The cost of implementing the scheme of 88 allotments is estimated at €65,000 which includes set up costs which will be recouped over a 3 year period.  The set up cost includes the provision of 7 water taps, a car parking area,  improvements to secure the site entrance and the  subdivision of allotments of which there are 3 sizes  100,  150 and 200sq.m    The cost of the annual lease  together with a refundable deposit is €225,  €300 and €425  which compares favourably with private allotment schemes but is considerably more expensive than the scheme provided by South Dublin. The Wonderful Barn scheme will  be cost neutral it is not intended it will be a source of funding for Kildare County Council. While the deposit is refundable an additional cost will be water rates which will be shared among the allotment holders.  It is not intended that  the erection of sheds or other buildings on the allotments will be allowed. 

Judging by the number of people who have contacted me I would be surprised if the scheme is not fully subscribed according to Cllr Catherine Murphy.

Cllr Murphy has been informed that the Council now intends to prepare a final snag list.  Upon completion of the snag list,  the building control section will arrange a meeting with the developer to establish his proposals for the site at the Newtown Inn,  and agree a timeframe for completion of outstanding remedial works identified.   

Because of the age of this estate,  it is open to the  residents to  petition the council to take the estate in charge,  however ,  this would remove the  developers obligation to complete any snags and also eliminate the need for them to provide as constructed drawings.   

According to Cllr Murphy this would be a substandard outcome,  particularly given the length of time residents have had to wait to finalise works in their estate.   It  would also result in outstanding works being added to the long list of work to be funded from the public purse,  many of which will not be attended to due to the shortage of funds.   She has appealed to the developers to co-operate with the Council and finalise all remaining works without any further delay.  

With so much bad news around this has been one initiative the Council are being applauded for.   There is no doubt in my mind the interest is there,   hopefully it will prove to be financially viable and by mid February the Council will be in a position to announce final details Cllr Murphy concluded.

The Local Government Fund is primarily made up of motor tax receipts,  however,   some Counties like Kildare pay far more into the fund  than they get out.     In 2009  the County received €150.30 per person with the average payment being  €213.78  the difference being  over €10m annually.     “While there was an expectation that cuts were inevitable the very least we should expect is that the pain is fairly applied.” 

In addition to the reduction in the Local Government fund,  Kildare have lost in excess of €2m in Commercial Rates – this is a direct consequence of company closures or scaling back of others.   A significant loss is also expected in planning application receipts,  pay parking and refuse collection charges,   all contribute to a very gloomy outlook for 2010.  At the same time new obligations are being imposed on Kildare for example the Regional Planning Guidelines have identified Kildare as one of the counties that will continue to experience  population increases,    this Cllr Murphy believes should be resisted in the absence of a  guarantee of  funding to provide basic services otherwise we will continue to experience a reduction in service and little relief for commercial rate payers.

a) The budget available for conferences should be so assigned that each member of the council would have access to one twenty-fifth of the total amount in order to meet the cost of his or her travelling expenses and conference fees;

b) Amounts assigned under (a) above would not be transferable between members:

c) The group leaders to decide at which conferences attendance was justified for the purposes of Section 142 (5) (d) of the Local Government act 2001:

d) Claims for expenses and or conference fees should be made within two months from the date of the relevant conference, failing which they would not be paid;

e) Claims made under (d) above not to be paid unless accompanied by a summary of the proceedings at the relevant conference.

f) That a list of forthcoming conferences be circulated by e-mail to group leaders on the fifth day preceding each monthly council meeting.

g) Details of payments made to members in respect of expenses be posted on the council’s website every quarter.

In addition the applicant has appealed against conditions imposed by the Council, included in their decision to grant permission for a suburban housing scheme within the protected Donaghcumper Demesne.  

Those who are listed as observers, some of whom have contributed to the oral hearing,  all speaking in opposition to the proposal were:    Castletown Residents Association;   Desmond Guinness;  Cllr Padraig McEvoy and former Councillor Tony McEvoy (who together with Mary Glennon and Cllr Catherine Murphy opposed the original rezoning of the land);   an Taisce;  Sen. David Norris and Dr Patrick Walsh.

08/439 Devondale Limited,  108 Detached Houses and a Crèche located at Donaghcumper Demesne,  Celbridge,  Co. Kildare.

Thank you for allowing  an oral hearing in this  appeal against Kildare County Council’s decision to grant permission for  a suburban housing development within the protected  Donaghcumper Demesne. 

 
I want to open my remarks by saying that Celbridge is well used to housing estates being developed,   the town has gone from having a population of  9629  in 1991,  when I first represented the area,  to close to 20,000 today.  With the most rapid population expansion occurring towards the end of the  1990’s.   While there was resistance to the scale of residential development,  this primarily occurred because it put additional pressure on the towns  inadequate physical and social infrastructure.   

 
What is different about the proposed development at Donaghcumper and why opposition has remained solid is, because it  gnaws away at the historical character of the town,  the built heritage here  is what makes Celbridge unique.  There is renewed pride in the heritage now that the  careful restoration of the Internationally important  Castletown House is substantially complete.   Its one of the  success stories of the so called boom years.   

 
While I am a public representative for the area I am also a resident of Leixlip and a regular walker in Castletown Demesne.  I generally approach the house from   the Batty Langley Lodge entrance, which is located on  the old Dublin to Celbridge Road.  From there it is obvious from the outset that you are in the Liffey Valley; about 10 minutes into the walk you get a glimpse of Castletown House.  Once it comes fully into view standing with the Liffey and Donaghcumper demesne behind you the full magnificence of the house can be appreciated.  If the term the  wow factor didn’t exist when it was originally constructed it certainly is an appropriate expression today it never ceases to draw that reaction from me.  The proposed suburban housing estate is unfortunately over your left shoulder at this point.

Designation of Donaghcumper House as a protected structure.
Donaghcumper Demesne was recently added (30th March 2009) to the list of protected structures by Kildare County Council.  The fact that it was not already listed was identified in the Area Action Plan.   The following was included in the Minutes of 30th March. 

The members noted a report from the County Manager dated 13 March 2009 recommending that, having regard to the architectural, historical and social interest of Donaghcumper House and given its rating of national significance in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, in accordance with Section 55(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) Donaghcumper House and Demesne be added as structure Ref no. B11-54 to the Kildare County Council Record of Protected Structures.

Supporting documentation for that decision states:
“Donaghcumper is a possible early eighteenth century house with a Tudor revival extension circa. 1835.   It has social historical links to adjacent demesnes of Castletown, St Wolstans, the Liffey and Celbridge.  Thomas Connolly acquired it in 1801 to extend the boundaries of his estate.  This allowed the Connolly’s to enhance the setting of Castletown demesne with neighboring estates.  The Liffey combined all of those adjacent demesnes under Connolly control…..”
 
Compliance with the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2004)
The Kildare County Development Plan which is superior to the Celbridge LAP underpins the importance of heritage, yet,   the Council made the decision to grant permission for a suburban housing estate despite the following statements which are contained in the  County Plan (2004-2009).

Chapter 20 Architectural Heritage
20.4.2 “It is an objective of the council to prohibit development in gardens or landscapes which are deemed to be an important part of the setting of a protected structure.”

20.5.2.“any development within the curtilage and or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex including the structures,  demesne and or attendant grounds”

2.11.2“To preserve these items and protect them from unsympathetic development and encourage their use as recreational and tourist resources.”
Chapter 19 Protected Views and Scenic Routes

It is the policy of the Council: To restrict further development on the river shores that could present a visual intrusion thereby, potentially affecting the quality of this viewpoint. To preserve views and to ensure that further development does not disrupt available vistas or impact on the landscape quality and scenic value of the river quality and scenic value of the river corridor. To preserve the visual amenity value of the designated viewpoints and protect the landscape vulnerability and quality of the river corridor, through restricting further development on the shores of the river that could present s disproportionate visual effect or disrupt the vistas available.

Preserve views and prospects of these items.  All such views and prospects are considered by the council to be of special amenity value and /or special interest.

The key strategic issues to be considered in relation to 08/439 are the relationships between Castletown House and Demesne,   Donaghcumper House and Demesne, St Wolstans Demesne and the Liffey Valley

Page 6 & 7 of the Applicants Masterplan in relation to Castletown House acknowledges this: 

“It is important that the views to and from the house (Castletown) are carefully considered when considering any development of the lands due to the fact that they were carefully considered in the original planning and siting of the house (Appendix 111,  Figure 4 sets out the visual context of the study area)”

The OPW have been doing wonderful work with the woodlands,  clusters of mature trees that were deliberately planted to frame the landscape are now  obvious.      That work is ongoing and when the river bank is more exposed should this appeal fail,  the screening of the housing estate will stick out like a sore thumb. 

The Draft Masterplan goes on to state:
The proposed development will involve the insertion of development into an open and compartmalised agricultural landscape within an urban/suburban context.  The overall visual impact of the proposed development at the subject lands is likely to be imperceptible in terms of the photomontages depicted and described in this report.
The trees are generally decididuous; the photomontages show trees with full leaf cover,  it also takes no account of the work being done on the woodlands by the OPW.   I submit the visual impact may differ greatly depending on the time of the year.   The impact on the Liffey Valley I believe will be profound.

The revised layout as submitted to Kildare County Council includes a 1.8m fence to separate the housing estate from the adjoining parklands.   The fence is an unwarranted intrusion on a very fine landscape.    From Castletown House looking across the river towards Donaghcumper there are a number of mature trees which I expect will be isolated from the less valuable growth,   the erection of a fence I believe would have the reverse impact in that it would clutter the landscape,   while it is possible to obscure a fence with planting,  the end result would be the opposite to what is currently being done at Castletown Demesne.   The fence would not be required if the housing estate is not constructed.  
If it needs to be screened  the question  must be posed,  should it be there in the first place?

In granting permission for this suburban housing estate, within the protected Donaghcumper Demesne,   Kildare County Council state;   subject to conditions imposed the decision is “in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”

The proposed development site is located within Donaghcumper Demesne;  it is visible from Castletown House/Demesne; it is  within the Liffey Valley;    access to the land will necessitate the demolition of part of the demesne wall;   the development is beyond the speed limits of the town;  of necessity this will mean additional  traffic will be generated where access will generally be gained  over the single carriage bridge to access all services;  I believe it is impossible to reconcile the statement that the decision  is “in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”. 

Impact on views from Castletown House and Avenue
There are two reports on the planning file from the Conservation Officer:
The first  of these reports recommends refusal of the proposed housing scheme  for the following reasons.

1. There will be a loss of historic parkland within the Donaghcumper demesne.
2. There will be a negative visual impact on the views and prospects from Donaghcumper main house and gate lodge. 
4. There will be a negative visual impact on the views and prospects from Castletown house and its adjacent demesne.
5. There will be a negative visual impact on the views and prospects from the river Liffey walks within Donaghcumper demesne.
6. There will be a negative visual impact on the views and prospects from the river Liffey walks from Castletown house and its adjacent demesne.
7. There will be a negative visual impact on the views and prospects from St Wolstans and its adjacent demesne.
All of the above are consistent with the policies and objectives contained in the County Development Plan..  

The conservation officers amended report states.   “Following discussions with the case planner Elaine Donahue 20/5/09 and the observations and recommendations of the DEHLG 13/5/09.  I amend my previous report of 5/5/09….”   (I provided a copy of this report with my original appeal). 

I was astonished by this change,  the  only conclusion that I can draw is that conservation policies and objectives carry a lower priority than zoning objectives.  
Given the investment currently being made at Castletown House through the OPW and its  tourism potential, even if only economic arguments were made, I believe  there are stronger economic arguments in favor of  conservation rather than the construction of yet another suburban housing estate, particularly in the current climate.  

Project splitting
Linkages between the appeal site and the other lands which form part of the Masterplan.
It makes no sense for  Kildare County Council to have  granted permission for the suburban housing estate in this location.   It is  in isolation to the remaining lands zoned at the same time which were subject to a  sister planning application  08/438.  The original concept when the land was rezoned was that it would form an  extension to Celbridge Main Street.    This application (08/438) was deemed withdrawn by Kildare County Council earlier this year because of the applicants failure to supply additional information within the specified time frame.   It is all the more astonishing that the Council decided to grant permission for a suburban housing estate which has no connection to Celbridge and almost presumes a positive decision on the remaining zoned lands together with the connecting  road infrastructure.  At a minimum 08/439 should have been refused on the basis that it was premature.

Flooding - Celbridge LAP

Amendments to the  new Celbridge LAP are currently on display,  the plan should finally be adopted by the end of 2009.  Included in the plan is a map showing flood events,  Donaghcumper is one of the locations indicated?   Page 32 FL2  states:   Planning applications for proposed developments adjacent to the River Liffey, identified on Map 4 as a Flood Event or adjacent to an area identified,  as a Flood Event shall carry out a Flood Risk Assessment as part of the planning application.  As application 08/439 was submitted prior to such a requirement no such risk assessment has been done.  Given the  costs involved in remediating flooding problems this is  one further reason for refusal.  
The Department of the Environment issued Consultation Draft Guidelines for Planning Authorities in September 2008 on page 33 under the heading

What to do with existing undeveloped, zoned areas at risk of flooding.
4.25 Information about flooding and flood risk is improving and will improve further as a result of national exercises undertaken by OPW and others,  and implementation of these guidelines.  Future flood risk assessments required to support the development plan process may highlight existing, undeveloped areas which,  on their own merits,  were zoned for development in previous development plans but which new information indicates may now,  or in the future,  be at risk of flooding.

4.26 In such cases as set out above, planning authorities should reconsider the zoning objective for any such lands where flood risk is assessed to be potentially significant and likely to increase in the future.  This should be done as part of the overall plan preparation and on the basis of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, giving appropriate weight of flood risk considerations.  Following this reconsideration,  local authorities may decide to:

• Remove the existing zoning for all types of development on the basis of the unacceptable high level of flood risk;
• Replace the existing zoning with a zoning or a specific objective for less vulnerable uses:
• Require preparation of a detailed local area plan,  informed by a more detailed flood risk assessment to address zoning and development issues in more detail and prior to any development:………………………

Celbridge Flood Events
On 9th August 2008  there was a major flood event in Celbridge; several housing estates together with the Main Street were under flood.   Kildare County Council engaged a firm of consultants (Kilgallen & Partners Consulting Engineers)  to draw up a plan to deal with the problem.  
The report states that damage was sustained on or near Oldtown Road,  Church Road,  Oldtown Cottages,  Scoil na Mainstreach,  Celbridge Inner Relief road,  The Dale & The Green,  Vanessa Close & Vanessa Lawns,  St Patrick’s Park,  Dara Court and Main Street.

Of the Main Street the report stated:
“The Main street in Celbridge experienced extensive flooding on 9th August 2008…..Many businesses located on Main Street were flooded…..Reports indicate that water flowed into the premises from the rear and passed through the buildings…..
Clearly the intention is that new  development must take account of the need for a  flood assessment.  I would ask that this issue is considered in the context of the appeal.  

Proposals to extend the Liffey Valley Special Area Amenity Order from Lucan to Celbridge

The OPW together with the adjoining Local Authorities collaborated in the provision of a strategy document  Towards a Liffey Valley Park (2004).  One of the objectives of Kildare County Council is to seek an extension of the Special Amenity Area Order for the Liffey Valley.     Clearly the development of a housing estate within the Liffey Valley would be contrary to such protection.  I have to question how Kildare can have such a policy and contribute towards the objective and at the same time grant permission for a housing estate.

It was one of the primary reasons why I opposed the rezoning of lands in the Liffey Valley because of the potential of the development of a Liffey Valley Regional Park.  The lands at Castletown/Donaghcumper/St Wolstans Demesnes are some of the finest lands in that valley.

I put together a sequence of events since the land was first proposed for rezoning in July 2000.     Form the outset the process has lacked clarity I will highlight what I mean by this.

Sequence of events

• 2000 Land was proposed for rezoning  (See A below)
• 2001 Celbridge Development Plan adopted (See A Below)
• 2006 Report Commissioned by Kildare County Council by Dr Finola O’Kane Crimmins & Dr John Olley “The Designed Landscape of Castletown Celbridge and Adjacent Demesnes (Castletown Historic Landscape Study Phase 1) Commissioned in advance of Castletown LAP (see B below)
• 2007 25th June  Donaghcumper Lands/Celbridge Town Centre Area Action Plan noted at Council meeting of that date.  (See C below)
• 2008 Mar 18th  Planning Applications Lodged both  238 and 239/08 (see D below)
• 2008 May 12th 438/08 and 439/08   Additional Information Requested including the provision of a masterplan (see E below)
• 2008 6th November extension of time granted for additional information until 10th Feb 09 (See F below)
• 2008 December 1st  further information was received on planning application 439/08 (see G below)
• 2nd February  Clarification of additional information requested. (see H below)
• 2009 11th February  438/08  Additional Information not received within specified time application was deemed to be withdrawn (see I below)
• 2009 March 30th Donaghcumper House & Demesne were added to the protected list.  (?) 
• 2009  27th May   Decision to Grant 08/439 (see J below)
• 2009 June  Decision appealed to An Bord Pleanala (1st / 3rd Party Appeals) (see K below)

(A)
Compliance with “sequential testing” as per the Development Plan guidelines (2007)
As I said the land was originally proposed for rezoning in 2000 so it would not unfortunately have be subject to the 2007 guidelines on sequential testing.
The County Development Plan 1994-1999 contained a settlement strategy for the Towns and Villages of County Kildare.   This had been agreed between Kildare County Council and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government after protracted debate and correspondence.   Because of the deficits in infrastructure and the rapid population growth in Celbridge,  together with  zoned lands that had not as yet been developed it was agreed in the 1999 County Plan  that there should be zero additional residential zoning in Celbridge.  A short time later work commenced on the Celbridge Development Plan.   

