An Bord Pleanála · Web viewIt is the use of the word “should” and the line that is used in...

+An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

PL27.EF2016PL27.CF2002

Wicklow County Council.

Nature of Application: Approval under Section 175 and

Compulsory Purchase Order.

Location of Development: Greystones Harbour and North Beach,

Rathdown Upper and Lower.

Nature of Development: New Harbour, Marina, Residential,

Commercial, club facilities, public open

space, access and off-street car parking.

Inspector: James Carroll

PL27.EF2016/CF2002 An Bord Pleanála of 136

INTRODUCTION

An application for approval under Section 175 of the Planning and Development Act

2000 for a public/private partnership project, at Greystones Harbour and the North

Beach Area in Greystones was the subject of a decision to seek further information by

An Bord Pleanála. This resulted from the consideration, by An Bord Pleanála, of the

proposed development, including a Compulsory Purchase Order.

Consideration of the proposal had been made by An Bord Pleanála following the

submission of the application for approval, by the public/private partners, both

Wicklow County Council and Sispar. Following the submission of objections, an

Oral Hearing was held, by the instant inspector, in March and April of 2006.

Following full consideration of the proposal, a report and recommendation, dated 11th

July 2006, was submitted to An Bord Pleanála, by the instant inspector, for

consideration.

An Bord Pleanála by decision of the 14th August 2006, requested the applicants,

through Wicklow County Council, to furnish the following additional information as

per Section 175(5)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

“1. The Board is not satisfied, on the basis of the submissions made, that the issue

of the precasting yard/batching plant in relation to its design, layout and

potential sourcing of material on site from a borrow pit should be dealt with at

detailed design stage of the project having regard to potential adverse

environmental impacts of such works. Having regard to the industrial type

nature and scale of this element, required to enable the construction of the

proposed development, it is considered that the precasting yard/batching plant

should be subject to examination of its detailed design and layout, together

with detailed assessment of any material to be extracted from the site, in order

to adequately assess the potential adverse environmental impacts of such

works. Such detailed design should show distances from nearest residential

properties and detailed mitigation measures in relation to potential impacts

regarding noise, dust, light and traffic disturbance.


2. The Board might not be satisfied that the overall approach to dealing with the

old dump by redeposition of approximately 90,000 square metres of material

from one end of the site to other parts of the landfill and overall capping

would result in a satisfactory solution having regard to potential adverse

environmental impacts of such works. In this regard, the developer is

requested to consider an alternative option showing the complete removal of

landfill material from the site (preferably by sea), to be dealt with in

accordance with best modern practice, to ensure that any long-term

environmental impact is avoided. The developers’ response should also

outline the position regarding any necessary waste licences required.

3. Noting the already restricted road access to the site, the Board is not satisfied

on the basis of the submissions made that the required beach nourishment_ of

approximately 6,000 tonnes per annum cannot be brought to site by sea in

order to mitigate any potential negative traffic impacts resulting from the

proposal to bring this material by road, and consequently through the future

completed development.

4. Having regard to the design, scale, location and quantum of development

generally located at Courtyard 1, and in particular Blocks B and C and

adjacent Terrace 13 in relation to the adjacent proposed hard/landscaped realm

(traversed by essential and important roadways/vehicle routes) it is considered

that the proposed development in this location 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.

5. It is considered that the proposed development generally located at Courtyard

1, and in particular Blocks B and C and adjacent Terrace 13 by reason of its

design, scale and bulk fails to create an acceptable form of urban/architectural

treatment of this transitional area located between the proposed new


development and its receiving environment of generally smaller scale

Victorian seafront buildings, which include residential properties.

6. It is considered that the proposed clubhouses by reason of their design, scale,

height and location in close proximity to the site boundary and existing

residential properties (notwithstanding the difference in level between the site

and adjoining public road) would result in the visually obtrusive form of

development at this location and a form of development which might seriously

injure the visual amenities of the area and residential amenities of property in

the vicinity.

In relation to the issues raised at 4 and 5 above it is considered that Blocks B and C

and adjacent Terrace 13 should be omitted from the proposed development and the

resultant free area should form a meaningful and open/aspect harbour side public

space. Block D should consequently be redesigned to address both the enlarged

public space and Basin 1, with commercial activity on the ground floor facing the

public space. Proposed underground car parking at this location may be retained.

The redesign of the scheme should also address the issues raised at 6 above, which

may require the relocation of the club houses and ancillary facilities to an alternative

location on the overall site.

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. Where necessary the EIS should be

amended to reflect the modifications proposed in response to this notice.”

Following the notification of requirement for further information the developers

submitted revised proposals.

The revised proposals were notified to the objectors who, in turn, submitted

comments.


Comments were also submitted by supporters of the proposal.

Objectors to the proposal requested An Bord Pleanála to reopen the oral hearing.

These requests were acceded to.

The oral hearing was reopened on 31st March 2007 and continued on the 2nd and 3rd

April 2007 concluding on the 3rd.

A transcript of the proceedings constitutes part of PL27.EF2016 and PL27.CF2002.

BACKGROUND TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The background to the proposal initially submitted to An Bord Pleanála is contained

in the Inspector’s report of 11th July 2006 (pages 5 and 6).

The legal procedures are referred to in Pages 6 and 7.

Site location and description are described in Pages 7 to 13. The overall development

is referred to in Pages 13 to 28.

The initial report refers briefly to the Environmental Impact Statement on Pages 28

and 29.

Pages 29 and 30 refer to the Compulsory Purchase Order.

Pages 31/33 refer to objections to the proposal.

The bulk of the report is taken up with the oral hearing constituting Pages 31 to 182.

Finally the assessment and recommendation cover Pages 182 to 239. A 21 page

appendix is also included, which outlines the planning context current at the time the

proposal was being considered by An Bord Pleanála.


REVISED PROPOSALS

Following the request for further information, amendments to the proposal were made

by the developers. These amendments are outlined in Volume 2 of the additional

information submitted by McCabe Durney to An Bord Pleanála on 25/10/2006. The

main outlines of the revisions are as follows:

Blocks B and C and the adjacent Terrace 13, included in the original development,

have been omitted. The resultant freed area has been incorporated into an enlarged

harbour side public open space.

Block D and Basin 1 are retained. Block D has been redesigned to address the

increased area of public open space to the south and the water and buildings

surrounding Basin No. 1. Underground car parking has been retained at the location.

The clubhouse facilities have been redesigned as a largely single-storey structure. The

sailing club however retains a two-storey element. The overall buildings have been

located to the most easterly location within the inner dock structure of the existing

harbour. This repositioning moves the structures away from the site boundary and the

residential properties on Cliff Road/Bayswater Terrace.

Minor amendments to the overall proposed development have been included however

the integrity of the design proposal is maintained as originally intended in the urban

masterplan for the development.

Details of the redesigned proposal are referred to below.

INCREASED AREA OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

The creation of a public open space framed by the old and new development was

considered by the developers to redefine and restructure the public realm. As a result

the public square is designed to accommodate day to day activities and also future

special events such as cultural and arts events.


A new masterplan for the public open space was therefore proposed.

The enlarged public square seeks to provide a strong link between Victoria Road and

the new harbour. It is the introduction gateway to the development as outlined by the

developers. It consists of mainly hard surfaces however there is an element, in the

northern sector, of soft landscaping. The hard landscaping consists of a combination

of granite flags and setts with street furniture.

The soft landscaped areas are located to the south west of proposed Block D. Also

included in the proposal is extensive tree planting intended to frame views of spaces

and provide vertical intervention.

Immediately to the south of Block D an open café square is proposed.

Block D.

This has been redesigned in response to the request for further information.

A three-storey building is proposed at the southern elevation with two floors of

residential above ground floor commercial. There is a considerable element, at the

upper levels of balconies, large windows, screens and terraces.

The developers consider that the smaller scale of Block D recognises the existing

smaller scale of the Victorian seafront buildings.

The Clubhouses.

While the clubhouses have been redesigned they have generally not been relocated

within the overall site. In this regard they are located in the south-eastern corner of

the overall site.


While the additional information indicates that alternative locations outside of the

harbour area were examined an overriding _ requirement of each of the clubs is to be

adjacent to facilities which allow for safe access to launch facilities and supervision of

Maritime activities.

