This presentation was given on 26.11.15 at the Catchment Management Network Meeting in Tullamore. The day included presentations on the approach to characterisation for the 2nd Cycle of the Water Framework Directive and how this would involve both the EPA and Local Authorities, along with other public bodies. A key focus was the new Local Authority Water and Communities Office and its role in the 2nd cycle. Presentations on integrating planning and the WFD, the UK 'Love Your River Telford' project and 'The Living Loobagh' from Limerick were also included.

1. Integrating Land Use Planning with
River Basin Management Plans
Kevin Lynch, Senior Planner,
Cork City Council
Chair of the water Management & Planning Working Group
26th November 2015

2. Purpose of this Presentation
• Stronger link between land use planning and River
Basin Management Plans .
• What do planners do and who are we.
• The Work of the Water Management & Planning
Working Group.
• What can planning do to assist RBMP & vice versa.

3. Percentage of
polluted river
sites surveyed
in 2010 – 2012
grouped by
severity of
pollution and
suspected
causes where
assigned.

4. First Cycle of RBMPs + Planning
• In the first cycle of RBMPs, Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA) was the
mechanism through which RBMPs were to be
transposed through Planning.
• Missed the national level. NSS preceded SEA
• Have since been incorporated into Regional
Planning Guidelines via SEA but still at the higher
level.
• Not far-reaching enough e.g. development plan
policy or development management
• Transposition shouldn’t stop at SEA.

5. Issues
• Lacking local involvement – science side good.
• Advisory councils abandoned.
• No follow up.
• Economic crash
• Many LA’s opted out.
• Credibility issue for future stages.

6. A water-friendly planning system
• Recognised need for the Water Management
& Planning WG to assist WFD implementation
• There have been insufficient linkages between
the implementation of RBMPs and planning
• Planning has a key role in delivering the
requirements of the WFD through its
influence on new development.

8. Development Management
• Pre planning
• Public Involvement
• In house expertise
• External inputs – EPA - IW
• EIA/AA
• An Bord Pleanála
• SID etc

9. The role of the planner (and what can
be learnt for RBMPs)
• Information manager .
• Integration.
• Decision Making
• Communication.
• Public participation.
• Enabler.
• Heavy Duty Legislation

10. European Court of Justice (July 2015)
C-461/13 (2)
• Project: dredging for navigation along river in Germany
• Member States are required — unless a derogation provided
for by the Directive is granted — to refuse authorisation for an
individual project where it may cause a deterioration of the
status of a body of surface water or where it jeopardises the
attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological
potential and good surface water chemical status by the date
laid down by the Directive.
• This decision impacts on projects and should influence the
determination in whether to permit them.

11. European Court of Justice (July 2015)
C-461/13
• Consequences
• Implications for planning and environment sections to be
advised and to assess projects against WFD criteria.
• What impact will this have on resources? Not just on
individual projects but broader strategies and plans?

12. Water Management & Planning
Working Group (1)
• Water Management & Planning Working Group
established in June 2015 under the WFD National
Implementation Group
• Comprising initially:
– EPA (Marie Archbold, Alaine Clarke)
– County & City Manager’s Association (Kevin Lynch)
– Regional Planner’s Network (Michael Lynch)
– Department of Environment, Community and Local
Government (Karen Kenny)
– An Bord Pleanála (Hugh Mannion)
– Irish Water (Suzanne Dempsey)

13. Water Management & Planning
Working Group (2)
• Lifetime to coincide with publication of RBMPs
end of 2017;
• Sub-groups may be formed depending on
focus, e.g. forestry, coastal, wetlands.

14. Purpose of the WG (1)
• Purpose of the WG:
– to ensure, as far as practicable, that the land-use
planning system, and those working in it, can
implement the provisions of the WFD, including
RBMPs;
– In turn, that planning can contribute effectively to
the next cycle of RBMPs.

15. Purpose of the WG (2)
• Water Management and Planning Guidance to be prepared by the
EPA in collaboration with working group.
• Advise on engagement with planners and those involved in the
planning system on the implementation of RBMPs.
• Collaborate with other agencies and organisations on guidance in
order to avoid duplication of efforts (e.g. where other guidance may
be drafted, e.g. Water Guidelines by DECLG).
• Facilitate communication among relevant stakeholders through the
EPA Catchment Management Network.
• Consider how Local Economic and Community Plans can help
secure integrated catchment management.
• Advise on the training needs of planners in area of water
management/water-friendly planning.

16. Water Management & Planning
Guidance
• An immediate focus of the Group is to ensure that Guidance
for planners and planning authorities is prepared and
disseminated;
• The guidance focuses on explaining the WFD, and how it
influences planning decisions & spatial plans. It also explains
the process of integrated catchment management and how
planners might contribute to that process;
• Anticipated publication 2016;
• Dissemination at IPI National Planning Conference 2016.

17. How to achieve a water-friendly
planning system?
• Guidance will examine e.g.:
– Development Management
• WFD Assessment
• Sustainable Drainage Methods
– Forward Planning
• Mandatory objective in development plans to meet
requirements of RBMPs. As a result, development plans are
now in effect required to be key agents for achieving WFD
objectives
• Maximise benefits from policies e.g. green, blue and grey
infrastructure
• Wetlands survey -> long-term vision?

18. Two-way process
• How should land use planning system also
inform RBMPs?
– ‘Sustainable human development’ projects –
derogation under WFD necessary
– Local knowledge on pressures
– Projected growth forecasts
– Available capacity in receiving environment to
facilitate growth

19. 2nd Cycle of RBMPs
• Engage with planning authorities in contributing to the
next cycle
• Questions arising:
– Will the RBMP outputs be user-friendly and how can they
be used to inform land-use and spatial planning?
– Will the POMs be sufficiently detailed to be of value to the
planning system?
– What are the potential risks of various potential forms and
patterns of development to achieving water objectives?
• Significantly improved scientific data: liaison between
planners and WFD local authority officers required to
assist in understanding.

20. Resourcing a water-friendly planning
system
• What capacity have you / your organisation to:
– contribute towards informing evidence-based plans e.g.
interpreting data used to prepare RBMPs and POMs to
inform development plans?
– Advise on individual projects in respect of WFD
requirements?
• Planners will need your expertise to inform
development plans and water /catchment
management considerations of individual projects.
• Good linkage already exists in some local authorities
between planning and water/environment sections.
Further support necessary to facilitate understanding
of RBMPs and associated data.

21. New Process Questions
• EPA involvement good but tendency for
national groups to look inward and against
integration.
• Continued erosion of local democracy.
• Top down process.
• Consultation fatigue.
• People need to be involved even where there
is bad news.

22. Ethical – Broader Issues
• Planning – Integration – tendency to balance –
- having regard to etc.
• RBMP – science – yet there are many shades of grey
and competing interests.
• Currently Housing crises – 3 years ago unfinished
estates – priorities change.
• AA – Habitats Directive key factor influencing water
issues currently – Blackwater Issue – FWPM – v homes
– schools?
• If there are other societal issues of precedence then
derogation should apply