31st July 2000  Special Meeting of Kildare County Council  the Draft Celbridge Development Plan was adopted (17votes to 3 with 1 abstention).  I was one of those who opposed this plan,  however,  the Celbridge Area Committee, of  which I was not a member, were fully supportive of the plan.

The Plan included 87 acres of residential zoning,  this excluded any element of the Donaghcumper site which was one of two areas earmarked for an Area Action Plan.  A traffic study was seen as essential prior to confirming the need for a new bridge located in close proximity to Castletown Gates at the end of Main Street.   The new interchange off the M4 was under construction as was   the Celbridge Inner Relief  Road,  the intention was to measure traffic and devise a traffic management plan once they were fully in place. Access to the extension to the town centre,  according to the new Celbridge Plan,  was to be from the Dublin Road,   this would have put intolerable pressure on the already congested single carriage  bridge.  

A traffic study has since been done,  however there is insufficient funds to implement this plan.    While the lands at Donaghcumper were presented as an extension to Main Street,   the draft plan stated (Liffey Champion 5th Aug 2000)
“Donaghcumper is being marked out as an area where the town centre can spread.  Access would be from the Dublin road,  councillors say.  An Action plan is set aside for this:  “This plan shall include the identification of possible future shopping/commercial/residential areas,  car parking sites,  civic and cultural spaces and buildings,  riverside open space,  trees and other heritage items for preservation,” …...

30th July 2001 Special  Meeting of Kildare County Council the Amended Draft Development Plan was approved without a vote.
(Leinster Leader 2nd August 2001)
“Mr Kelly (Council Official)  said there were 41 submissions on the Celbridge plan and he outlined proposals for the Donaghcumper area which lies between the town’s Main Street and the Celbridge Lucan road.
It is the Council’s intention to prepare an Area Action Plan for this land,  which was zoned agricultural under the last Development Plan.
Mr. Kelly said there is a proposal to zone the area in four parts.  The first would be an extension of the town centre but no development would be done on this until the AAP was agreed.   A second area would be for amenities and public open space.  A third section would remain agricultural and a fourth would be zoned for residential purposes for low density housing i.e.  A maximum of four houses to an acre.

(B)
Nothing happened until  2006 when a report which had been commissioned by Kildare County Council “The Designed Landscape of Castletown Celbridge and Adjacent Demesnes (Castletown Historic Landscape Study Phase 1) was produced.  The authors were    Dr Finola O’Kane Crimmins & Dr John Olley   from the School of Architecture,  Landscape and Civil Engineering,  UCD.    It is intended to make a Local Area Plan for Castletown the report was  intended to assist that process. 
The importance of  Castletown and the linked demesnes of Donaghcumper and St Wolstans is graphically described in this report     I quote from page 27:
This study has clarified the extraordinary degree of design and planning evident in the composite design of three demesnes;  those of Castletown,  St Wolstans and Donaghcumper.  With their key spinal town of Celbridge they form a remarkable instance of the quality and vision of eighteenth-century landscape design….”
While there are always trade off’s between development and conservation, I have on a few occasions found myself struggling with that dilemma, occasionally finding that  sleepless nights accompany concern about  doing the right thing,  however  to grant permission for a suburban housing development complete with a 1.8m high fence, in the middle of a planned landscape that has survived for centuries is incredible.  
I know others will go into considerable detail about this report at a later point in this hearing.

© 
25th June 2007  The Donaghcumper Lands/Celbridge Town Centre Area Action Plan was noted  at the County Council Meeting.  

On Page 28 it outlines the need for a Masterplan prior to any planning applications being lodged.  
“Masterplan Requirement for Donaghcumper Lands
Due to the strategic importance of the Donaghcumper Lands,  a masterplan for their development to be agreed between Kildare County Council and the Developer(s),  is required in advance of submitted any planning application.  
The content of what should be included in  the masterplan followed.
Page 27  of the masterplan,   says of the area which is the subject of planning application 439/08
“…good physical links with the Town Park riverside walk and town Centre Extension are essential to ensure this area does not become an exclusive enclave.”
The masterplan was to cover an area significantly larger than that in the control of the developer.  What we are seeing now is the piecemeal approach we were told would not occur.

(D)
March 2008 Two planning applications were lodged 08/438 & 08/439 

No masterplan had either been submitted or agreed prior to these applications being lodged.  Application 08/438  for a mixed-use development on a site of c. 11.55 hectares comprising an urban expansion to Celbridge including 648 residential units, and commercial/retail floor space of c.47,304 sqm building heights were up to 7 stories.  Planning application 08/439 was for a suburban housing estate.

(E)
Additional Information requested in relation to both 438/08 and 439/08  sought  the following,  in both applications it was  item one.  

1. Please note as set out in section 4.4 of the Action Area Plan, a Masterplan was to be prepared and agreed in advance of any planning application being submitted.  A number of key points are set out in Section 4.4 which should form part of the Masterplan.  It does not appear that a comprehensive Master Plan was submitted to the Planning Authority or agreed with the Planning Authority.  Please note that in the absence of an agreed Master Plan it is not possible to proceed with the application.  The applicant is therefore invited to submit a Masterplan for the agreement of the Planning Authority in accordance with the objectives and principles of the Action Area Plan.

(F)
November 6th 2008  Extension of time sought for 438/08 by the applicant.   The request contained the following quote:     “Given the scope of the additional information requested in relation to this application,  and having particular regard to the request to submit a masterplan…etc….”   The Council granted the extension until February 2009.

(G)
439/08  Additional Information received 1st December 2009.
This  included a Draft Masterplan ( Reference on planning file 910715). This was deemed to be significant new information which required the applicant to re-advertise.