A further alternative examined by the developers was in relocating a number of the

clubhouses throughout the harbour side area in the public space. This enables the

clubs to stay within the harbour. The developers consider that there would be a

drawback as clubs would be located away from the launching beach and slipway. It

will also involve members crossing through the new public square and the pedestrian

promenade to access launching facilities. Supervision would also be compromised.

The overall impact of dispersal of the clubhouses throughout the public realm in the

harbour area would, in the opinion of the developers, interrupt and hinder the

potential of the use of the new enlarged harbour side public space. Private buildings

and ancillary areas would be located within a public area giving rise to conflicts of

privacy, security and supervision.

The proposal submitted is a redesign and relocation of the clubhouses into a largely

single-storey complex of buildings directly to the south of the new southern

breakwater.

The developers consider that the revised location moves the entire buildings out of

potential views to and from Cliff Road and Bayswater Terrace. It would also have the

effect of moving buildings away from existing residential accommodation on Cliff

Road. It takes advantage of the difference in levels between Cliff Road and the

harbour area. This difference in levels is approximately 4 metres.

The sailing club, which would be the only two-storey element, would be located at the

most eastward point. It would also be aligned with the two-storey coastguard

building. It would not impact on potential views northwards from Cliff Road towards

Bray Head.

The other clubhouses are organised in a single-storey structure around a shared central

courtyard.


There would be extensive areas of off-street car parking and for boat and equipment

storage. The storage areas would be located to the west of the clubhouses.

Plans, elevations, sections and perspectives and photomontages of the revised

arrangements constitute part of the submission.

Vehicular Access to the Site.

The access arrangements to the site from Beach Road/Victoria Road have been

amended. Two access points are proposed. The eastern access point is into the off-

street car parking area serving the proposed clubhouses.

The western access is to the main area of the site and is in the approximate position of

the original single access proposed to the site.

The developers consider that the revised access arrangements are provided to address

the concerns of An Bord Pleanála in relation to significant traffic generation and a

congested form of overdevelopment of the southern end of the site at the proposed

public square.

The proposal is to split the access configuration into the proposed development with

the harbour and club areas served by the eastern access and the remainder of the site

by the western access. There is a separation distance of the order of 70 metres

between both access points.

The developers consider that separating these functions removes the potential

conflicts in traffic terms. It also removes potential congestion when both functions are

in use.It separates the traffic movements from the overall site from the enlarged public

open space area and the harbour.

The developers consider the new arrangement as viable and meaningful use of the

public open space including the boardwalk.


Quantum of Development.

The revised proposals reduce the overall scale of the development.

In terms of residential provision a total of 34 residential units have been removed.

This consists of 12 one-bed apartments, 9 two-bed apartments, 7 three-bed apartments

6 three-bedroom houses.

It was originally proposed to provide 375 residential units.The total now proposed is

341, a reduction of 9%..

Commercial Development.

The revision proposed reduces the commercial floorspace by 800 square metres from

6,425 square metres approximately to 5,625 square metres approximately. This is a

reduction of approximately 12%.

The developers consider that the reduced floorspace proposed results in a reduction by

104, in the number of off-street car parking spaces required by the overall

development.

Revised Residential Accommodation.

Revisions are proposed to Block G, at the northern end of the residential

development. Similar revisions are proposed to Block J, on the southern side of Basin

2. As well as a reconfigured Block D, at the southern end of the overall

residential/commercial development, a small revision is proposed to Terrace No. 1.

Buildings G and J are provided with additional accommodation at the third floor.

Proposed Batching Plant and Precasting Yard.


This aspect of the proposal was the subject of Item No. 1 of additional information

sought by An Bord Pleanála. This resulted in the submission of considerable detail in

relation to this aspect of the proposal and in particular dealt with noise, dust, light and

traffic disturbance, as required by the additional information request. The main

emphasis of the submission is the detailed assessment, by the developers, that this

element of the overall proposal can be implemented in a manner consistent with best

environmental practice and without material impact upon the residential amenities of

the area.

Old Dump.

The estimated volume of material in the old dump is approximately 90,000 cubic

metres.

The original proposal was that the southern end of the dump, consisting of

approximately 9,000 cubic metres be relocated to the northern end, which is

immediately to the north of the existing landfill. It was also proposed that 20,000

cubic metres, at the eastern extremity be reworked to provide a stable cliff edge along

the beach line where it is proposed to provide a public park.

Four options were examined in relation to the dump. The first consisted of retention

of the landfilled material on the site. The second constituted disposal of excavated

landfill material off-site. The third consisted of the removal of all landfilled material

off-site. The fourth consists of leaving the entire dump area as it is.

In relation to the first retention of all material on site, the developers consider that

based on best practicable environmental option and the proximity principle, keeping

all of the material on site is the preferred option. There are a number of precedents at

the Dublin Port Tunnel, the N11 Interchange at Greystones/Delgany (Bromley) and in

the Deansgrange area of Dublin (Pfizer Factory Pottery Road).

This involves capping all of the landfill including the 9,000cubic metres which would

require relocation on site.


The second option is the same as the first apart from the 9,000 cubic metres would be

moved off-site to a suitable facility. This would result in considerable truck

movements with excavated material being removed off-site and the importation of

suitable fill materials. This could give rise to almost 6,000 truck movements.

Exporting and importing material by sea would require a temporary berthing facility

which would require the building of a significant structure extending into deep water

to provide for barges to collect and supply material from a vertical quay wall

structure. A piled steel jetty would not work due to exposed sea conditions.

The third option would be to remove all of the landfill material off-site. No landfill

material is replaced within the site with this option. All excavated material is removed

off-site to a suitable facility. 90,000 cubic metres of imported fill would be required

to construct the landscaped public park. This would require up to 18,000 truck

movements. The disadvantages in relation to Option No. 2 with the removal and the

importation of material by sea would also result. There could be additional

difficulties in finding a suitable receiving facility with capacity to handle all of the

excavated material. The proposal also contravenes the proximity principle which

states that if local facilities are suitable they should be utilised instead of exporting

material.

The final alternative would be to leave the landfill as existing. This however would

result in a number of houses being located on top of the southern end of the old

landfill. This is unacceptable. There would also be a visual impact in relation to

locating the houses on top of a landfill as the landfill currently stands proud of much

of the surrounding landscape. This would create potentially significant visual impact

and overlooking issues.

The developers’ preferred option is to retain materials on site, with localised

relocation of a section of the material being the preferred option.

In correspondence with the Environmental Protection Agency, the developers

consider that retaining all landfill on site and relocating some of it, as proposed, is the

preferred option.


Beach Nourishment.

Beach nourishment constituted Item 3 of the further information sought by An Bord

Pleanála.

The developers consider that beach nourishment is the most appropriate and

sustainable method by which future coastal erosion can be managed between the site

and Bray Head. Material is required to be placed above high tide level up to the cliff

toe. It is proposed that along a stretch of beach 600 metres in length, material would

be spread over the area using a land based bulldozer.

The sourcing of material for beach nourishment is examined in some detail. The

conclusion is that the preferred option is the provision of material from the Codling

Bank, a number of kilometres off-shore and its use in beach nourishment. The

material would be dredged from the Codling Bank, and brought by the dredger to an

off-shore position from where material would be pumped ashore. This would

minimise impact. It would also achieve the shortest possible transport distances.

The developers have met with the Department of Communications, Marine and

Natural Resources but it is not clear as to whether or not that department would issue

a licence for extracting material from the Codling Bank.

Other options include locally sourced quarry material, being transported by road to

the site. It would also include material being transported by sea and road. Initially

the material would be transported by sea to Arklow or Wicklow Port and then

overland to the site. Types of material available at various locations were also

examined however not in great detail.

The developers consider that if the preferred option i.e. the Codling Bank is not

available, then transport by road from a local quarry, Ballyhorsey, is the preferred

option.

Environmental Impact Statement.


The Environmental Impact Statement has been amended to provide for the changes

proposed to the overall development, in the developers’ additional information

submission.

Written Submissions.

Following the submission of additional information to An Bord Pleanála, over 130

submissions have been received by An Bord Pleanála. The majority of these object to

the development resulting from the amendments proposed by the developers.

A limited number of submissions support the proposal.

While many individual objections have been submitted to the proposal a number are

based on similar grounds and constitute a common objection approach.

A number of group submissions have been lodged objecting to the development.

Written objections refer to the excessive scale and size of the development,

notwithstanding the reductions and changes proposed. Objection is still taken in

relation to traffic generation.

