ABP Inspector report

PL27.YD0004 An Bord Pleanála of 26

An Bord Pleanala Ref.: PL27.YD0004

An Bord Pleanála

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT – DIRECTION CASE

Inspector’s Report

Project: Revisions to Greystones Harbour Development,

Greystones, Co. Wicklow. Planning Authority: Wicklow County Council

Date of Site Inspection: 09/02/11 Inspector: Gillian Kane


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 I have read the contents of PL27.YD0004, history files as relevant and inspected the

site on the date noted above. The purpose of this report is to advise the Bord

whether or not it should require the Local Authority to carry out an Environmental

Impact Assessment of the development as currently proposed under section 175 of

the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended and article 120 of the

Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended.

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 The subject site is part of the Greystones Harbour development project, comprising

the northern and central section of the overall development site. The site relates to

the proposed public park at the northern end of the site and the residential and

commercial development in the centre of the site (blocks E, F, G, H I and J and

terraces 1 -12).

2.2 Note: The subject site is different to that set out in the previous Part 8 proposal

YD0003 in that the previous proposal also included Block D and terraces 13 -16.

2.3 Currently the site is under construction and is bound by fencing and hoarding along

the eastern boundary. Two walkways bound by fencing provide public access to the

beach areas. The site accommodates a number of portacabins in use as site offices.

3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The proposed development involves a number of revisions and changes to the

development as previously approved by An Bord Pleanala under PL27.EF2016.

According to the public notice published the revisions comprise:

• revisions to Blocks E,F,G,H,I,J (i.e. residential apartment buildings situated

along the proposed Boardwalk at the Marina) and the omission of Block L,

Revisions to include an increase in the number of residential units within

these blocks from 172 to 223 units,

• the reduction of the commercial space within these blocks from 3130sqm to

840sqm

• consequent changes to the elevational treatments to all blocks,


• the omission of the basement car park under Blocks E,F,G and the basement

under Blocks H,I,J,

• alterations to the surface parking and landscape treatment in the immediate

vicinity of Blocks,

• integrated substation and switchroom structure (2 no.).

• Revisions to Housing Terraces 1-14 inclusive, i.e. traditional housing terraces

situated along the proposed access spine road to include an increase in the

number of residential units within these terraces from 139 to 141 houses and

the introduction of semi detached and detached house types,

• the extension northward of Terrace 12 to form west edge to southern area of

public park,

• consequent changes to the elevational treatments to amended terraces and

house types,

• alterations to the surface parking and landscape treatment in the immediate

vicinity of terraces,

• inclusion of communal external bin stores to each Terrace.

• Revisions to landscape treatment and public parking to southern area of

public park in the immediate vicinity of the extended terrace 12

3.2 I note that the boundary of the current Part 8 proposed development comprises only

part of the overall Greystones Harbour Site. Development permitted in the south and

south-eastern section of the site comprising the south breakwater, block M, block O,

public square, public green areas and Block D are not included within the “red line”

boundary. In addition the description of the proposed development does not account

for a reduction in the permitted public open space necessitated by the extension of

the residential area into the park.

3.3 This raises a number of issues regarding the description of the proposed

development, the development as outlined in the Planning Officers report to the

Council and the development as shown on the submitted plans. This issue is

addressed in further detail below.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 PL27.EF2016: Under section 226 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as

amended, permission was granted for an integrated harbour/marina mixed


development linked to a linear coastal public park, the development will provide

leisure, recreational, open space and marine facilities and mixed form residential,

commercial, civic and social amenities centred around the harbour and marina at

Rathdown Upper and Rathdown Lower/Greystones Harbour and North Beach,

Greystones, County Wicklow. Following the submission of further information and the

holding of two oral hearings, permission was granted subject to 13 no conditions.

Works commenced in 2008 and are ongoing.

4.2 PL27.CF2002: Wicklow County Council Compulsory Purchase (Rathdown Upper

and Rathdown Lower/Greystones Harbour and North Beach) No. 4 Order, 2004

confirmed without modification on 7.08.2007.

4.3 PL27.YD0003: In March 2010 Wicklow County Council requested the Bord to

determine whether or not an EIS was required for proposed revisions to the above

permitted development. In their request the Council noted that there appeared to be

no provision under section 226 to deal with revisions to such permissions. The

Council sought to achieve the revisions by way of a Part 8 procedure. The revised

development proposed the following:

• An increase in the urban development area from 8,147 hectares to 9,444

hectares in an extension to the north of the approved development. (This refers

to the extension of the “Urban Development Area” of the approved scheme into

the previously approved public park / former landfill area and equates to an

increase of approx. 1,297ha).

• An increase in the number of residential units from 341, as approved by the

Board, to 375. This would have the effect of restoring the total number of units to

the number specified in the 1999 variation to the County Development Plan.

• An increase in the quantum of commercial space from 5,621m2 to 6,425m2.

(increase of 804sq.m.)

• An increase in the lengths of roads and services to cater for the proposed

extension.

• Additional excavation of the landfill site to accommodate the proposed extension.

• A reduction in the quantum of open space/parkland to the north from 7,612 ha to

6.314 ha to accommodate the proposed extension, this being seen in the context

that the harbourside open space was increased in response to the request for

additional information.


• An increase in the quantum of car parking from 953 spaces, as approved by the

Board, to 1002 spaces.