Bridge
The proposed bridge at Castletown Gates “The Slip” across to the Donaghcumper lands,   is included in the applicants Masterplan as part of  the  first phase.  To the best of my knowledge not all of the land required for the bridge is  under the control of the applicant. 
The drawings/images supplied as part of the original planning applications 08/438 & 08/439 suggests a whole host of problems in relation to the construction of a bridge at this location,  which I highlighted in my original objection.     The applicants Masterplan expects “During the operational phase,  the town Centre Extension could potentially generate over 805 two-way trips in the morning peak hour,  1545 two way trips in the evening hour and 21,542 daily two way trips”  which will increase the load on  an area that is currently  inadequate in terms of current traffic flows.   There are constraints that cannot be overcome such as the distance between Jasmine House and the Round House. 
As I stated in my original objection “The junction will require traffic lights,  its difficult to see how the road and footpath design standards (footpath & road widths) contained in the Celbridge Plan can be met.   It is also difficult to see how new traffic signals,  such as those  proposed at Castletown Gates (a protected structure of International Importance),    will allow this junction to flow freely,   in addition to several vehicular phases, physical constraints entering Castletown Estate/Demesne,   pedestrian phases will be an absolute requirement
In the absence of clarity here the site under appeal  can only take access from the Dublin Road,   this has the potential of setting a precedent for residential development in this location as an area isolated from the village core.

In my own response to the request for additional information I questioned the approach adopted by Kildare County Council in relation to the “significant” new information supplied.  The  additional information included a draft master-plan,  however,   it was simply that,  a draft,   rather than an agreed masterplan. The expectation was that consideration of this draft by the planners would not conclude until after the deadline for submissions on the additional information.   It was in effect the developers master plan and not the  agreed masterplan specified in the Area Action Plan that comments were invited on. 

I stated at the time that  the Council should have insisted  the masterplan be an agreed masterplan, prior to receipt of the additional information  and the inevitable process that followed.   This would have allowed the public a genuine opportunity to comment.  I also drew  a comparison between this set of applications and  Corrib Gas process, where the planning  process was split to such an extent that the public  had no real opportunity to tease out the broad strategic issues,   this flawed process has led  to a  costly and damaging result on all sides.
On January 9th (after the date for submissions had expiered)   Kildare County Council,  through its Director of Service for Planning,  issued the following in a briefing note to both the Celbridge and Leixlip Area Councillors. 
“A Requirement for a Masterplan for the Donaghcumper Lands was set out in section 4.4 of the AAP:
“ Due to the strategic importance of the Donaghcumper Lands, a Masterplan for their development to be agreed between Kildare County Council and the Developer(s), is required in advance of submitting any planning application. The content of this Masterplan should include:
Plans, diagrams and other illustrations to indicate circulation network, public and other open spaces, building blocks-their form, massing and height - land use (at street level and upper floors), and general landscaping strategies. The proposed new Civic Theatre and Local Area Offices building to be identified.
 
 General land use schedules identifying ratio of residential to non-residential.
 Public Realm appraisal including quality of sun/shade/shelter and extent and nature of active uses.

This must also include a structure for transfer of public spaces, their management and ongoing maintenance :
- Preliminary design sketches for the proposed new river crossings.
- Outline strategies for waste management
- Outline strategies for servicing of buildings and parking
- Baseline EIS reports and preliminary impact statements
- 3D Digital model indicating the proposed Masterplan in relation to the overall AAP area and Castletown.
- Buildings can be shown in block form at this stage.
- Proposed phasing plan

A draft Masterplan for the Donaghcumper lands has been submitted to the Planning Department.  This draft is being considered and a response will issue to the developer on this draft in the near future.”
The masterplan was subsequently noted by Kildare County Council.
If the applicants draft masterplan,  which I stress was not an agreed masterplan between the applicant and the Council,  formed any part of the decision to deem the information supplied “significant new information”  then I believe the council have entered into a process that is so legally flawed that it compromises the independence of Kildare County Council as a planning authority.   A long standing objective of Kildare County Council is the delivery of  a new bridge in close proximity to Castletown Gates,  this together with the provision of a Local Area Office,  to the Council,  from the applicant/landholder/developer,  creates the impression that the Council are a beneficiary.   When taken with a defective process I cant emphasize more strongly how damaging all of this appears. 

The Draft Masterplan states:
“In effect (the Masterplan) is a step-by-step guide for proposals on these lands.  All designs should be cross checked against the overall goals provided in the Masterplan Description according to Sectors,  form,  type and use of development envisaged.   All proposals should be vetted against the implementation plan,  to ensure that all infrastructural and community objectives are being delivered in association with that phase.  Finally,  detailed design proposals must have regard to the Design codes for public spaces,  built-form and landscaping.”
It is difficult to see how this can be done when there is a piecemeal approach to planning applications,  even if one did support the overall thrust of what is proposed.

(H)
439/08 Clarification of Additional Information sought
Many of the 11 points for which clarification was sought  related to the detail of the application.  
On 18th May 2009 The Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government  wrote to the Council  expressing their concerns at the potential of the proposed impact of the development on the character and setting of Castletown House and its designed landscape and on the protected views.    They add “It is in our opinion unfortunate that the said lands were rezoned for residential use”.  (I included a copy of this document with my original appeal.

(i)
12Feb 2009 438/09  was deemed withdrawn
Because the information sought by way of additional information,  for which additional time had been sought and granted,  was not provided within the specified time,  the application was deemed to be withdrawn.

(J)
27th May 2009   439/08  Decision to Grant
Kildare County Council granted permission with conditions.

(K)
2009  June 1st and 3rd Party Appeals Lodged.

(L)
09/665 a new planning application was lodged
for provision of roads and services infrastructure to facilitate the future development of an urban expansion to Celbridge town centre, set around a new urban street layout, and linked to Celbridge train bridge. The proposed street layout includes a main avenue road approx. 507m in length (with carriage width of 7.3m cycleways, verges/footpaths), joining the Dublin Road at the junction with Shinkeen Road (R405 Link Road), signalised traffic control system and associated reconfiguration of existing carriageway layout at the junction with the Dublin Road. Two minor access roads are also proposed off the Dublin Road to provide secondary access to the lands. The pedestrian bridge will be a 35m long single span, steel bridge, providing for a 4.5m wide pathway link from the lands to ‘George Finey’ House (also known as Catherine Walsh house), Main Street, Celbridge (a Protected Structure) with demolition of two out-buildings to rear of house, emerging on Main Street beside Lynch’s Centra shop. Provision is made for a future road link from the main avenue to the junction of Celbridge Main Street (adjoining the Parochial House – a Protected Structure) and the Maynooth Road, via a new vehicular bridge over the River Liffey. The proposed development will form a new edge to the north side of the Dublin Road to form a new tree lined avenue entrance to the town in between the Abbey Tavern and existing access gate to Donaghcumper House (riding school entrance), with partial demolition of the existing boundary wall. The development also includes surface water drainage, foul drainage and water supply infrastructure, associated landscaping and all ancillary works, all on a site of approximately 6.26hectares. An Environmental Impact Statement will be submitted to the Planning Authority with the planning application.

(M)
On 6th August 2009  the Council sought additional information on this file.

Just to return to the sequential testing,  the Council have recently adopted a new draft Celbridge LAP,   despite the fact that there was only a very slight adjustment to the town boundaries from those included in the 2001 plan,  there were sufficient locations to zone the requisite amount of residential land.   This clearly shows that there was no shortage of locations within the town boundary to expand for residential and no need to zone lands for residential within what is now a protected demesne.  

One of the most commonly used expression in relation to our economic woes today is “we are where we are”.    I felt at the time that a major mistake was made in 2000 when this land was first proposed for rezoning,  because no development has as yet taken place on the land  there is an opportunity not to copper-fasten that mistake.   I am therefore asking that the appeal against Kildare County Council’s decision to grant permission that  I and others have lodged is allowed.

In response to Weston Aerodrome's decision to appeal against the decision by Kildare County Council to refuse permission to relocate and lengthen the runway, Cllr Catherine Murphy lodged an observation seeking that An Bord Pleanala confirms that decision.

Reference Number: 08-2018 in the name of Weston Limited  sought: “to relocate the existing runways 07&25 to midway between the airport boundaries, incorporating the existing stopway to include the provision of Precision Approach Path Indicators(PAPS's). This will also include runway end safety areas of 130 meters etc”

It should also be noted that no current permission provides for a runway in Kildare the structure in Kildare is a stopway clearway. Kildare County Council were requested in August 2009 to investigate the unauthorised use of the stopway clearway(UD 1718).

I refer to Planning Reference 06/334 and PL 09.218796 which was granted with 4 conditions the two below are subject to investigation. (1) The stopway/clearway shall not be used for the take-off of aircraft. Reason: In the interest of clarity and the protection of the amenities of the area. (2) Within one month of the date of this order, the applicant shall submit plans for the written agreement of the planning authority indicating the extent of the clearway and hard shoulder, with the hard shoulder clearly delineated with white line markings of appropriate width in accordance with the standard requirements of the Irish Aviation Authority Reason: In the interest of clarity I receive ongoing complaints about planes lining up for take off from the stopway clearway.

The applicant states in a letter dated 14th November 2008 “Nothing in this application increases the size or capacity of aircraft to that currently using the airport. I take serious issue with this statement, given that they are seeking a large extension to the runway, and the provision of a runway for the first time in County Kildare, where permission has only previously been granted for a stopway/clearway.

Unauthorised Development – Use of stopway/clearway 25th August 2003 Kildare County Council issued an enforcement notice there were 3 issues that required to be addressed. What triggered the Enforcement notice was the construction of a paved area, resembling an extension to the runway. This was followed by an enforcement notice on 28th August 2003. Weston Ltd had claimed it was “exempted development”, which the Council did not accept.

The Council stated they were willing to accept “that the “runway end safety zone” as required by the IAO and constructed to the west south west of the runway strip be soiled over with topsoil and seeded with grass within one week of the date of this letter so as not to be conspicuous from land or air. That Weston Airport strictly complies with the conditions of the planning permission 98/876, with specific reference to condition 2. That “runway end safety zone” not be used for any aircraft movement, unless in the case of an emergency overrun of the stopway.” The area was subsequently soiled over but removed in June 2005 without penalty.

PL 09. 218796 which was granted in February 2009 allowed the retention of the tarmaced hard shoulder, approximately 3.5metres wide to either side of the runway and the stopway/clearway for safety reasons. Planning application 08/2018 which was lodged prior to the decision above (PL09.218796) and is now subject to appeal states “the application does not comprise of any additional physical works at the Aerodrome, except lighting and installation of the PAPI’s.” Clearly they can state this because they already paved the area which was the subject to the enforcement notice referred to above and only regularized by An Bord Pleanala decision earlier in 2009.

A warning letter UD2823 was issued 16/5/05, the key issue here was “the unauthorised use of the stopway/clearway for the takeoff and landing of planes.” I also refer to the decision made by An Bord Pleanala on 8th December 2003 PL O6S 131149 Condition 2 (b) refers to any material change in the type or capacity of existing aircraft using the aerodrome would require a further planning permission. While this is not sought in the current application, a longer runway would inevitably lead to intensification. This was repeated in PL09.218796. Stopway Clearway Planning Permission – Department of Defense Safeguarding.

Planning Application 98/876 (June 08) was applied for by Weston Aerodrome Limited in 1998, in which they sought “the provision of a 457m long by 23M wide paved stopway/clearway and a small infill paved area 50.9m long x23m wide to the existing runway with associated drainage and fencing at Weston Aerodrome. The subject site of this application was a farm (known locally as Egan’s farm or Corduff Farm, Backweston).

On the 5th August 1998, the Irish Aviation Authority wrote to the County Secretary, they stated “With regard to the “notes” submitted by the applicant, I wish to advise that the Irish Aviation Authority has never stated that the “safety measure of most immediate concern” is the provision of a maneuvering area known as a stopway/clearway. Also, the Authority will not be “imposing” safety regulation which require the provision of a stopway or clearway.” Just as interestingly they also state in the same letter “It should be noted that the ICAO publication entitled “Aerodrome Design Manual Part 1 – Runways” (Doc. 9157) notes that stopways may frequently be an economical first stage in the extension of an existing runway. The manual also notes that the establishment of a stopway is operationally equivalent for the aeroplane to a lengthening of the runway.”

In a letter to Kildare County Council 29th April 2005 the Department of Defense dealt with the issue of code 2 safeguarding and referred to the runway/stopway as follows: “aeroplane reference field lengths” are made up of the Take-off run Available (TORA) which is the paved runway, the Take-off Distance Available (TODA) which may include a clearway, the Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA). The implication of this on Weston is that the field length of an 850m long runway plus 450m stopway plus any clearway they may declare, makes the runway “code 3” allowing operations of larger aircraft. However, safeguarding is only for “code 2 runway.

Later in the same letter the Department states “It is the contention of this Department that from a safety and operational perspective any development at Weston would require a reorientation of the runway to take traffic away from Baldonnell rather than the current extension to the existing runway which would have the effect of bringing large high powered executive jets into Baldonnell airspace and directly across its flight paths.” Code 2 Safeguarding -

Natural Justice: Basically the Code 2 Safeguarding imposed in the Kildare County Development Plan had the effect of sterilizing surrounding land from any future development. One issue Kildare County Council sought additional information on (08/2018) was the economic impact on neighboring properties both private residences and businesses. The response was to provide a letter from an auctioneer which indicated little or no impact. Which is not a view accepted by most of those who surround the Aerodrome. A further response in the appeal to An Bord Pleanala talks of property prices improving in the vicinity of Airports and they highlight land surrounding Dublin Airport as evidence. A valuation of the various properties surrounding Weston was not in fact done. There is an issue of natural justice, in that safeguarding was imposed on the neighboring properties without any compensation. Weston, which is a wholly commercial operation, gained considerable benefit at the expense of neighboring properties.

The proposed “relocation” may have the effect of sterilizing further land west into Kildare. “Weston Executive Airport” have made a recent submission to the review of Kildare County Development Plan in which they dispute the description contained in the current plan. From my reading of the submission the Code 2 imposed by Kildare related to the Runway and not the stopway/clearway, should the runway be relocated and should Kildare Continue to only apply Code 2 safeguarding to the runway it would have implications in relation to the steralisation of further lands. (I attach a copy of their submission)

Prior to the imposition of the Code 2 Safeguarding Kildare County Council received the following legal advice. “the permission granted 98/867 could not be considered to be for what constitutes and “Airport” as the permission does not allow normal take off and landing. Therefore the claim that “the current use of the property as an Airport is permitted by planning permission” is fundamentally unfounded in fact. No permission for an Airport was ever applied for, let alone granted for the “property” i.e. Corduff Stud Farm, Backweston Park, Leixlip, Co. Kildare. It was always a stud farm right up to 14/8/03 when Weston machines moved in. Except for the stopway clearway applied for in 98/876 the Aerodrome facility at Weston with its code 1 status is wholly located in County Dublin.

The unauthorised runway of 700mx35m plus built on foot of the permission granted for a stopway/clearway would constitute a major material change in the use permitted and would have to be applied for stating the full extent of the proposed development. One of the two reasons given for refusing permission on 08/2018 was as follows: 2. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenities or depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Safety Reasons?

Safety:  On each occasion Weston have applied for permission they have stated it was for safety reasons. Weston is a wholly commercial operation, the intention of such a facility is to maximize profits for the owners of the establishment. Communities and individuals who live in close proximity to the Aerodrome have more than a vested interest in safety, however, in addition to safety issues such as the potential use by larger aircraft, the profile of use of the stopway/clearway, as referred to above, indicate the commercial aspect of the development are at least as important to the applicant as safety.

The Aerodrome is located in close proximity to built up area’s of Leixlip, Lucan, Maynooth and Celbridge, there are schools, multinational Industries, a motorway and there is an expectation that development will occur on land in close proximity to the flight paths, which may further restrict aircraft movements. In the non technical summary of the initial EIS the applicant states; “the site is located in a semi rural area which is surrounded by agricultural land and ribbon one off housing along the roadway etc. I also wish to point out Weston exists within an area where there are airspace conflicts i.e. Dublin Airport and Baldonnell. • Planning Application 98/876 for a stopway/clearway – was sought on safety grounds. • Planning Application 05/2699 and 06/334 - sought the widening of the stopway/clearway - for safety reasons. • Code 2 Safeguarding – was sought for safety reasons. • Current application – states the objective of changing the runway layout is to increase safety at Weston.

Noise:  The EIS, refers to Aircraft noise and in so doing minimizes its impact, in fact noise has been a constant problem to neighboring communities over many years. One part of the problem is the non adherence to the defined flight paths, something I have personally witnessed on many occasions. I attended one of the briefing meetings held at Weston Aerodrome last Autumn, at which members of the public made similar complaints, there is a basic lack of trust, because of constant breaches of planning regulations, flight paths etc.

Review of Kildare County Development Plan. One of the two reasons why Kildare County Council refused permission was because it would require a Material Contravention of the County Development Plan. The submission they made seems to primarily refer to the description of Code 2 safeguarding only.

In summary:

• A large extension to the runway is being sought.

• Permission is being sought for a Runway on Weston lands in Kildare, for the first time.

• There is an unresolved issue in relation to an unauthorised development, yet this application is not seeking a retention, this I believe is sufficient grounds on its own for a refusal, in that planning laws provide for retention, however, the fees are significantly more for a retention as opposed to a new application.

• Weston is a commercial operation and the application should be viewed as such.