Objection is taken to the proposal to use an extensive part of D’Arcy’s Field as a

borrow pit, particularly having regard to new archaeological data made available,

following research on the part of the developers.

In support of the proposal reference is made to its acceptability by reason of reduction

in scale, increased public space, provision of marine clubhouse facilities and the

general overall acceptability of the development resulting from changes required as a

result of the additional information sought by An Bord Pleanála.

ORAL HEARING


In opening the oral hearing the Inspector stated that the additional information sought

by An Bord Pleanála was replied to by the developers. There was also a significant

amount of detail submitted following the developers’ additional information

submission. It was the intention of the reopened hearing to take evidence from the

developers initially, objectors subsequently and finally from supporters of the

proposal. It was not the intention to look in any detail at the substantive issues as they

had largely been gone in to previously.

For the developers Mr. D. Flanagan stated that Section 175 of the 2000 Planning and

Development Act provides the right of An Bord Pleanála to seek additional

information in relation to any matters pertaining to a proposal where, in the opinion of

An Bord Pleanála, such additional information is required to enable them to

adjudicate on the proposal.

What now currently stands before the Board is the proposed development resulting

from the request for additional information.

Item No. 1 falls into a number of categories. There is very significant and detailed

information presented in written form. Supplemental to that is other direct and

indirect impacts which have been outlined in relation to archaeological issues.

The second point, Item No. 2 relates to the old dump and the implications that this

raises in particular the removal of landfill material. It is intended that expert evidence

will set out alternatives in relation to this. Also in relation to this Wicklow County

Council has been in discussion and liasing with the Environmental Protection Agency

which has the statutory remit in relation to landfill.

Item No. 3 relates to beach nourishment and this will be referred to in some detail.

Items 4, 5 and 6 of the additional information was an invitation, by An Bord Pleanála,

to the developers, to look at the proposal in relation to locational elements, scale, and

provision of a meaningful open aspect to the overall proposals and this is replied to in

some detail and would be further supplemented during the course of the hearing.


The presentations by the developers will look at the pros and cons in terms of impact.

The developers have attempted to address the requirements of the additional

information requested by An Bord Pleanála.

For the developers Dr. I. Shanahan stated that she would deal with the environmental

effects and impacts of the concrete batching plant, the casting yard and the borrow pit.

There are two distinct activities proposed. Both are unrelated to each other. In the

first instance a concrete batching plant and an associated casting yard are proposed.

The borrow pit is unrelated to the batching plant and the casting yard.

Both of the activities proposed are temporary. The batching plant will be on site for

approximately 21 months at the start of the development. The borrow pit would be in

place for about 45 weeks. It would not be in continuous operation.

The batching plant is required as there is a significant requirement for concrete to

allow the development to proceed. Concrete will be used to construct the marina wall

and the breakwater. The casting yard would be used in connection with this.

The borrow pit would provide granular fill material for the landside reclamation. This

will result in a net reduction in imports of material onto the site. It will also provide a

repository for suitable dredge material thereby reducing exports off the site. There are

significant environmental benefits to be gained from choosing this option.

It is not intended that material from the borrow pit would be used in the concrete

batching plant.

The borrow pit is outlined in Drg. G2002 Rev A dated 16/10/2006.

The materials constituting the concrete are transported to the site, sand, gravel and

cement.


The batching plant is a temporary facility. When the need for materials does not exist,

the batching plant will be dismantled and taken away.

The borrow pit is intended to recover material for a particular purpose. It is then

intended to restore the landforms using material recovered from another location on

site. The borrow pit will not be in continuous operation for the entire duration of the

particular activity. It would be used only occasionally during the 45 week time frame.

Material will be excavated from the borrow pit and taken to be used for reclamation

on the landward the side of the marina wall. In addition there would be material

dredged from behind the marina wall and harbour and material that cannot be used for

other purposes. That material would be taken and reposited in the borrow pit.

There is a significant environmental benefit associated with the borrow pit.

Some dredged material will be reused. Some will be unsuitable for use and exported

off-site. However materials suitable for repositing in the borrow pit will restore the

landform.

Anything between 2,000 and 8,000 truck movements will not be required off-site as a

result of having the borrow pit activity on site. There is _a large varation in truck

numbers__ because until the dredging is done, the suitability of the different materials

and the nature of the materials being dredged wont be finally established. If it is

2,000 trucks then it is 6,000 truck movements that could be saved as a result of this

activity.

The driving force for choosing the borrow pit option was the environmental benefits

that can be gained from it.

The hours of operation in the batching plant will be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday to

Friday. Saturday operations will be from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. It is not envisaged that

there would be any activity outside of these hours.


There is potential that there might be a requirement for some work to be done under

particular tidal conditions like a spring tide. This might be required to be done on

Sunday or a bank holiday however this would be a very rare occurrence. It would be

signalled well in advance to local residents.

Use of the borrow pit would be non-continuous. Operation times would be 7 a.m. to 7

p.m. Monday to Friday and 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday.

Bringing readymix concrete onto the site would have resulted in 50% more truck

movements per hour than the option chosen.

Pre-casting blocks on the site is a very substantial activity given the 38 tonne size

blocks. Articulated transporting of such material in such bulk would be more

disruptive than the smaller vehicles associated with delivering sand and aggregate.

The wet process in the provision of concrete minimises the potential for dust emission

associated with transferring materials. This is the method chosen.

In terms of air quality, dust or particulate matter would be the main emissions.

Assessment of dust deposition predications have shown that levels of all of the

substances that could be associated with the dust generated are much lower than the

relevant air quality standards.

An air quality standard defines the acceptable level of exposure. As the assessment

showed that all of the levels would be very much slower than the air quality

standards,. it is reasonable to conclude that there won’t be any harmful effects on

health, on visibility or on residential or other amenity.

Noise impact assessment measures each individual activity and combined the impacts.

The prediction is that over a period of an hour continuous noise levels wouldn’t be

above 55 decibels. The standard for construction phase activities is 70 decibels when

expressed as an Laeq over 1 hour. The use of the batching plant, even at the nearest


residence, will produce a maximum noise level that is considerably lower than the

level which would normally be associated with and permissible for construction

activities.

The borrow pit is a non continuous activity. When operating it would add a

maximum of 3 decibels to the noise levels at the nearest residence to the site. This

calculation was carried out with the assumption that the borrow pit would always be

active and took the nearest dwellinghouse, which was 35 metres from the pit. While

this was the assumption, it is not going to happen in reality as for considerable periods

of time areas will be excavated which are at distances further away from the nearest

residences. What is given is the maximum possible impact at the closest residence to

the borrow pit. When the combined impact is considered, if the borrow pit is operated

at the same time as the batching plant, a combined impact provides 59 decibels plus 3

decibels which provides 62. The information has been deliberately presented in that

way so the combined impact is a very substantially lower one than the standard that

would apply to this type of development.

Lighting is an issue which a number of observations have dealt with. The lighting

scheme used will be the minimum required for safety and security. Lights will be

directional meaning that they will point out to sea if that is possible and downwards

whenever that is possible.

The lowest possible intensity of light consistent with safety for operation will be used.

Sensors will be used so that when required for night-time use they will be sensor

activated and then switched off.

A significant feature of the proposal is the Environmental Management Plan for the

project. The emphasis is very much on the managing of impacts and the minimisation

of impacts associated with the construction phase. The Irish Concrete Federation

Code of Practice for environmental operations would be used. A copy of this has

been submitted as part of the detailed documentation.

Sispar and Sisk are part of a consortium that have developed environmental

management plans specifically for this particular project. For any major construction

works a major works environmental plan is prepared. Quality plans as well as health


and safety plans are also drawn up. The projects are approached from the point of

view of providing a scheme of monitoring and mitigation, controlling and managing

impacts associated with developments. This also includes the provision of a senior

manager appointed as an environmental co-ordinator.

A major works programme for the proposal has been devised which provides for all

environmental impacts.

There is daily inspection for dust management and suppression measures. There is

continuous monitoring.

There is a system of daily and weekly noise measurements associated with activities.

There is a monthly audit by an independent consultant. Dr. Shanahan stated that her

company, TMS, have been commissioned to submit proposals for continued

involvement with the site to ensure that the environment plan is inspected

independently on a monthly basis.

There are 55 separate mitigation measures in place to provide proper environmental

management.

A suggestion has been made that the batching plant and casting yard should be

housed. Some small permanent batching plants, might be housed however all casting

yards known to Dr. Shanahan are external. However the critical elements in the plant

are enclosed.

