approx 5 acres. It would accommodate 30 houses.

A vote by show of hands resulted in 15 for, 0 against, 1 abstention (4 absent)
Submission 288 – Cormac Mohan, Tydavnet:

Cllr P. McKenna proposed, Cllr B. McKenna seconded

“ That submission No. 288 which is included in the Development Plan as
recreational area, be changed to development land for housing ”

Cllr P. McKenna proposed that the land be re-zoned from recreational to residential.

Cllr B. McKenna supported the proposal. There is a history to this field. It has been used
by the local soccer club for approx. twenty years, but there was a period during this time
when it wasn‟t used by them. They made a submission (147) requesting that this site
remain zoned for recreation. A dispute arose between the parties. Several meetings
have taken place since the draft plan has been published. Both parties have come to an
agreement and the soccer club has secured an alternative site and have received
compensation from the landowner. The soccer club have submitted a letter to the
Planning Office to the effect that the objections have been withdrawn. The initial
objection came from the soccer club and no one else.

Cllr Maxwell supported this proposal. The matter was discussed at the sub-committee.
Mr. Mohan had rented a field to Killylough Soccer Club for years. Monaghan County
Council decided it should be zoned recreational. This sends out a signal to landowners
that if they rent land to clubs that it is liable to be zoned recreational. This could close off
land to clubs in the future.

Cllr Gallagher supported the proposal. Events have moved on now.

Cllr McElvaney said that the world tug of war champions, Killylough, have used this
field. He enquired how come petitions mean so much in the south of the county in
Inniskeen but mean nothing in the north of the county. There‟s no word of the local
people. The residents feel that it is important to retain it in a petition from the local
community centre committee and the people of the parish. He will not be supporting this
proposal. He congratulated the planners who preserved this land for recreational.

Cllr B. McKenna said that letters were secured but never submitted. The person who got
the letters signed in the first place isn‟t involved with soccer club. There are two factions
within the club. One person was involved with them 15 years ago. The only submission
was from Killylough Soccer Club. There is still a minority of people to want to see the
field retained for recreational use. The new field is located south of the village outside of
the black line.

Cllr McElvaney said that the person Cllr McKenna is referring to was the coach for
Killylough earlier this year. I saw him coaching from the side line.
Cllr B. McKenna stated that what he said was that the person he referred to is not
currently a member of the Killylough Soccer Club. Some people who signed the petition
thought it was for the soccer club. That was the one that was not submitted.

Mr. P. Clifford said that the Council has already granted planning permission for up to
100 houses in this area already. This is a good location for a recreational area, with
dressing facilities in the community centre located across the road The site represents an
important amenity area for the community and should be retained as a recreational
zoning.

Cllr McElvaney called for a recorded vote.

The recorded vote resulted as follows:

For: Cllrs Carville, Conlon, Coyle, Crowe, Gallagher, Keelan, Keenan, Kierans,
Maxwell, B. McKenna, P. McKenna, McNally, O‟Brien and Treanor. Total 14

Against: Cllrs Martin, McElvaney                     Total 2
Abstentions: - Cllr Bannigan                         Total 1

The Mayor declared the proposal carried.


Tyholland:
Submission 143 – Fergal Coyle:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission 143 – Fergal Coyle, Tyholland.

Cllr Gallagher said that he was aware of a man looking to get land zoned in Tyholland.
The Planners said it was unsuitable but said that development would be permitted in areas
around schools in tier 6 settlements. Was this not a suitable location for development ,
beside the school?

Mr. A. Hughes referred to page 37 of the Draft Development Plan which defines Tier 6
settlements permitting scattered housing around one or more focal points.

Cllr Keenan asked what is the definition of a focal point.

Cllr McElvaney said before moving on from the Tier 5 Report he stated he wished to
revisit the village of Broomfield and discuss an area zoned LLPA. He wished to propose
an amendment.

The Mayor ruled that he could not re-visit any decision taken at a previous meeting.
Carrickmacross –Volume 3 (contd):
CK 53 – Gerry Jones, Carrickmacross:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK53 – Gerry Jones, Carrickmacross.

CK65 – Philip McArdle, Carrickmacross:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK53 – Philip McArdle, Carrickmacross.

CK66 – Seamus McEneaney, Carrickmacross:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK66 – Seamus McEneaney, Carrickmacross.

CK77 – Gerald Eakin and CK78 – Gerald Eakin & Peter McMahon:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK77 – Gerald Eakin and CK78 – Gerald Eakin & Peter
McMahon Carrickmacross.

CK79 – Lee Conlon, Carrickmacross:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK79 – Lee Conlon, Carrickmacross.

CK80 – Paul Callan, Carrickmacross

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK80 – Paul Callan, Carrickmacross.

CK121 – Owen Connolly, Carrickmacross:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK121 – Owen Connolly, Carrickmacross.

CK122 – Tom McNally, Carrickmacross:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK122 – Tom McNally, Carrickmacross.
CK148 – Tommy & Mary Swinburne, Patsy Mannering, Carrickmacross:

Cllr McNally asked if there should be a prescribed minimum distance for industrial
development as a starting point.

Mr. P. Clifford stated that there are no prescribed limits between industrial and residential

Cllr McNally suggested that members consider this under policies.

It was agreed to consider this submission under Policies and General.

CK156 – Finnegan, Jackson & Associates:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK156 – Finnegan, Jackson & Associates,
Carrickmacross.

CK161 – Gerald Duffy, Carrickmacross:

The Members agreed with the recommendations contained in the Manager‟s Report
in relation to submission CK161 – Gerald Duffy, Carrickmacross.

CK184 – Birdy Developments, Carrickmacross:

Cllr Keenan proposed, Cllr Martin seconded

“ That we rezone lands marked „X‟ high density on map in submission 184 – „Y‟ to
remain low density ”

Cllr Keenan said that this proposal is to change lands zoned a portion of lands zoned low
density to high density.

Cllr Martin said that this is an alteration of an existing zoning, it is not a new zoning.
This developer has a track record. He doesn‟t want flexibility to be left to the discretion
of the Council. He wants continuity as he has been dealing with a number of planners.

Mr. A. Hughes said that the developer has been dealing directly with himself. He wants
flexibility within the development. The developer does not want to decrease low density
or high density but wants low density in certain areas. We have said we don‟t actually
need to rezone this area. There is a policy for this matter which deals with the county as
a whole and would deal with this site. What is zoned will be retained. We can deal with
the re-position of densities in line with proper planning. We will keep the same amount
of houses but will get the best layout in terms of densities.

Cllr McNally said that this developer is one of the better developers in the area. He has
spent huge money on landscaping. He would not cram houses into an area.
Mr. A. Hughes said that he is not opposed to this but it should happen under a different
vehicle. If members propose this, the development will lose all flexibility. If it‟s done
under a general policy it maintains that flexibility. Members can vote to zone as they
wish.

Mr. P. Clifford said that there is a danger that this submission is being treated like a
planning application.

A vote by show of hands resulted in 16 for 0 against 1 abstention (3 absent)

The Mayor adjourned the meeting until Monday 20th November at 10.00 a.m.