• Parking at undercroft/semi-basement and ground level rather than at

underground and ground level as in the approved scheme.

• Revisions to the landscape design of the public areas at the harbour and the

open space between the apartment blocks.

4.3.1 On the 15th June 2010 the Bord issued as order as follows:

DECISION: Direct the Local Authority to prepare an environmental impact

statement in respect of the said proposed development based on the

reasons and considerations set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS: Having considered the submissions

made to it, the report and recommendation of the person appointed by the

Board to make a report and recommendation on the matter, the relationship

of the proposed development to that approved under An Bord Pleanála

Reference Number 27.EF2016, the guidance set out in Schedule 7 of the

Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and the

document entitled “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance for

Consent Authorities regarding Sub-threshold Development” issued by the

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in August

2003, it is considered that the proposed amendments represent material

changes to the scheme already approved.

5.0 REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION

5.1 A third party request under section 120(3)(a) of the Planning and Development

Regulations 2001, as amended, called for the Bord to determine whether or not to

require the Local Authority to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in respect

of the currently proposed revisions to the Greystones Harbour Development Project.

In his submission to the Bord, the third party Mr F. Etchingham, states that it would

appear that Wicklow County Council do not intend to carry out an EIA before putting

the Part 8 proposal before the Councillors.

5.2 The request is based on the following grounds:

• No EIS has been prepared, nor is there an intention to do so before the

section 8 motion is put before the Council.


• The Council has confirmed that it has taken the view that the Bords

requirement for an EIS was based solely on the location of some housing on

the disused landfill. The Council state that the revised plans do not include

housing on the landfill and therefore no EIS is required.

• The proposed development is so similar to the previous Part 8 proposed

revisions, that the Bords previous ruling (that those proposed revisions would

represent a material change to the scheme as originally approved and

therefore would be likely to have significant effects on the environment) is

now also applicable to the current proposed revisions.

• The Bords decision does not identify a particular part of the proposal (the

location of houses on a landfill) as being the basis for a requirement for an

EIS.

• The Council has relied on a statement in the Inspector’ report relating to the

location of housing on the landfill when deciding that an EIS is not required. It

is submitted that the Bord makes it clear that it does not solely rely on the

Inspectors report. It is submitted that it is erroneous of the Council to rely on

part of one of the factors in the Bords decision.

• Any proposal to revert to the original number of houses, irrespective of their

location or configuration requires the approval of the Bord.

• It is submitted that no part of the 2001 regulations allow the Council to amend

the proposal and ignore the Bords decision.

• It is submitted that it is unlikely that the proposed housing will be built for a

very long time. It is possible that at that time the coastline may be unstable,

policy on developing near coastlines may have changed and that other

factors may be relevant. It is submitted therefore that it is premature to

amend the proposal at this time.

6.0 OBSERVATIONS

6.1 A third party observation on the proposed Part 8 development was submitted to the

Council. The observation was cc’d to the Bord. The issues raised in the observation

can be summarised as follows:

• Failure to refer the proposed changes to the Bord disregards the

considerations discussed at the two oral hearings including density, sewage,

drainage etc.


• It is submitted that the future of the project and its relationship to NAMA has

not been clarified.

• It is submitted that although construction has started, the end date is

uncertain as all dates given for the development have passed.

• The residents have been told that the development will not proceed without

the proposed changes, leaving the community at ransom.

• Lack of comment on the previous proposed revisions are not an acceptance

of the proposal by the community.

7.0 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

7.1 Following the request by Mr F Etchingham for a determination, An Bord Pleanala

requested him to provide the following further information:

1. “A statement indicating what class of development set out in schedule 5 of the

Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended the proposed

development the subject of the request is considered by you to belong (in this

regard you should note that the Bords power to issue a direction under the said

article 120 is confined to a direction in respect of “sub-threshold development” as

defined at article 92 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as

amended).

2. A statement indicating the reasons why you consider that the proposed

development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment and a

statement indicating the nature of such effects. In this regard you should note

that the Bords power to issue a direction to the Local Authority to prepare an

environmental impact statement in respect of sub-threshold development is

confined to circumstances where the Bord considers that the proposed

development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment)”.

7.2 An Bord Pleanala also requested Wicklow County Council to indicate whether the

proposed development has or is intended to be subject to the process set out in Part

XI of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended and Part 8 of the

Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended. The Bord noted that the

Council may wish to consider suspending completion of same until after the Bord has

concluded its consideration.


8.0 RESPONSES

8.1 Response of Mr F. Etchingham

The applicants response to the request for further information is as follows:

• The status of the proposed development is defined in schedule 5, part 2,

section 10(b)(i) “construction of more than 500 dwelling units” as the

proposed revisions involve less than 500 units.

• This is supported by the Bords direction of 15 June 2010 on a variation of

similar size. No such direction would have been possible if the development

were not sub threshold as the Bords power is confined to direction in respect

of sub threshold development.

• The proposed development will reinstate the quantum of development and

associated traffic generation to the scale that was previously proposed,

therefore there will be no reduction in these factors.

• The proposed development is so similar to the previous that it too represents

a material change to the scheme and therefore is likely to have significant

effects on the environment.

• The development encroaches on and reduces the size of the public park,

which was to be a benefit to the community.

