Agenda item

Deputation- To Receive Mr Eggleston, MWA Partnership to give a Presentation on the Concept Masterplan for the Former Carricklee Landfill Site

Minutes:

The Head of Environment welcomed and introduced the deputation and

provided Members with a brief history in relation to the site.  He stated that

MWA Partnership had considered a number of possibilities however it would

be necessary to carry out further consultation with relevant stakeholders.  He

advised that a further report would be presented to Committee based on

Members’ decision regarding the proposed options and how these could be

progressed.

 

In response to a query from Councillor Jackson, the Director of Environment

and Regeneration assured that there was not an issue for Members of the

Planning Committee as the deputation was merely presenting a concept

Masterplan.

                       

The Committee received Mr Eggleston, MWA Partnership who gave a detailed

presentation on the Concept Masterplan for the Former Carricklee Landfill

Site.  The presentation addressed the following issues:

 

-      Desk Top Studies

-      Accessing the Site from the Proposed A5 WTC

-      Option 2 – Most Feasible Option to Reach the River Level Due to Existing Levels and to Achieve Desired Sight Lines

-      Option 3 – Not Really a Feasible Option to Reach the River Level as Distance of Internal Access Road to the River Required Major Regrading Works to the Existing River Bank was to Achieve Access to the River and the Sight Line Restrictions would also have to be Relaxed

-      The Carricklee Site

-      Site Location Map

-      Existing Conditions

-      Site Constraints and Potentials

-      Flood Map

-      Site Constraints – Indicative Survey and Investigations and Costs that May be Required to Progress the Scheme Through to Planning Stage

-      Consultations – Summary of Consultees Contacted During The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Process

-      Stage 2 Initial Concept Masterplan

-      Preliminary Sections

-      Concept Images

-      Programme

-      Costs – Notes on Initial Costs for the Stage 2 Process

 

Members thanked Mr Eggleston for his presentation and commended him on its content. Members then raised the following points:

 

-      Welcomed the proposals presented in respect of the site which had been the subject of considerable discussion during the past 5-6 years.

-      The proposals would be welcomed by local residents as the area in question did not have any play provision or open green space at present.

-      Queried the current position regarding monies awarded to Council from the Woodland Trust.

-      The proposals would prove tremendous for both the area and the town.

-      Commended the work carried out by Councillor M McHugh in progressing this concept.

-      Acknowledged that the process was in its infancy but welcomed the impressive and ambitious proposals presented to Committee in respect of the site and anticipated that Council would endeavour to bring this to fruition.

-      Expressed support for the proposals particularly given the current lack of play facilities in the area.

-      Referred to the lack of progress in respect of the Ballyarnett Masterplan and expressed concern that similar delays would be experienced in this instance.

-      When was it anticipated that any physical changes would become apparent to the local area?

-      Referred to the need for initial remedial underground works to be carried out and acknowledged that this could prove a lengthy process.

-      Queried if the Motor-Home initiative would be in respect of short-stays only.

-      Queried the anticipated timescale for the plans to come to fruition.

-      Enquired if it was intended to carry out further consultation with the residents of the area and suggested that this was necessary to ensure the overall success and benefit of the projects.

-      Referred to the Riverine Project which was in relatively close proximity and enquired what, if any, plans were in place to ensure that both projects would be complimentary and provide linkage to the entire leisure, health and wellbeing provision within the area.

-      Assumed that in terms of the general layout, works would not begin until it was discovered what was contained within the former landfill site.

-      In relation to the A5 enquired if it was proposed to erect a roundabout to allow access onto Urney Road and onto the proposed site.

-      If the Concept Masterplan was agreed by Committee queried the timescale involved in bringing the proposals to fruition.

-      Expressed concern that this project would not proceed until current projects on the Capital Works Programme had been completed.

-      Referred to the fact that the Riverine Project had progressed beyond a concept and would come to fruition in the near future.  However, due to the general use of the river from the particular area it was important that this was not overlooked.

-       

 

Mr Eggleston and Mr O’Neill responded as follows:

 

-      Anticipated that it would probably take 24 months to undertake the site investigation works required.

-      Acknowledged ongoing difficulties with the Ballyarnett Masterplan but assured that this was a different type of project and both sites differed significantly.

-      Suggested that it was a matter for Council to advise on the overall timescale involved.

-      Advised that a compromise between the two initial options put forward had been agreed in accordance with the design of the Western Corridor access and therefore it was not envisaged that any problems should arise in relation thereto.

-      As at this stage what was below ground level was unknown other than that it was a landfill, the site would require extensive investigation which would ultimately affect costs.

-      In terms of delivering costs, understood that the A5 Team would be presenting a scheme and suggested that this be pursued by way of consultation between Council and the A5 Team.

-      Consideration had been given to the Riverine Project and the overall potential for the area and assured that there was no competition as the concept of the two schemes differed considerably.  The Riverine Project was a regional play area whilst this was a more informal recreational area with greater emphasis on cycling.

-      Advised that whilst the plans were achievable in terms of engineering progress would largely depended on what was discovered below ground.

 

The Director of Environment and Regeneration advised that according to the information available in terms of the Woodland Trust project the land in question had been leased at the time when the proposals had been put forward and therefore the project could not proceed.

 

The Director of Environment and Regeneration stated that in terms of timescales involved, Members were currently being requested to consider the concept plan for the site together with estimated costs for the next phase.  She assured that Officers would bring forward a report on the proposals for approval by Council’s Capital Projects Working Group, and progress would be dependent on funding being identified in respect the necessary works.  She continued that this would proceed on the basis of Members agreeing that Council proceed to the next stage on the potential uses and Officers would make proposals alongside Council’s Capital Projects Working Group and Strategic Review Group.

 

The Director of Environment and Regeneration said that following agreement of the proposals by Members extended consultation would take place with residents of the area in terms of the Masterplan.

 

The Director of Environment and Regeneration advised that it was Council’s intention to work with Donegal County Council in regards to the Riverine Project, and it would endeavour to ensure connectivity in any of the projects going forward.

 

The Director of Environment and Regeneration advised that the plans would be progressed and if Members were content Officers would present the proposals to the Capital Projects Working Group.  It would then depend on available resources in order to bring the project to fruition.   She advised that it was a matter for Members to prioritise in respect of the Capital Works Programme.

 

In response to a query from Councillor Dobbins, the Director of Environment and Regeneration reiterated that Officers would present a further report to the March Meeting of the Committee in terms of possible options for moving forward in relation to this site and if Members were in agreement to proceed Officers would seek funding through the Capital Working Group to progress the process.  The next stage would be the site investigation which was necessary in order to decide formal proposals for Members to agree.

 

In response to a query from Councillor Hastings, the Director of Environment and Regeneration confirmed that NIEA would be a key consultee.

 

The Head of Environment explained that this was a high level concept plan which in order to take forward would require establishing what was beneath ground level.  He pointed out that this would involve a lengthy monitoring process which would include engagement with NIEA, NI Water and the Loughs Agency.  When it had been established what was below ground level, a decision could be made regarding the best use for the area.  He continued that a report would be presented to the March Meeting of Committee on potential ways forward.  He stated that the entire process would likely take considerable time, the Loughs Agency having already suggested that they would require two year’s data and the timescale would be determined by the investigation and the statutory agencies involved.

 

 

Supporting documents: