Invasive Species

There are also a number of Invasive Diseases. However we were unable to find any references to extremely virulent and dangerous invasive diseases which are as bad, and worse and which should also be included in this plan. We refer specifically to:

1. Phytophtora ramorum
2. Xyllela Fastidiosa
3. Hymenoscyphus Fraxineus (Ash dieback)

Therefore Invasive Diseases should be included in the County Development Plan.

Tree and Hedgerow Preservation

Tree Planting: While acknowledging this, any development plan policy must encourage the planting of broad-leafed deciduous trees. It should also be noted that most of the Beech trees in the county were planted under the various tree-planting schemes in the 17-1800’s and are now starting to die off. Replacement of these trees should be seen as a priority. There has been much inappropriate comment on ‘native/ indigenous species’ in recent years. Beech isn’t classified as a native species but has become naturalised. These trees must be included in future tree-planting initiatives. We must not get bogged down in man-made classifications, which have no basis in reality, as they derive only to the last ice age. If one were to draw that to its logical conclusion, then at some point in the past Oak too was also introduced. A chapter from Ríocht na Mídhe 1988-89 is appended to this submission. This details tree-planting in Meath in the 1800’s. This is applicable to all counties.

Tree Preservation Orders: It would appear that there are very few TPO’s in the county, This is a great pity. There are many trees worthy of TPO status and we would encourage the county council to place TPO’s on more trees.

Tree for inclusion in Tree Preservation Orders [TPO’s]

County Museum: It is noted that there are no museums in the County. This is a sad reflection on a self-proclaimed heritage county. It is therefore recommended that a policy be inserted seeking supporting the provision of a county museum.

Archaeology Planning Conditions: Archaeological conditions in many planning permissions are not actively enforced and need to be given far greater priority. Leaving it up to the developer to provide an archaeological report is foolhardy. In the past we witnessed a bogus report being submitted on foot of such a condition and merely paying lip service to one such condition.

It would be preferable that a policy specifically specifying that statutory authorities themselves would carry out such investigations at the expense of a developer. This would be far more credible and less open to abuse.