• The location of the housing extends the boundary northwards and increases

the visual intrusiveness of the development to an unacceptable level. This

represents a dangerous precedent and could lead to further proposals to

develop housing on the southern slopes of Bray Head.

The proposed housing is unacceptably close to a rapidly eroding coastline to the

northwest.

8.2 Wicklow County Council

The Council’s response to the Further Information request is as follows:

• A revised development for Greystones is currently subject to a Part 8

process. The process commenced on 1 Sept 2010, plans were on display

until 13 October 2010 with submissions accepted up to 28 Oct 2010.

• In the previous determination the Bord decided that an EIS was required. The

Inspectors report considered that only the construction of a number of

residential units on a former landfill site triggered the need for an EIS. The

Bord accepted the Inspectors recommendation.


• Following consideration of the decision the Council decided to revise the

proposed development to omit the additional works to the landfill, thereby

removing the need to prepare a new EIS.

• The treatment of the former landfill site remains as approved by An Bord

Pleanala.

• It is submitted that the nature and extent of the revisions would not be likely

to have significant effects on the environment and do not warrant the

preparation of an EIS.

• The revised works are designed to reflect and mitigate changes in the

property market. It is acknowledged that this may not be a consideration of

the Bord. It is submitted that the preparation of an EIS would be an

unnecessary exercise and would only serve to suspend progress.

• The Bord is requested to concur with the Councils view that the proposed

revisions would not be subject to EIA.

9.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY DETERMINATION

9.1 On the 21st January 2011, the Bord received notification from the Council that a

report on the Part 8 procedure was considered and approved by the members of

Wicklow County Council at a meeting of 6th December 2010. The approval of the

proposed development was subject to 6 no conditions which can be summarised as

follows:

1. house type A detached shall be redesigned,

2. 2 no. in curtilage car parking spaces shall be provided for each property in

terrace no. 12

3. private amenity space for each dwelling in terrace 12 shall comply with

section 5.4.5.3 of the development plan

4. private open space shall be provided for ground floor apartments in Blocks

F,H and I in accordance with section 5.4.5.3 of the development plan

5. Development shall be monitored by an Archaeologist.

6. Requirements of Inland Fisheries Ireland shall be complied with.

9.2 Planners Report on Part 8 Proposal

The Councils submission to the Bord included an extract from the Minutes of the

Council meeting held on 06/12/2010. Item 4 comprised a planning report in

accordance with article 179 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as


amended, regarding planning reg. ref. 10/2808. Comments of note in the planning

report include:

• The proposed revisions are in keeping with Action Plan Z1 in the Greystones

/ Delgany LAP. The development will encroach onto zone 2 of the action

plan. The boundaries are indicative only and therefore the proposed

development will not materially contravene the LAP.

• It is not considered that the proposed alterations will have a significant effect

on the environment. The decision by An Bord Pleanala was based on the fact

that terraces 13 to 16 were to be located on the former landfill. These

terraces have been omitted from the proposal and the layout amended

accordingly. The use of the former landfill site will not be altered – it will

remain as part of the public park.

• It is not considered that traffic movements will significantly increase. Roads

Department and the Water Services Authority indicated no objection.

• The most significant alteration will be the extension of terrace 12 onto the

proposed public park where previously there was a service road and public

parking. These will be relocated in an easterly direction. The report states

that there is no objection to this as the relocations will allow for passive

supervision of the park.

• The revisions to the development will result in 34 no. additional residential

units. The Bord previously reduced the development from 375 to 341

residential units and from 6,425sq.m. to 5,625sq.m commercial floorspace.

The planning report states that consideration must be given to the reasoning

behind the request which appear to relate to the level of development in the

vicinity of Courtyard 1, the traffic generation in this area, the design, scale

and bulk of the buildings in relation to the existing Victorian seafront buildings

and the need to provide a more functional area of public space. It is stated

that given that the layout of the public square will not be altered, the benefits

of the amendments approved by the Bord will be preserved. It is stated that

the overall layout of the development has not altered significantly from what

was approved by the Bord and is therefore considered acceptable.

• Concerns regarding the provision of open space for Blocks F, H and I and the

design of house type A are raised.

• Traffic access arrangements are considered acceptable.


• The parking provision for the apartments is considered acceptable. Where in-

curtilage car parking is not provided for terraced dwellings, dedicated spaces

should be provided.

• Rear gardens in compliance with section 5.4.5.3 of the development plan

should be provided for all dwellings in terrace no. 12.

• Archaeological monitoring should be carried out during the construction of the

public park.

• Recommendation that the proposal is acceptable subject to 5 no

modifications.

The Minutes note that the Director recommended that the proposal proceed subject

to conditions as recommended in the planning report. The Minutes note that the Part

8 proposal was passed by a margin of 9 votes.

10.0 LEGISLATION

10.1 Section 175 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, applies to

environmental impact assessment of development carried out by or on behalf of

Local Authorities. Article 120(4) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001

as amended states that the Board, in deciding whether a particular development

would be likely to have significant effects on the environment, should have regard to

the criteria set out in Schedule 7 of the Regulations, these being the transposition of

the criteria set out in Annex III of the 1997 amending Directive on the assessment of

the effects of certain projects on the environment. Schedule 7 of the regulations, as

referred to in article 120(4) outlines the ‘Criteria for determining whether a

development would or would not be likely to have significant effects on the

environment’. These are:

1. Characteristics of proposed development

The characteristics of proposed development, in particular:

- the size of the proposed development,

- the cumulation with other proposed development,

- the use of natural resources,

- the production of waste,

- pollution and nuisances,

- the risk of accidents, having regard to substances or technologies used.


2. Location of proposed development

The environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by

proposed development, having regard in particular to:

- the existing land use,

- the relative abundance, quality and regenerative capacity of natural

resources in the area,

- the absorption capacity of the natural environment, paying particular

attention to the following areas:

(a) wetlands,

(b) coastal zones,

(c) mountain and forest areas,

(d) nature reserves and parks,

(e) areas classified or protected under legislation, including special

protection areas designated pursuant to Directives 79/409/EEC and

92/43/EEC,

(f) areas in which the environmental quality standards laid down in

legislation of the EU have already been exceeded,

(g) densely populated areas,

(h) landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance.

3. Characteristics of potential impacts

The potential significant effects of proposed development in relation to

criteria set out under paragraphs 1 and 2 above, and having regard in

particular to:

- the extent of the impact (geographical area and size of the affected

population),

- the transfrontier nature of the impact,

- the magnitude and complexity of the impact,

- the probability of the impact,

- the duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact.

The proposed development is considered below under each of these headings.

10.2 Further guidance is provided in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and

Local Government ‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance for Consent

Authorities regarding Sub-threshold Development’. The guidance is largely based on

Schedule 7 referred to above.


10.3 Sub threshold development as defined in article 92 of the Planning and Development

Regulations 2001, as amended, is “development of a type set out in Schedule 5

which does not exceed a quantity, area of other limit specified in that Schedule in

respect of the relevant class of development”.

10.4 Schedule 5 development is divided into two Parts. Paragraph 10 of part 2 deals with

infrastructure projects. With regard to the subject development, the relevant

categories are 10(b)(i) construction of more than 500 units and 10(iv): Urban

development which would involve an area greater than 2 hectares in the case of a

business district, 10 hectares in the case of other parts of a built up area and 20

hectares elsewhere.

10.5 Also relevant is paragraph 13 which provides for changes, extensions, development

and testing as follows:

13 (a) any change or extension of development which would:

(i) result in the development being of a class listed in Part 1 or paragraphs 1 to

12 of Part 2 of this Schedule, and

(ii) result in an increase in an increase in size greater than

- 25 per cent or,

- an amount equal to 50 per cent of the appropriate threshold

whichever is the greater.

This is similar to Section 13 of Annex 11 of Directive 97/11/EC which states: Any

change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorized,

executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse

effects on the environment.

11.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

11.1 Wicklow County Development Plan 2010 - 2016

In the County Development Plan , Greystones is identified as a ‘Large Growth Town

II’. In section 5.4.1 large-scale expansion areas are stated to be those

developments that would add 10% or more to the existing housing stock of a town or

comprise more than 200 residential units. Section 5.4.5 sets out detailed criteria for

urban developments.


11.2 Greystones / Delgany Local Area Plan 2006 -2012

11.2.1 The plan applicable to the subject site is the Greystones/Delgany Local Area Plan

2006-2012. Within the LAP the subject site is covered by the Greystones Harbour

and North Beach Action Plan Z1. The Action Plan area is divided into three zones:

1= development area, 2=public park and 3 = heritage park.

11.2.2 In zone 1 the plan (in accordance with Amendment No. 1 to the Plan) provides for

the provision of a high quality integrated harbour/marina mixed development linked

to a linear coastal park and future heritage park, incorporating leisure, open space

and marina facilities and mixed residential, commercial and civic and social

amenities. Particular components of this development include a marina basin with

potential for c.230 yachting berths, marine based community facilities, up to 375

residential units, no more than 6,500 m2 mixed use commercial, cultural, community

and tourist residential waterfront space, creation of an attractive linear coastal public

park, provision of road access/public car parking, provision of coastal protection and

preservation of land and natural landscape for future archaeological study.

11.2.3 Standards and limitations applicable to the development include maximum

height of 3 storeys over 1 storey (ground floor) along the waterfront and 2 storeys

elsewhere.

11.2.4 In zone 2 the objective is to provide an attractive linear coastal public park

which includes (amongst others) the capping and landscaping of the old dump.

Zone 3 provides for a Heritage Park, the preservation of land and natural landscape.

11.2.5 Also within the Plan, the area of Rathdown containing St. Crispin’s Cell, Rathdown

Castle and Darcy’s Field is designated as an Area of Special Amenity. Views and

prospects of special amenity value or special interest include the view southwards

towards Greystones from the R761 road, prospects of sea cliffs from the Cliff Walk

and the prospect of the coast along the railway line. The harbour area, being that

part of the town between the railway line and the coast, is designated as a Local

Urban Character Area.

12.0 ASSESSMENT


12.0.1 As noted above, in deciding whether a particular development would be likely to

have significant effects on the environment, the Bord shall have regard to the criteria

set out on Schedule 7 of the Regulations. The proposed development is considered

below under each of the headings in Schedule 7. An analysis of the proposed

development and previous planning history on site is set out in an appendix to this

report.

12.1 Characteristics of proposed development

12.1.1 The currently proposed revisions to the original permission as granted by An Bord

Pleanala mainly comprise a change in the quantum of commercial space, an

increase in the quantum of residential development, the reconfiguration of that

residential development between apartment blocks and terraces and the extension of

one residential terrace into the area permitted for use as a public park.

12.1.2 In the original planning permission as granted by An Bord Pleanala (following

revisions brought about through a request for further information), residential

development was proposed in Blocks D, E, F, G, H, I and J, in terraces 1-12 and

commercial floorspace was proposed in blocks D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, O, and N.

Commercial Development

12.1.3 The currently proposed revisions comprise consolidation all of the proposed

commercial floorspace into Block E (841sq.m.) and the omission of the approved

commercial floorspace in blocks F,G, H, I and J. There appears to be a discrepancy

between the commercial floorspace figures indicated in the plans submitted for the

currently proposed development, those referred to in the planning report on the Part

8 procedure for this proposed development and those permitted under EF2016.

12.1.4 Currently there is permission for 5,798sq.m. of commercial development on site

(EF2016). As noted above (section 3.0) the plans submitted with the current Part 8

proposal refer to certain blocks within the overall development only (i.e. blocks E, F,

G, H, I and J). Therefore one must assume that blocks D, K and N are to remain as

permitted (i.e. 2728sq.m. of commercial floorspace). With a permitted commercial

floorspace of 2728sq.m. and a proposed commercial floorspace in Block E of

841sq.m., this equates to a total proposed floorspace of 3,569sq.m. (i.e. a

significant decrease from that permitted). However, the planning report assessing

the current Part 8 proposal states that the proposed revisions result in an increase in

commercial floorspace on the overall site - up to 6,245sq.m.


12.1.4 I note that in the previous Part 8 proposal YD0003 (which included block D) it was

proposed to increase the overall floorspace to 6,245sq.m. (as per the public notices).

I note that in the previous Part 8 proposal (YD0003) there was also an inconsistency

in the proposed commercial floorspace figures indicated by the Planning Authority

and that calculated by the Planning Inspector. This was noted by the Planning

Inspector in his report to the Bord. Please see Table 1 below for resume.

Table 1: Commercial Floorspace

12.1.6 It is possible that the inconsistency arises from the proposed development of Block

D (which is not part of the currently proposed revisions). In the original proposal the

permitted Block D comprised 1120sq.m. of commercial floorspace. When revisions

were sought in the first Part 8 (YD0003), it was proposed to revise Block D into a

medical centre of 3450sq.m. and a retail unit of 365sq.m. (i.e. a total of 3815sq.m.).

It is possible that when arriving at the total figure of 6,245sq.m. as stated in the most

recent planning officers report, the previously revised proposal for Block D was

incorrectly taken into account. While this explanation certainly seems plausible and

allows the figures to ‘add up’, it highlights the difficulty of proposing revisions for only

part of an overall development site which was itself subject to much revision. It is

considered that the lack of clarity about what exactly is proposed within each block

and within the overall development site serves to emphasise the need to

comprehensively address the proposed development site as a total entity.

12.1.7 With regard to the criteria of Schedule 7, the Bord must consider the characteristics

of proposed development, in particular: the size of the proposed development, the

cumulation with other proposed development, the use of natural resources, the

production of waste, pollution and nuisances, the risk of accidents, all having regard

to substances or technologies used. I have addressed the characteristics of the

proposed and permitted development above and outlined my concerns regarding the

EF2016 as PERMITTED

YD0003 CURRENT PROPOSAL YD0004

5,798sq.m. Block D: 1,120sqm. Block E: 605 sq.m. Block F: 800sq.m. Block G: 100sq.m. Block H: 665sq.m. Block I: 800sq.m. Block J: 100sq.m Block K: 1270sq.m Block N: 338sq.m.

6,245sq.m. Block D: 3815sq.m. Block E: 840sq.m. Block K: 1270sq.m. Block N: 338 sq.m Blocks F,G, H, I J = 0sq.m.

Block E: 841sq.m. Blocks F,G, H, I J = 0sq.m. (UNCHANGED: Block D: 1120sq.m. Block K: 1270sq.m. Block N: 338sq.m.)


lack of clarity regarding same. If the Bord is to accept the proposed Part 8 revisions

purely at face value, the quantum of commercial development is to significantly

decrease – from a permitted 5,798sq.m. to a proposed 3,569sq.m. This represents a

decrease of 39%. In isolation this would appear to be significant. However for the

purposes of triggering an EIA requirement, it is reasonable to consider that given

that the environmental impacts of a greater quantum of commercial development

have already been assessed, a reduction in same would not generate the need to

further assess environmental impacts. It is considered safe to assume that the

environmental impacts identified by the greater quantum of development would only

lessen, should that quantum of development also reduce.

12.1.8 One must be aware however that this reasoning is based on the quantum of

commercial floorspace being reduced. If as suggested by the Council’s planning

official the overall quantum of commercial floorspace is to increase; from 5,798sq.m.

to 6,245sq.m., this results in an increase of approx. 8%. When assessed purely

against the criteria of schedule 7, this increase does not appear significant.

However, again, one must assess this increase against that previously permitted by

the Bord. Permission was sought in the first instance for 6,405sq.m. which was

revised to 5,798sq.m. following the submission of additional information. It is noted

that an EIA was carried out in relation to the original proposed floorspace of

6,405sq.m (i.e. greater than is being proposed now) and subsequently,

amendments to the EIS were submitted to the Bord following the submission of

additional information. These amendments related to phasing of the construction

phase, traffic impacts, economic activities, employment and population, retail impact

statement, dredged and waste materials, landscape impact, cultural heritage

including archaeology and architecture, It is acknowledged that the proposed layout

and uses of the commercial floorspace differ in the two proposals, however, it is

considered that the environmental impacts would be largely the same. It is

considered that this finding also applies to the other schedule 7 criteria, namely the

use of natural resources, the production of waste, pollution and nuisances, the risk

of accidents, all having regard to substances or technologies used. In the interest of

clarity, however, the Bord may wish to seek clarification on the inconsistencies

outlined above.

Residential Development – Apartments

12.1.9 With regard to the increase in quantum of residential development, permission was

granted for 341 no. residential units which took the form of 202 no. apartments (in


blocks D, E, F, G, H, I, J and L). A brief comparison of residential development in

apartment form is set out in Table 2 as follows:

Table 2: Apartments Units

12.1.10 It is currently proposed to omit Block L and provide 223 units in blocks E, F,

G, H, I and J. The Bords attention is drawn to Block D which is not included in the

current Part 8 ‘red line boundary’. As with the quantum of commercial development,

the exclusion of Block D has led to an inconsistency in the overall quantum of

development quoted in the planning report as being provided in the overall

Greystones Harbour Site.

12.1.11 As a starting point, permission was granted for 30 no. apartments in Block D.

When revisions to the permission were sought by a Part 8 process in 2010

(YD0003), it was proposed to revise Block D and provide 11 no. apartments on the

upper floors. This and other revisions resulted in 234 no. apartments being

proposed. (The Bord is requested to note that permission was originally sought for

232 no. residential units but this was revised to 202 no. units following the

submission of Additional Information as noted above.) Currently, it is proposed to

provide 223 no. apartments in Blocks E,F,G,H, I and J. Given that Block D as

permitted provides for 30 no. units the overall no. of apartments currently proposed

on site is 253 no. When this is added to the currently proposed 141 no. houses, the

quantum of residential development on site would be 394 no. residential units on

the overall Greystones Harbour development site as opposed to a total of 375 no.

units as indicated in the Planning Officer’s report.

12.1.12 It would appear that the permitted 30 no. apartments in Block D have not

been taken in to account in arriving at this figure of 375 no. units. The planning

report refers to an increase of 34 no. residential units. This however does not appear

to be correct. It appears - as was outlined in the analysis of commercial floorspace

EF2016 as PERMITTED


202 units Block D: 30 units Block E: 20 units Block F: 32 units Block G: 27 units Block H: 20 units Block I: 32 units Block J: 27 units Block L: 14 units

234 units Omission of Block L. Block D: 11 no. units Block E: 28 no. units Block F, G, J: 40 no. units Block H: 35 no. units

Omission of Block L. Block E: 28 no. units Block F, G, I, J: 40 no. units Block H: 35 no. units (UNCHANGED Block D: 30 units, not part of red line boundary)


above - to refer to the proposed revision of Block D in the 2010 Part 8 proposals

which provided for only 11 no. apartments. If the revised 11 no. apartment in Block D

were included within the development boundary, the quantum of residential

development on the overall site would equate to 375 no. residential units. However,

as no revisions to Block D have been included in the current Part 8 proposal and

Block D as permitted provides 30 no. apartments, the quantum of development

proposed for the overall development site stands as 394 residential units (141 no.

houses and 253 no. apartments.) As noted above, It is considered that the lack of

clarity about what exactly is proposed within each block and within the overall

development site serves to emphasise the need to comprehensively address the

proposed development site as a total entity.

Residential development – Houses

12.1.13 As can be seen from the table below, permission has been granted for 139

no. houses in 12 no. terraces. It is now proposed to provide 141 no. houses in 14 no.

terraces.

Table 3: Dwelling Houses

12.1.14 An increase of 2 no. houses, in itself is not considered significant nor is it

considered material. The use of natural resources, the production of waste, pollution

and nuisances and the risk of accidents having regard to substances or technologies

used are not considered significant in light of an additional 2 no. residential houses.

Total Residential Development

12.1.15 An issue raised by proposing a quantum of 394 no. residential units, is that

this level of development has not been assessed in the existing EIS. The EIS as

submitted with the original application assessed the likely significant environmental

impacts of 375 no. residential units. Following the submission of Additional

Information, the EIS was revised to assess the impacts of 341 no. residential units.

At no point, has an environmental assessment of providing 394 no. residential

units on the overall Greystones site been carried out.

EF2016 as PERMITTED


139 units in 12 terraces

141 no. units in 16 no. terraces

141 no. units in 14 no. terraces


Table 4: Total Residential Development

12.1.14 A second issue is that the Bord expressed a concern about the provision of

375 no. residential units in the original proposal (EF2016). The Bord requested the

applicant to consider that the quantum of development in an around the current

location of permitted Block D would “result in significant traffic generation and a

congested form of overdevelopment in this area the site which would seriously

impinge upon any meaningful use of the space as a public square and result in a

visually intrusive and dominant form of development in relation to its harbourside

setting and existing built fabric, including residential properties”. The Bord noted that

“The redesign undertaken in relation to the above shall result in a reduction in the

quantum of overall development and associated traffic generation and may require

some redesign of other elements within the overall proposed development whilst

maintaining the integrity of the overall proposal”.

12.1.15 It is acknowledged that the proposed additional residential units (53 no.) are

concentrated in an area away from the permitted public open spaces and therefore

the dominant form of built development perceived by the Bord around the public

open spaces would not occur. However, one cannot ignore the expressed position of

the Bord regarding the quantum of development proposed. In addition, it is

considered that the traffic generated by a development in excess of that considered

disproportionate by the Bord must be adequately addressed.

12.1.16 Given that the proposed revisions would result in a quantum of residential

development in excess of that permitted in the LAP and in excess of that considered

appropriate by the Bord, it is considered reasonable to consider the proposed

revisions significant. It is also considered reasonable to state that these significant

revisions may have significant impacts on the environment and should be assessed

by way of EIA.

12.1.16 The provision of 394 no. residential units is in itself is not considered

significant, however, it is not in compliance with the Greystones LAP which provides

for “up to 375 no. residential units”. The Bords attention is drawn to section 178(1) of

EF2016 as PERMITTED YD0003 CURRENT PROPOSAL YD0004

341 no. residential units 202 apartments 139 no. houses




the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended states that “The Council of a

County shall not effect any development in its functional area, exclusive of any

borough or urban district, which contravenes materially the development plan.” I

consider that this may represent a material contravention of the development plan

and this may be something the Bord wishes to consider further.

2.1.17 Finally, in relation to the characteristics of the proposed development, I note that the

proposed Part 8 does not refer to the increased site area which results from the

extension of the development area into lands previously permitted for use as a

public park .

12.2 Location of proposed development

12.2.1 Permission was granted by An Bord Pleanala for residential development to

be located generally within the central portion of the overall Harbour site. A public

park was to be located on the grounds of a former landfill (north of the central

residential area). According to the EIS submitted with the application, an old landfill

was identified immediately south of Darcy’s Playing Fields. Investigations carried out

in 2001 concluded that extraction of sand and gravel had created a depression

which was subsequently filled. There was little evidence of significant contamination

and no leachate was observed. The site comprised chemically inert material, which

was to be capped with an inert soil layer and landscaped as part of the proposed

public park. On the site of this former landfill, the applicants proposed a public park.

This issue has been discussed at length in the planning history files. A copy of the

site plan as revised following the submission of Additional Information is attached to

this report.

12.2.2 When the Council sought to revise the permitted development early in 2010

(YD0003), the residential development was to extend into the permitted public park

at the northern end of the site (34 no. residential units in 4 additional terraces). The

Bord requested further information regarding the proposed revisions and amongst

other items, the applicant submitted drawing no. GSK-210 showing the “original and

additional landfill excavation”. As can seen from the drawing, area A showing the

“excavation and profiling as per approved scheme” is an irregular almost arrow

shaped area extending in a north south direction from north of the new breakwater

into the central residential area. Area B, the “proposed area of additional excavation”

is to the north and east of area A, filling out the ‘arrow’ into an irregular triangle. It


can be clearly seen that some of the proposed additional residential units would be

located on newly excavated land. The report of the Planning Inspector stated that

this component of the proposed development would not necessarily be inconsistent

with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area but that it would

be likely to have significant effects on the environment.

12.2.3 As noted earlier, the Bord determined that the proposed revisions did

represent material changes to the scheme already approved and directed the Local

Authority to prepare an EIS in respect of the proposed development. It is noted

however that the Bord did not refer to any one specific element of the proposed

development in the direction, stating only that “the proposed amendments”

represented material changes.

12.2.4 In the currently proposed revisions, the layout of the terraces has been

revised – both from what is permitted and what was proposed in the first Part 8. The

current proposal extends terrace no. 12 152m into the former public park area (see

drawing no. PS01), along the western site boundary. The planning report

commenting on the Part 8 proposal notes that this raises two issues, the first being

that the proposed residential component of the development now encroaches into an

area indicated as zone 2 in the LAP and identified as a public park. The report states

that the zone boundaries are indicative and the extension into zone 2 will not

materially contravene the LAP. I would tend to agree with this reasoning.

12.2.5 The second issue, raised by a third party and identified in the planning report

is that of the location of the additional terraces of housing on the former landfill. The

report states that the decision by An Bord Pleanala in the previous EIS direction

case was “based on the fact that terraces 13 – 16 will be located on what was

previously a landfill”. The Planning report states that the terraces have been omitted

from the proposal and the layout amended so that “no dwellings will be constructed

on the former landfill” and that the use of the former landfill will not be altered from

what was previously permitted by the Bord. Along this line of reasoning, when

responding to the third party request for an EIS direction on the current proposals,

the Council submitted to the Bord that “The treatment of the former landfill site

remains as approved by An Bord Pleanala”.

12.2.6 I do not entirely accept these statements. Firstly, the Bord’s decision on

YD0003 was not based on the fact that housing would be located on the former


landfill site. The Bord’s direction does not refer to any one single matter, merely

stating that the proposed amendments require the preparation of an EIS. Secondly,

from drawings on history files, it would appear that the given boundary of the former

landfill is approx. 30m from the western site boundary. The housing, car parking and

service roads of the extended terrace no. 12 cover a corridor of 45m from the

western boundary. Therefore a degree of development (albeit road and car parking

rather than housing) will occur on a strip of former landfill lands whereas the

permitted development provided for only soft landscaping within the landfill

boundary. It may be factually correct to state that no dwellings will be constructed on

the former landfill site, however it is not correct to state that the treatment of the

former landfill site remains as approved by the Bord.

12.2.7 The question therefore becomes one of whether the proposed amendments

represent development that is likely to have significant effects on the environment. It

is not clear from the submitted plans whether the construction of the extended

terrace no. 12 and associated car parking would be constructed on top of the capped

landfill site or if there would be a degree of disturbance of lands within and adjoining

the landfill site. It is also not immediately clear if the boundary of the former landfill

can be so definitively established. Notwithstanding that the EIS stated that there

appeared to be little evidence of significant contamination I declare a concern

regarding development so close to and within the former landfill site. It would appear

that the issue is worthy of environmental analysis. The Bord permitted the capping of

the former landfill site with a layer of inert material and the use of the area as a public

park. Using the criteria of schedule 7, i.e the environmental sensitivity of a

geographical area having regard to its existing land use, it is considered that the

proposed revisions represent a material change to that permitted development and

are likely to have significant effects on the environment.

12.2.8 It is considered the proposed amendments are not significant with regard to

the relative abundance, quality and regenerative capacity of natural resources in the

area. With regard to the absorption capacity of the natural environment, it is

considered that the proposed revisions do not represent a significant or material

change from that already assessed in the EIA.


12.3 Characteristics of Potential Impacts

12.3.1 The final section of Schedule 7 requires an assessment of the potential

significant effects of proposed development having regard to the extent of the

impact, the transfrontier nature of the impact, the magnitude and complexity of the

impact, the probability of the impact, the duration, frequency and reversibility of the

impact. These criteria are discussed as follows:

12.3.2 Extent of the Impact

It is considered that the extent of the impact of the proposed residential amendments

would be largely confined to the subject site and the immediate surrounds. With

regard to the proposed amendments to the commercial element of the development,

a significant increase in the quantum of commercial floorspace could have a

significant impact on the defined town centre of Greystones but is unlikely to extend

beyond that geographical region.

12.3.3 Transfrontier nature of the Impact

It considered that there is no transfrontier nature of the proposed development and

therefore no such impacts will arise.

12.3.4 Magnitude and Complexity of the Impact

It is considered that the magnitude of the proposed revisions to the permitted

development is not significant in the context of the permitted large scale

development of Greystones harbour and the assessment of those impacts in the EIA

and revised EIS. The proposed revisions essentially increase an already permitted

use, largely within a permitted site area. The complexity of the impacts could be

potentially significant however, given the extension of residential development into

an area previously permitted for use as a public park. To the observer, the built

environment block would extend into a recreational area, thereby extending the

visual impact, albeit not materially. In addition, there is a degree of uncertainty

regarding the proposed land use of the former landfill site and the lands immediately

surrounding the stated landfill boundary. Any disturbance of the former landfill lands

may have complex environmental impacts, which to date have not been assessed.

12.3.5 Probability, Duration, Frequency and Reversibility of the Impact

Once construction starts, impacts are not readily reversible. As can be seen from the

attached site photographs, significant works have been undertaken on the Harbour

site, so one must assume that it is probable that further permanent and irreversible


works will be carried out. However, as is the nature of construction work, any

impacts associated with same, are temporary. It is noted that the Council state that

these revisions are sought in order to address the current economic climate. Indeed,

the impacts of reacting to current conditions is raised as a concern by the third party

who has requested the EIS determination. In this instance, it is difficult to definitively

state the likelihood or probability of any development continuing. However once it is

accepted that development will occur, then it is reasonable to state that there will be

likely significant impacts from the proposed development.

13.0 SUMMARY

13.1 It is considered that the proposed revisions to the permitted quantum of commercial

and residential development and all associated revisions arising from those

proposals are such as to represent significant and material amendments to the

development as permitted by An Bord Pleanala under EF2016. It is considered that

it is likely that these amendments would be likely to have significant effects on the

environment, using the guidance provided in Schedule 7 of the 2001 regulations as

amended.

13.2 I declare a concern about the level of inconsistency and ambiguity on the exact

quantum of commercial and residential development proposed on the overall

Greystones Harbour site. I consider it unreasonable to expect the Bord to

comprehensively assess a proposal which has not been satisfactorily presented to

the Bord. In addition I consider that these possible inaccuracies may provide a

misleading account to the public. The Bord may wish to defer adjudication of this

matter until clarification has been sought or may decide that the substantive issues

can be adequately assessed with the information on file.

14.0 RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the submissions made, the planning history of the subject site,

the relationship of the proposed development to that approved under An Bord

Pleanála Reference Number PL.27.EF2016, including variations of scale, design and

on-site location, the guidance set out in Schedule 7 of the Planning and

Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and the document entitled

“Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance for Consent Authorities

regarding Sub-threshold Development” issued by the Department of the


Environment, Heritage and Local Government in August 2003, it is considered that

the proposed amendments represent a material change to the scheme already

approved which would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. It is

concluded therefore that an environmental impact statement is required. I recommend

that the Board, under Article 120(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations,

2001 as amended direct the planning authority to prepare an environmental impact

statement in respect of the development in question.

______________

Gillian Kane

Planning Inspector

23/02/11

ABP Inspector report

Documents

Transcript of ABP Inspector report