• Code 2 Safeguarding may be further expanded and Code 3 ultimately sought.

• The constant problem with noise is inadequately dealt with in the EIS, it is presumed the noise problem is contained within the site, in fact it extends to the flight paths, particularly at the take off and landing stages. I request that my observations are taken into account and I respectfully request that An Bord Pleanala upholds the decision made by Kildare County Council.

KILDARE COUNTY COUNCIL DECISION

Re: Planning Permission is sought to centrally relocate the existing runways 07 and 25 to midway between the airport boundaries, incorporating the existing stopway, to include the provision of Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) This will also include runway end safety areas of 180 metres. The change in runway layout will retain the present runway category (ICAO code 2b) and aerodrome licensing requirements on aircraft size. Nothing in this application increases the size of capacity of aircraft to that currently using the airport. The runway distance will be 1199 metres, the full extent of ICAO Code 2b limitations. This is necessitated by the landing distance restrictions imposed by the use of Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs). The runway declared operational distances, as published in Aeronautical Information Publication Ireland, will not be increased by this application, This application is made solely in the interest of increased safety standards and the promotion of noise abatement. An EIS has been prepared in relation to this application, all on lands at Weston Aerodrome, Leixlip, Co. Kildare. Weston Ltd. 08/2018

1. The proposed development which involves the relocation of the existing runway would involve the alteration and extension of existing Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (including the Approach Area) as outlined in Section 24.4 and Map 24.1 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2006-2011. The proposed development would be premature pending a variation of the County Development Plan 2005-2011 or until new/altered/relocated Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are provided for in the forthcoming County Development Plan, 2011-2017. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed development would materially contravene the provisions of Section 24.4 and Map 24.1 of the County Development Plan 2005-2011 and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenities or depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

What occurred was that a large number of amendments were put forward,  these will go on public display in three weeks time and again the public will be invited to comment.   

A sample of the amendments are:

Leixlip:
• That the lands at Leixlip Demesne should be reversed from new residential to  agriculture.
• That the proposed pedestrian and road links across the Rye Valley including the one between Woodside and Louisa Valley is to be removed.
• That future development of the lands,  North of Copes Bridge,  should only occur if  preceded by major road improvements.  No land rezoning took place here. Meath & Fingal Council’s are to be contacted in order to ascertain what new or improved road proposals they have. Future  development at this location  should be preceded by the upgrading of Copes Bridge, the Captains Hill and the provision of car parking at the Railway Station.

Collinstown
• That a masterplan should be done prior to any planning application(s),  the whole site is to be treated as Major Town Centre rather than the compartmentalised approach put forward by the planners
• The proposed new railway station together with a dedicated 300 place park and ride car park should form part of phase 1 of the project which is likely to have a 20 year live-span.
• Provision for more than 600 residential units has been made here.

Celbridge
• The residential density of the lands proposed for   rezoning was reduced.
• The Aldi site was zoned exclusively for residential at the request of neighbouring residents.
• Any future development on the Ardclough Road should only occur if it is preceded by the upgrading of the road, footpaths and public lighting.

In addition Cllr Murphy sought to have lands,  zoned at Donaghcumper in the last Celbridge Plan,  returned to an agricultural zoning.   She was advised that there is a flaw in the 2000 Planning and Development Act which may open the council to compensation,  this she was told will be  rectified in the new Planning legislation currently going through the Oireachtas.  Once this new Act is in place,  she was assured that it would be open to her to seek such a change perhaps through the County Development Plan which is currently being reviewed.

Cllr Catherine Murphy has welcomed the Kildare County Council and An Bord Pleanala decisions to refuse permission for a relocation and extension of  the runway at Weston Aerodrome,  the decisions were made within a day of each other.   The Bord Pleanala decision overturns South Dublin County Council’s decision earlier this year to grant permission for the relocation of the runway towards Kildare.  An associated application was made to Kildare County Council  who subsequently  sought additional information which arrived from the applicants  on the eve of the 6months deadline.  It ran to more than  300 pages and included an environmental impact statement.   

Kildare County Council cited 2 reasons for their decision to refuse permission,  the first  relates to an inconsistency with the County Development Plan while the second  stated it  would seriously injure the amenities or depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would therefore be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

For original objection go to Planning and Development page.

Independent Councillors  Pádraig  McEvoy,  Catherine Murphy and Seamie Moore have highlighted the proliferation  of clamping controls in privately operated parking areas, and have slammed  the aggressive enforcement by some operators as totally unacceptable saying  it is causing confusion,  distress and  widespread public resentment.

North Kildare towns affected  include,  Clane,  Celbridge,  Leixlip,  Maynooth and Naas.  A variety of different companies enforce the private pay parking arrangements,  all seem to have different rules with different signs,  some carry out enforcement in a predatory way striking within minutes of the car being parked. Some operate 24/7 while others have restricted hours,   most apply clamping,  the release of which can cost anything from €80 to €120 payable  before the clamp is released.  Areas from Pub Car Parks,  Church Grounds to   Railway Stations are included.

Additional confusion is caused to the public  in such towns as Celbridge,  Leixlip and Naas, where the Local Authorities also have pay parking in operation.    The occasional irritation felt by members of the public when paying for regulated public parking is frequently escalating to aggrieved anger for those who fall foul of confusing signage and vague distinctions between public and private operated areas.  Private  pay parking in some places  is  putting pressure on other available spaces to the detriment of the shops and businesses which appears grossly unfair.  Cllr Moore, Murphy and McEvoy question if commercial rates are being applied to what is a commercial activity.

At recent Council meetings Cllr's McEvoy and  Murphy  raised concerns which relate to the unfairness of high-priced penalties, the exploitative nature of operational incentives, ambiguity in signage and the risks around handling cash release payments on the roadside,   they have initially  sought solutions through the Council’s Strategic Policy Committee however,    Cllr's Murphy, McEvoy and Moore believe in addition to this response there is an urgent need for National Legislation which must be enacted in order to afford public protection from predatory operators.