There are very significant benefits in terms of traffic, traffic movements and impacts

associated with the provision of an on-site batching plant and a borrow pit.

Mr. Flanagan stated that in Appendix 6 of the submission of additional information to

An Bord Pleanála a step by step basis outlines a code of practice in relation to the

operation of the batching plant and the on-site conditions generally. The

Environmental Management Plan which is Appendix 6 goes further in many instances

than the Code of Practice.


Presenting evidence on behalf of the developers Dr. N. Brady stated that an

archaeological monitor and geophysical survey was conducted to provide additional

information to An Bord Pleanála on the archaeological potential of the D’Arcy’s Field

location.

This is where it is proposed to locate a temporary concrete batching plant and to

excavate a borrow pit to facilitate construction of the development.

The archaeological work was not required by the National Monuments Section of the

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but rather was

undertaken to ascertain the archaeological potential of D’Arcy’s Field by providing

further information to the existing desktop data from two sources.

Archaeological assessment comprising the monitoring of the site investigation of trial

pits, review of bore hole logs and the acquisition of geophysical data within D’Arcy’s

Field, was completed in September 2006. This has revealed geophysical anomalies at

the northern end of the field indicative of archaeological features and a small series of

lesser features in the central and southern parts of the field.

D’Arcy’s Field lies in Rathdown Lower, south of the known archaeological

monuments of Rathdown Castle and associated settlement and St. Crispin’s Cell.

Reference No. Wicklow 8GH Monuments 11 and 12 located in Rathdown Upper

townland.

The trial pit excavations and bore holes across D’Arcy’s Field did not reveal

archaeologically significant material. Geophysical survey comprising a resistance and

gradiometer survey conducted by Target Archaeological Geophysics identified a

series of features.

The former playing fields, on D’Arcy’s Field, were identified. A service pipeline

trench which serviced the former sewage treatment plant, at the northern end of the

field was identified. The former field boundaries, outlined in the 1840 and 1911

Ordnance Survey 6” maps were identified.


The geophysical survey highlighted three archaeological anomalies at the north end of

D’Arcy’s Field. These are gradiometery and are features A, B and C.

Feature A represents a small circular enclosure approximately 13 metres in diameter

which may have been a burial site or a house.

Feature B represents a larger enclosure ovoid in shape and truncated, measuring

approximately 50 metres by 40 metres in diameter. It may have served as a settlement

site.

Feature C lies south of Feature A and 10 metres in diameter perhaps representing a

house site.

To the south of Features A to C, a lesser series of anomalies were identified in the

middle and southern sections of D’Arcy’s Field. One of these represents a former

field boundary identified on the 1840 map while the others are less distinct and small

in scale. Their archaeological merit is unclear. They are recognised to retain a low

archaeological potential.

The archaeological mitigation arising from this work recommends that the north end

of the field be avoided by all construction works plans. A fence line will be erected

10 metres south of Feature C to ensure this.

A programme of archaeological investigation will be considered for the lesser

anomalies in the central and southern sections of the field in advance of construction

commencing. Such work would consist of machine assisted excavation of test

trenches under archaeological direction. This would be carried out under licence from

the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Archaeological monitoring is recommended of all ground disturbance works during

construction with the proviso to resolve fully any archaeological materials that may

be exposed at that point.


All recommendations are subject to the approval of the Department of the

Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the National Museum of Ireland

at the Department of Arts, Tourism and Transport.

Submissions made to An Bord Pleanála in relation to the archaeological aspects of the

additional information submitted to Wicklow County Council for the proposed

harbour development, were made by the Department of the Environment, Heritage

and Local Government and the Friends of Historic Rathdown.

The Department of the Environment (Development Applications Unit) reaffirmed its

overall requirements for the proper archaeological resolution of the marine aspects of

the scheme. The department also stated that it has no objection to the proposed

development for the works on D’Arcy’s Field for the batching plant/precasting yard.

This is as a result of the developer stating that the department’s previous

recommendations will be implemented. These recommendations are the fencing off

of the northern section of the field, undertaking a programme of archaeological

excavation, archaeological monitoring of all ground disturbances. The second set of

submissions was made by the Friends of Historic Rathdown stating that the

archaeological geophysical survey was conducted thoroughly and expertly and

welcomed the recommendation that the north end of D’Arcy’s Field be avoided by all

construction works. They however felt that further testing was required in the

southern part of the field to assess the lesser anomalies before a decision could be

made on the excavation of the borrow pit and the construction of the temporary

batching plant.

The intention to preserve the archaeological integrity of the Rathdown archaeological

complex is fully supported by Sispar and Wicklow County Council whose report

outlines a detailed mitigation strategy to ensure this.

Archaeological investigation will take place sufficiently in advance of the

construction programme of works to ensure that all due time is provided to resolve

potential archaeological matters before the main works programme in D’Arcy’s Field

gets underway. The developers are committed to ensuring that all archaeological

work is completed in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Heritage

and Local Government.


The proposed borrow pit will not impact upon known features of archaeological

importance in D’Arcy’s Field. The presence of archaeologically sensitive features in

the central and southern part of the field has yet to be clarified. A programme of

archaeological investigation has been recommended and will be implemented.

The Friends of Historic Rathdown submitted that the newly identified features at the

northern end of the field resulting from Sispar’s survey should be included into the

scheduled site at Rathdown. This recommendation has merit however it is a matter

for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to decide on.

The Friends of Historic Rathdown have submitted that scheduled site protection in the

north end of D’Arcy’s Field should extend to the coastline. This recommendation has

merit but is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government to decide upon. There is however no proposal for a haulage route or

other vehicular route along the existing cliff edge. What is proposed here is a safe

pedestrian path outside the development area along the cliff edge to maintain the

situation that exists for the general public at present.

The Friends of Historic Rathdown submitted that landscaping proposals at the north

end of D’Arcy’s Field should be avoided. This recommendation is made in the

archaeological report submitted by Dr. Brady.

The Friends of Historic Rathdown submitted that the numbers of anomalies in the

central and southern part of D’Arcy’s Field be assessed in their archaeological merit

before consideration is given to granting permission. However these anomalies have

come to light as a direct result of the initiative to conduct geophysical surveys at this

stage in the planning process. The report outlines clearly a detailed mitigation

strategy which seeks to clarify whether these features are archaeological or not and

that this process should be completed before construction works commence.

The Friends of Historic Rathdown submitted that topsoil stripping within the central

and southern sector of D’Arcy’s Field will be unacceptable. The Department of the

Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the body which decides on what


mitigation measures are undertaken. The department have already indicated that

monitoring of ground disturbance is acceptable. However that decision will be

subject to review in light of the results of the investigation phase which would clarify

whether the anomalies identified are archaeological or not.

The Friends of Historic Rathdown object to the use of D’Arcy’s Field as a public

park. The field has served as playing fields for many years.

The Friends of Historic Rathdown submitted that cliff grading works alongside

D’Arcy’s Field are inappropriate. Only works necessary for public safety are to be

carried out along the cliff edge and these works will be archaeologically monitored.

The Friends of Historic Rathdown submitted that the future of the Gap Bridge

remained unclear. Removal of the Gap Bridge is not required by the present project.

However in the interest of safety, Sispar and Wicklow County Council have offered to

take the bridge down. In the event that this work is carried out the bridge will be

archaeologically surveyed in detail before works begin and the removal works will be

archaeologically monitored. Recovered cut stone will be reused as part of the amenity

works for the proposed part.

Dr. M. Clinton the archaeological consultant of the Friends of Historic Rathdown

raised a number of additional points which Dr. Brady, commented upon as follows:

In addition to geophysical Features A, B and C in the northern end of D’Arcy’s Field

there is the possibility of a further circular anomaly located 5 metres south-east of

Feature A. This is designated A2 by Clinton who interprets it to be 6/7 metres in

diameter and may represent a burial or a hut site. Dr. Clinton proceeds to speculate

on the archaeological nature of the other anomalies located in the central and southern

sections of the field.

The feature labelled A2 by Dr. Clinton was identified in the geophysical survey as

were other features referred to by Dr. Clinton in his submission. His analysis is a

comment on what he has endorsed as a survey of the highest standard. The fact that

these anomalies were not given further status in the report is because they had not


represented more clearly defined signatures that would suggest they are

archaeologically significant.

In the case of Dr. Clinton’s Feature A2, it is a moot point since this part of D’Arcy’s

Field is to be protected against any impact from the development project. With

respect to the lesser anomalies, a programme of archaeological mitigation has been

recommended to ascertain whether or not they are of archaeological significance in

advance of construction works proceeding in this location.

Dr. Clinton’s Feature D which is not to be confused with Feature D in the geophysical

report, a field boundary, is suggested to be a souterrain or a corn/drying kiln. Either

possibility would highlight an earlier medieval period context. However as Dr.

Clinton, who is a renowned expert on souterrains in Ireland, comments “these

underground passages are markedly rare in the early historic kingdom of Leinster and

in particular of the form suggested here”.

Having regard to the fact that a service trench was located in this area and having

studied the gradiometery data, it is quite unlikely that this anomaly is archaeological

at all. It may best be determined as a localised irregularity in the backfill associated

with the 20th Century pipe trench. Nevertheless the site is to be investigated as part of

the investigation process to clarify its nature.

Dr. Clinton discussed the possibility of the ditch feature identified while monitoring

Trial Pit 5 as being a relict field boundary feature which warrants further attention.

Trial Pit 5 is located in the south-western corner of D’Arcy’s Field. It is a location

that does not show field boundaries in the first edition of the Ordnance Survey map of

1840 as correctly observed by Dr. Clinton. Nor is it on the line of the later field

boundary which enclosed the field further and was plotted on the second edition

Ordnance Survey maps of the early 1900s. Overlying the 1995 Ordnance Survey of

Ireland vertical aerial photograph shows Trial Pit 5 located within the section of waste

ground adjacent to the railway line. This may be a modern feature associated with the

rerouted railway line.


Dr. Clinton has submitted an argument in favour of hand excavation over machine

associated topsoil stripping. The machine assisted clearance is a standard practice

across Ireland. In recommending monitoring of ground disturbance activities in

D’Arcy’s Field the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

has indicated that topsoil stripping is a reasonable mitigation in the present case.

While Dr. Clinton’s suggestion has merit it is a matter for the department to decide

the most appropriate course of action.

Dr. Clinton has proposed that the protected perimeter of 10 metres south of Feature C

is extended to 25 metres in the northern section of D’Arcy’s Field. The decision in

relation to this is one which rests with the department. The department has required

the fencing off of the northern section of the field. While not commenting in further

detail in this regard the indications are that the department is in agreement with the

proposals as submitted in the archaeological report by Sispar.

The submissions by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government do not object to the proposed development proceeding with the work in

D’Arcy’s Field. It has reaffirmed its recommendation for the maritime aspects of the

proposal.

The submission by the Friends of Historic Rathdown commends the archaeological

work commissioned by Sispar and Wicklow County Council and recognises that the

geophysical survey was of the highest standard. Concern has however been raised by

them about the process of mitigation which should follow. Clear and comprehensive

mitigation strategy has been included in the archaeological report. This is aimed at

safeguarding the known archaeological features and assessing further anomalies

whose archaeological merit is unclear. Such work is regulated and policed by the

state authorities whose statutory responsibility it is to ensure that all archaeological

work is conducted to the highest standard.

In a reply to a question from Mr. Flanagan, Dr. Brady stated that it is often the case

that the amount of information currently available to the developers, in terms of

archaeologically, does not become available until after work has commenced. In this


instance there is a significant additional input at an early stage which has led to the

information being available as a result of the investigation of D’Arcy’s Field.

For the developers Dr. B. Madden stated that at the initial oral hearing a detailed

ecological assessment was presented by him based on field surveys and a desk review.

The revised scheme raises no significant ecological issues. The site for the batching

plant and the borrow pit had been included in the original baseline survey. It has no

archaeological interest as it is largely amenity grassland. In relation to sand martins

nesting in the clay cliffs, it was concluded that loss of a section of low cliffs for

potential and future nesting by sand martins is an impact of only slight significance

because it is a relatively short stretch of cliff at the extreme southern end of the

overall cliff system.

The presence of the batching plant is unlikely to have any additional impacts on the

sand martins. The impact by nearby working machinery is unlikely to affect the birds

who readily rest in active sand and gravel quarries.

Continuing his evidence Dr. Madden stated that the proposed borrow pit and batching

plant is not expected to have any significant impact on bats as the field is presently

open grassland which offers poor foraging habitat. Bats will still be able to forage

along the cliff face and along the railway corridor.

For the developers Mr. S. Mason stated that the proposal takes account of the

underlying rationale of the proximity principle under the EU Waste Directives which

seek to minimise the movement of waste and to promote near source solutions under

the principles of best available technology and best practicable environmental options.

The Environmental Protection Agency are the statutory authority with respect to

matters relating to waste related activities. Consultations were held with the EPA

which includes the provision of the reference site investigation and analytical data of

the material in question.


The most appropriate solution remains to remove and redeposit approximately 9,000

cubic metres of material from the southern extent of the old dump and 20,000 cubic

metres approximately across the dump for landscaping purposes.

The relocated material will be monitored by an experienced environmental engineer

or scientist while being excavated, for any contamination which may pose an

environmental risk and such materials will be sampled and analysed for disposal to a

suitable disposal facility as required.

The EPA has advised that once “negligible environment risk”, is associated with the

materials which are being used in the landscaping activities this represents the best

practicable environmental option (BPEO).

Investigation by the developers has established that the risk is negligible.

All material will be capped with a layer of natural soils.

The EPA recommend that the most appropriate course of action would be for the

contractor to obtain a permit under the Waste Management Regulations 1998.

Wicklow County Council are fully aware of their responsibilities in terms of the need

for a permit under the Waste Management Permit Regulations 1998 for the proposed

works. Such a permit would be procured prior to any excavation works on the landfill

taking place.

The proposed works will transform the old dump which is unsightly and of no benefit

to local amenities into a landscaped public park. Also proposed are coastal defences

which will ensure that future erosion will not expose the fill material which is left in

situ.

While there will be short-term environmental effects such as dust and noise

generation these are not significant and will be mitigated through the construction

management plan. The overall long-term environmental effect on the site will be

positive.


The dump closed in 1976.

Due to the varied nature of the fill in the dump and the uncontrolled nature of

dumping while landfill was in operation, any excavation works should be supervised

by an environmental engineer to observe for any unforeseen contaminants within the

landfill if such hotspots were encountered they would have to be segregated and

stockpiled separately. Analysis of the material stockpiled, depending on their

composition, would be required and depending on the results these materials may

have to be removed off-site for disposal with the landfill acceptance criteria

determining whether materials could be deposited.

It is not proposed to truck material off-site unless necessary in order to minimise

trucks movements.

Truck movements at the rate of one truck per 10 cubic metres of material is a

conservative figure used by the developers.

Only inert materials will be reused on site. All excavations works will be monitored

by an environmental engineer.

The reprofiling of the site using available material is in harmony with both the

rationale of the proximity principle and best practicable environmental options. The

do minimum option will not produce as beneficial an end product and will involve the

use of imported material to carry out any necessary reprofiling, further raising ground

levels.

The old dump predated the implementation of the European Landfill Directive. The

site has undergone normal biological maturation in the intervening years since closure

therefore the EPA advise that the material presents a negligible risk. The legislation

in relation to the Landfill Directive and subsequent Irish Regulations are not therefore

applicable. In relation to the EPA Code of Practice on environmental risk

assessments for unregulated waste disposal sites, the development does not fall under

the guidance timeline as the old dump closed in 1976.


In relation to building on or near a landfill and the protection of new buildings and

occupants from landfill gas the site investigation of the old dump included

monitoring. This monitoring demonstrated that the old dump is at the end of its

biological maturation phase in which methane is produced and the available organic

load has been essentially anaerobically and aerobically digested.

This would be expected from a dump which has been closed for over 20 years. This

greatly reduces the risk of gas generation, particularly anaerobically. Exposure of any

remaining organics will lead to accelerated aerobic decomposition rather than

anaerobic.

A number of apartment blocks are proposed to be situated on an area which would

previously have been part of the old dump. This area constitutes the 9,000 cubic

metres of material to be relocated to the northern end of the landfill. Ground floor

levels will be below the base of the fill material remaining within the old dump. No

private gardens will be situated near the remaining dump as the ground between the

last block of housing will be made up of car parking spaces and the roadway. The fill

remaining in situ will be capped so as to allow any future degassing as previously

occurred on the site, ameliorating any possible lateral migration of gases.

In relation to Dutch remediation guidelines for contaminate soil, the parameters and

levels encountered on the site pose no risk. Elevated metal concentrations were

detected in a number of samples tested. This is consistent with the descriptions of the

made ground presented within the logs for the investigation locations where metals

were noted. It is not a given that the source of these metals is from deposited

material. The EPA reached the conclusion that the risk posed was negligible.

The Dutch intervention values are described generic assessment criteria. In this regard

“if the intervention values are exceeded clean-up should be considered unless a

subsequent site specific risk assessment proves otherwise”.

Since the intervention values are generic a site specific qualitative risk assessment

was carried out on the site using the principles of source/pathway/receptor. In this


case the contaminated soils were considered the source with the receptors being the

future site users. Since the main pathways for the contaminants to reach the receptors

would be through the inhalation of soils as fugitive dust and the ingestion of soils by

severing these pathways, the risks will be mitigated. This will be achieved through

the installation of a cap over the affected soils. The cap will be thick enough to allow

vegetation to grow without encountering the main ground beneath. Vegetation will

help to increase the resistance of the cap to erosion. The risk to human health has

been minimised so as to be negligible.

In relation to the proximity principle, the underlying rationale for this is that all effort

should be made to ensure the minimisation of the transport of waste. As a logical

follow-on the EPA and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government have consistently advised that construction and demolition activity

should seek to minimise the generation of waste for external disposal and should seek

to implement design options which maximise on-site reuse. According to the

proximity principle material from the old dump would not have to be accepted by any

facility located abroad. The use of local facilities would represent a more sustainable

option.

In relation to the removal of materials by sea this has been thoroughly investigated.

While there are examples of exporting material by ship from Ireland it requires access

to a suitable quay/dock with sufficient draught to accommodate ocean going vessels.

Part of the remediation of the Sir John Rogerson's Quay gasworks site in Dublin

Docklands, used a conveyor belt system to transport soils directly from the site into

the awaiting ships. Only highly contaminated and hazardous materials were exported

in this way. This would have accounted for about 30% of all excavated soils on that

site.

Removal of soils by sea from Greystones would require transport by road to a suitable

quay/dock or alternatively construction of a substantial temporary berthing facility

with its own adverse environmental effects and potentially significant programme

effects.


In relation to protecting the dump on an eroding coastline, as indicated in the EIS and

subsequent reports, the proposed development works including the groyne to create a

sheltered beach area and the ongoing beach nourishment will lead to accretion which

is the accumulation of material along the southern section of the north beach. The

rock revetment proposed along the edge of the old dump is provided to protect the old

dump from erosion which is mainly a risk at the construction stage of the works.

In relation to beach nourishment the aim of the transport of the beach nourishment

material report was to reinvestigate different methods of transport for the beach

nourishment material including transporting by sea and by road.

The conclusion reached is that the original proposal of bringing in the material by

road is still the most viable and sustainable solution.

In relation to obtaining suitable material for beach nourishment the developers

investigated potential quarry sources including samples taken around Ireland and in

Wales. It is intended to use material which matches the current beach material as

closely as is practicable of the samples looked at. The Wicklow sample from

Ballyhorsey would be the better match.

Some replenishment work was done on Bray seafront a few years ago. The material

used there was dredged from the Codling Bank so it is pretty much the same material.

The Ballyhorsey material is suitable as beach nourishment material. There is

sufficient quantity available for the required 30 years of supply.

In relation to the availability of suitable ports for earth moving material the only

quarry on the east coast of Ireland with direct access to water is Arklow Quarry. This

is a hard rock quarry which does not contain the natural sand and gravel material

required for beach nourishment material.

Material would therefore have to be brought from an inland quarry to a loading quay

where a seagoing vessel could moor. For each quarry the most suitable loading quay

was established. This is indicated in the original submission following the request for


additional information. The road stone jetty in Arklow was considered most suitable

for the Ballyhorsey Quarry.

Placing beach nourishment material from the sea can be done with a split barge,

pontoon or a side tipping vessel. A pontoon would only be available to work in very

calm seas. This is non viable for Greystones. The other two options are viable

although the split barge may have difficulties coming close enough to the shore in

neap tides.

The side dumping vessel has been used along this coastline quite regularly. The ship

carrying beach nourishment material needs to come close enough to the shore to

ensure that the material can be retrieved by an excavator. This requires calm

conditions.

The new harbour has no quay wall long enough to take a barge. The marina is laid

out in such a way that larger boats are moored close to the entrance. Only the smaller

boats can manoeuvre into the north-west corner.

To bring a barge into the marina some of the fixed and swing moorings will have to

be removed. This will affect the capacity of the harbour and the marina. Bringing a

barge into the harbour would be physically very difficult.

The marina and harbour are public spaces which would be completely disrupted,

closed off and most likely damaged by the off-loading of beach nourishment material.

The small harbour and leisure marina are unsuitable locations for the operation of

barges, excavators and earth moving trucks. It is considered that this is not a suitable

place for such an activity.

Providing material for beach nourishment from the Codling Bank would need to be by

a suction dredger. Because the mobilisation costs of a suction dredger are very high,

it would only be viable to carry out the beach nourishment with these vessels in 5 to

10 year periods. In reply to questions from the Inspector Mr. Mason stated that this 5

to 10 year period was based on the availability of barges and on the economics of the

operation.


Mr. Mason stated that removing material from the Codling Bank was a statutory

process which would require license. It would not be practicable to do this on an

annual basis.

Suction dredgers cannot operate in shallow waters however they can spray material on

to shore from a distance.

The Bray beach nourishment was carried out with materials recovered from the

Codling Bank and pumped directly ashore by means of pipes from the suction

dredger. The suction dredger could be used for delivery of quarry material however it

is practically and economically unlikely.

In reply to a question from the Inspector, Mr. Mason stated that he had some general

details of the type of operation undertaken at Bray. It was administered by Bray

Urban District Council.

The most desirable form of transport for beach nourishment material would be

retrieval from the Codling Bank and pumping onto the beach at Greystones. This is

however completely dependent on obtaining a license from the Department of

Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. It therefore cannot be proposed or

imposed by condition in any planning permission.

In practical terms it would be most viable and sustainable to bring material in by road

from a local quarry such as Ballyhorsey. This operation would be carried out once a

year in Spring in a well organised and safe manner.

In relation to the old dump Mr. M. Boland from the Environmental Section of

Wicklow County Council stated that he had gone through the old files relating to the

Greystones dump. It has ceased operation in 1976.

Mr. Flanagan stated that while April 1976 was the official date of closure that is not to

say that there may have been unauthorised tipping on the site.


In relation to the removal of landfill material from one part of a site to another in the

case of the provision of the Port Tunnel at Fairview Park, the EPA considered that the

replacement of excavated old landfill material was the best practical environmental

option.

In reply to further questions from the Inspector, Mr. Mason stated that there was no

necessity to reimport material onto the site if the landfill was removed from the site,

unless it was the intention of the developer to replicate the existing contours on the

site resulting from the deposition of landfill material.

In reply to further questions from the Inspector in relation to the use of a new harbour

for importing beach nourishment material, Mr. Mason stated that the overall impact of

bringing material by sea for the replenishment would be a factor of the size of the

vessel. This would also dictate the number of visits. Smaller vessels than indicated by

Mr. Mason in his direct evidence could potentially be used. The developers have not

located anything, however smaller vessels might be available.

The size of vessels indicated by the developers would accommodate 500 tonnes which

would equate to approximately 250 cubic metres of material. This would result in 24

or 25 trips to provide the 6,000 tonnes required for beach nourishment.

Nourishment would be undertaken within a certain period of time in the Spring before

the beach is in use.

Mr. Mason stated that in relation to the Codling Bank there is a windfarm in the

vicinity as well as a proposal to further develop windfarms on the bank. There are

also fishing grounds.

For the developers Mr. D. McDaid stated that he presented the traffic and

transportation evidence on behalf of the developers in the oral hearing in 2006.

His evidence to the current hearing would present traffic impacts of the proposed

development modifications as well as responding to specific submissions relating to

transport.


There would be a reduction in the amount of traffic generated by the development

resulting from the reduction in the amount of developments. The number of

residential units has been reduced by 34 from 375 to 341.

There would be a reduction of between 9 and 13% in traffic generation. There would

be an associated reduction in traffic impact on the local road network. There would

be a decrease in the off-street car parking requirement of 104 spaces. The new

requirement would be 953 spaces.

The development proposes a modification to access the site off Beech Road. The

enlargement of the public square facilitates a redesign of the access into the

development. This is in response to Items 4 and 5 of the additional information

request. This relates to the elimination of any potential impact and improving the

environment for pedestrians. This is achieved by the introduction of a separate access

for the harbour, public parking and boat storage at the clubhouses. The revised layout

provides two access points, one to the main area of the site and the other to the

general harbour area.

The two accesses are approximately 70 metres apart. They would therefore operate

independently.

It is proposed to reduce the speed limit to 30 kph on Beach Road. It is also proposed

to include a change of road material treatment including raised speed tabling.

In relation to the submission on behalf of the Greystones Protection and Development

Association by Boreham Consulting Engineering Limited, queries were raised in

relation to results of the assessment of the proposed modified development and the

access arrangements.

There is no issue with reporting in the degree of saturation as opposed to the ratio of

flow to capacity arising from the use of the Pickady programme. This is the software

used in the junction assessment. There is no issue with reporting results as a degree

of saturation as they are effectively the same measurable quantity. The only real

difference is the degree of saturation is reported as a percentage while ratio flow

capacity is reported as a ratio for example 0.85 rather than 85%.


Degree of saturation is defined as the ratio flow demand to the maximum flow which

can be passed through the intersection from a particular approach.

Reference is also made to the revised harbour access junction layouts and the

proximity of the new harbour car park access to the modified Cliff Road junction with

Beach Road/Trafalgar Road. It is stated by the objectors that the proximity is

substandard with reference to the design manuals for roads and bridges (DMRB). It is

considered therefore that this will result in turning movements and traffic from both

junctions conflicting. There is also suggestion that the harbour development junction

should have right turning pockets for traffic exiting.

The design vision is to create a low speed urban pedestrian friendly environment

within and adjacent to the harbour area.

The design manual for roads and bridges (DMRB) primarily relates to the design

standards for trunk roads that is not fully or directly applicable in more urban, low

speed environments. For example the new access junctions to the proposed harbour

development have been purposely narrowed to facilitate short pedestrian crossings

rather than widened to two lanes on exit as suggested which would create an

imbalance of car dominated design.

The Traffic Management Guidelines note that “for priority junctions in an urban

context, side road junction mouths should be as compact as possible, this reduces

pedestrian crossing times, assists cyclists and discourages inappropriate vehicle

turning speeds.”

The 50 metre junction spacing suggested is not relevant in this particular instance in

an urban situation where through careful design a low speed will be achieved.

Traffic calming for new residential roads, as contained in the Traffic Management

Guidelines (Chapter 7) states that:


Drivers slow down when turning or yielding at junctions. The careful

positioning of priority junctions can assist in restraining speed along a length

of road. An acceptable spacing between adjacent junctions in a low 30 kph

speed environment is in the order of 30 metres. This is approximately what is

proposed in this instance.

The adjoining Cliff Road is effectively a one-way street off Beach Road/Trafalgar

Road. It remains two-way only for a short distance to provide access to

approximately four residential dwellings. The level of traffic therefore exiting from

Cliff Road onto Beach Road/Trafalgar Road is extremely low. The 50 metre junction

spacing reference from the design manual for roads and bridges generally relates to

stopping sight distance criteria. In this instance, there are clear open views from each

junction and on the approach to each junction to ensure good forward visibility while

driving through a traffic calmed low speed environment.

The proposals represent acceptable safe and good practice urban design principles and

will provide an enhancement to the local area.

The issue of the location of the bus stop on the northern side of Beach Road was

raised in the context of visibility from the harbour junctions. There is excellent

visibility in all directions from both harbour access junctions given the open nature of

the area. This results typically in acceptable sight distances from at least 4.5 metres

back from the stop line on the minor arms of the access junctions in question.

When occasionally buses pull into the lay-by on the northern side of Beach Road

there will remain an appropriate level of acceptable visibility from a distance of 2.4

metres back from the junction. These are acceptable for a low speed environment.

The impact of the proposed beach nourishment campaign each year is considered, by

the developers, to be negligible in terms of available road capacity.

In reply to the number of questions from the Inspector Mr. McDaid stated that the

area was effectively very much a low speed environment in that the road crossed

sections are typically narrow. At the bend in the road coming around from Trafalgar


Road to Beach Road the geometry of the road is also conducive to a low speed

environment by physically changing the appearance of the area. It is the intention to

use block paviors typical to what is inside the harbour area. This would reinforce the

feeling that it is a low speed mixed environment. The 30 kph speed area would

commence to the west of the bridge.

In clarification Mr. R. O’Hanlon stated that he was the engineer operating with

Wicklow County Council in the Greystones area office. Discussions have taken place

between the developers and the area engineers in relation to the provision of a 30 kph

speed limit as well as the provision of other speed control measures. The 30 kph

speed limit will commence between the junction of Rathdown Road, Church Road

and the bridge at Beach Road.

Mr. Flanagan stated that there would be a statutory procedure under the traffic acts to

produce a 30 kph speed limit however it is one which is supported by the County

Council generally and by the Gardai.

For the developers Mr. M. Hussey stated that he was the project architect with

O’Mahony Pike Architects. The design and amendments to the development had

been prepared jointly by O’Mahony Pike Architects, Broadway Malyan and Mitchell

Associates in a collaboration on the design of the new enlarged harbour open space.

Changes were brought about to the proposal in response to Items 4, 5 and 6 of An

Bord Pleanála’s request for additional information.

The omission of Blocks B, C and adjacent Terrace 13 and the redesign of the area

located at the southern end of the new development described as Courtyard 1 within

the original proposal allows for the creation of an enlarged harbour public space. This

would be traffic free.

Block D has been redesigned. The clubhouse buildings have also been redesigned.

The new harbour will have a meaningful use as a new public square providing

numerous public facilities and amenities including landscaped gardens, seating areas,

walkways, sculpture, place for gathering, public functions and festivals.


The new space will be free of buildings and traffic stretching from the bottom of

Trafalgar Road to the redesigned Block D on the southern edge of the new

development a distance of some 160 metres.

It is designed as a public place, accessible and permeable with an open aspect located

between the existing houses and buildings of Cliff Road, North Beach and the new

development. It is proposed to integrate the new harbour front buildings, where these

now form two edges of the new harbour side space thereby maintaining and

complementing the harbour side setting.

New traffic arrangements are included. A separate access to serve North Beach is

intended. A new access is also proposed for the coastguard, clubs and harbour uses.

These proposals prevent traffic from crossing or interfering with the use of the new

harbour side public space while removing the potential for conflict or congestion in

this location.

The creation of the new harbour side space will provide for better relationship

between the new development and the existing Victorian seafront buildings.

Building D will have a different scale and character which responds to a greater

degree to the existing buildings both on North Beach and on the harbour front.

The overall height of Building D is three-storeys. This is an attempt to respond to

Bayswater Terrace which itself is a terrace of two-storey housing.

The clubhouse redesign has reduced both the scale and height of these buildings. The

clubhouses have been reorganised and laid out in a largely single-storey structure with

the sailing club having the only two-storey element. Individual clubs are gathered

into a single building about a shared central courtyard space. A compact building

form is created which will reduce both the visual impact and physical appearance of

the clubhouse facilities.


The clubhouse building has been relocated to the most eastward location immediately

inside the new southern breakwater. The relocation of the clubhouses will remove the

buildings from the southern site boundary along Cliff Road and away from the

residential buildings.

Continuing Mr. M. Hussey stated that the redesigned clubhouses will effectively

minimise any visual intrusion and impact on visual amenity.

Other minor amendments have been made to this scheme. Some two-storey houses

have been placed beside the existing North Beach houses. Buildings G and J have

been modified.

However the alignment of the boardwalk and the continuation of the Trafalgar Road

axis northwards is maintained. The clear and legible sequence of public spaces

through the scheme is maintained through Basins 1 and 2 and the north cove square

arriving at the new public park. This sequence of space is fundamental to the original

proposals and remains within the amended scheme.

The enlarged public square at the heart of the old harbour area will greatly benefit the

town. Over time as the town expands in size and function it could become the

primary civic space and the main focus of Greystones on the new harbour front.

The new square is framed by two modern canopy structures creating the visual

enclosure between them and the existing beach house building. This frame allows for

a strong link between the existing Victorian Road and the new harbour and is

essentially the framing of an existing view. It will act as a gateway to the

development about which the roadways are directed.

Canopies are rooted into the ground on bold concrete polished piers within a

lightweight roof structure suspended above these piers. Tensile wires connected to

steel columns are used to be reflective of the Maritime structures. At night, lighting of

the soffit will further enhance the idea that the roof floats above the ground..

Tall signage columns repeat the rhythm set by the piers, signage and decoration

creating a dramatic and colourful place.


The hard landscaping will be a combination of granite flags and sets to provide a

quality robust space. The street is purposely pushed to the edges of the square to

allow maximum flexibility and use.

In contrast to the hard nature of the public square and harbour the areas between the

public square and Block D have been designed as a series of smaller interlocking

landscape spaces which will attract different users. A dramatic grass pyramid is

created at the road entrance to the residential and public park areas. In a

predominantly flat environment it was considered important to create some vertical

element marking the new development. It serves as a counter point to the hard public

square but also a signpost that this route leads north towards the public park. The

grassed areas and meadows also act as soft areas in front of the existing houses.

In front of Block D the planting lifts out from the paving level and rises into a series

of planters to enclose the café square immediately to the south of Block D. The café

square is intended for the cafes and restaurants to extend out into the outdoors to

enjoy the setting and add considerable vitality to the public realm.

The clubhouse buildings and boat storage areas are located on the most eastward

position within the masterplan. The landscape is stark, simple and robust in response.

This area will facilitate boating activity, loading and launching of boats and dinghies

and consequently the entire edge onto the shingle beach is purposely kept open and

uncluttered. Broad concrete steps drop down from the quay edge towards the beach

with slipways located on either end as the beach profile moves in response to

conditions these steps will become either more or less exposed with sand and shingle.

The paving crescent directly adjacent to the harbours edge will be dressed with

granite flags and granite sets reflective of historic quay edges. The boatyard will be

constructed in in situ cast concrete to create large flexible working areas. Public

parking is provided at two locations adjacent to the boat storage area and near the café

square. The layout allows boat users to drive down to the harbour quay and offload

trailers and equipment and then park cars within easy walking distance of activities.

Visitors to the new development or harbour side space can access parking which


overlooks the grass meadow areas. The parking courts have been designed as

possible expansion spaces to the public square if required to accommodate festivals or

other events.

Structured tree planting has been introduced to frame views or spaces creating micro-

climate by deflecting and reducing the wind to bring a vertical green element into an

otherwise hard landscaped area. The monkey puzzle tree is proposed for its

commanding silhouette and its hardiness in exposed climatic conditions.

In relation to clubhouse buildings a number of alternative locations were investigated

to redesign and relocate the clubhouses outside the harbour area and also to redesign

and relocate within the harbour area.

A fundamental requirement of each of the clubs is to be adjacent to facilities which

allow for safe access to launch facilities and the supervision of Maritime activities.

Ancillary facilities for secure training, maintenance and storage must be of a standard

to ensure viable and working community club use. Consultation with the clubs

clarified many of the requirements with specific emphasis on location and the need

for proximity to the harbour and its associated facilities.

The preferred and proposed location is the redesign and relocation of the clubhouses

into a largely single-storey complex.

The buildings are set back approximately 5 metres inside the southern breakwater,

aligned with the protective wave wall to the north of the coastguard building to

provide a degree of overtopping protection and also facilitating the provision of a

pedestrian way from Cliff Road down in to the harbour area.

Amendments to Buildings G and J include accommodation for part of the third floor.

The additions to these buildings completes the enclosure of the adjoining public space

creating a strong parapet level about the southern and northern edges and giving a

balance and symmetry to the framing of the views both out of these spaces over the

marina and seaward and also inward.


The western edge of the main access spine has been modified to provide some two-

storey houses adjacent to the existing houses along North Beach while at the same

time moving Building L so that it would still form the western edge of the retained

public space at Basin 1. These amendments retain the profile roof line along the

western side of the main access street where the three-storey buildings are located to

define public spaces or denote gateway points.

Two separate access points are proposed.

The overall development has been reduced by 34 residential units of which 12 are

one-bed apartments, 9 two-bed apartments and 7 three-bed apartments. 6 three-bed

houses have been removed also. The commercial floor areas have been reduced by

approximately 800 square metres.

Overtopping has been referred to by the Greystones Sailing Club. This does occur in

extreme conditions. It will occur along the southern breakwater. The club buildings

will also be subject to overtopping at these times however they are designed and

engineered to withstand the impacts of potential overtopping with particular attention

to the outer wall elements and roof areas of the single-storey buildings while the

upper floor structure of the sailing club along the exposed north, south and west

facades is designed against potential overtopping. It will include other protective

measures such as raised cills, reinforced glazing and protective shutters.

The view north over the harbour from the clubhouses will be somewhat restricted as a

result of the coastguard building but balcony areas at first floor level will allow for

greater oversight. The open boat storage areas are provided with a three metre fence

and controlled access.

The existing sailing club building contains approximately 190 square metres of floor

space. The proposed building is approximately 455 square metres.

The existing storage area to the sailing club is 825 square metres while the proposed

storage area extends to 1,540 square metres. Overall this constitutes in effect a

doubling of current facilities.


The redesigned scheme provides for the maintenance of views to the north and west

of the harbour and ensures that the impressive views of Bray Head to the north from

the harbour are uninterrupted. The creation of the enlarged harbourside space and the

pushing back of the building line to Block D means that views to the west and to the

Sugar Loaf are retained.

For the developers Mr. T. Durney stated that casting yards and batching plants are

normally acceptable subject to suitable precautions. They are an essential use as part

of the construction industry and An Bord Pleanála has granted permission with

conditions for many all over the country.

Greystones currently lacks a civic space of stature. The provision of the new public

square will provide this. The expansion of the population to circa 25,000 people

would bring demands for notable spaces of this nature. The town needs major

infrastructure in terms of public space. The new square would form the core setting

for what is sometimes called a social, cultural public realm which in plain English

means spaces for formal and informal public enjoyment, contact and civic

engagement.

The proposed development will increase the number of people using the space not

only because of the additional working and residential population but also because of

the harbourside commercial element, the restaurants, the shop etc., which will be

attractive for visitors.

The space in itself is unique in its character. There are no directly comparable public

spaces of this scale in Ireland leading out to a beach/harbour. It will therefore have a

strong sense of place. I think in urban design terms you are always of conscious of

trying to create that unique sense of place and undoubtedly I think this proposal

achieves that. It will represent Greystones in the public imagination by retaining the

picturesque in terms of the existing Victorian buildings, which define much of the

space, but also by demonstrating the town’s dynamism in creating new

complementary urban forms to the north. It will strongly signal both the beginning

and the end of the Greystones to Bray coastal walk.


The public square is designed for everybody. It is intended to attract the general

public including elderly, children, shoppers, café visitors and tourists as well as club

users and boating enthusiasts. It is this multiplicity of attractions drawing a wide

range of users together with the high design qualities of the space that will make it

successful.

The construction period will be reduced by 4 months as a result of the reduction in the

overall development. There will also be a reduction in the retail element, the waste

generated and the landscape impacts.

The proposed development is specifically limited in commercial floorspace to meet

neighbourhood as well as specialist visitor needs given the unique harbour side

setting. It was not intended that the proposal will compete in scale or uses with the

nearby town centre retail area or with other retail developments. The proposed

development will assist in the consolidation of the existing retailing core of

Greystones.

Any retail development in Charlesland has to justify its need in a Retail Impact

Statement. However the county manager and the planning staff of Wicklow County

Council were opposed to the rezoning of the Charlesland lands for reasons of adverse

impact.

There are no firm plans to relocate schools from the area to the east of the railway

line.

The proposal fully accords with the National Spatial Strategy and the National

Development Plan both in population and preferred residential location. The

Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area envisage large growth

towns such as Greystones and Delgany as being commercial self sustaining with a

population of up to 25,000 persons. The recently adopted Local Area Plan would

allow for a population of 23,175 by 2012 assuming all zoned lands were developed

and occupied. This is highly unlikely to occur.


The Local Area Plan also allows for the development of the subject residential

element of the proposal as part of that growth.

The 2006 census of population shows that there has been a drop in the population of

Greystones from 7,315 to 7,016, or 2.9%. This is the first time that such a fall has

occurred in living memory as Greystones has been characterised by constant

population growth. It therefore reinforces the argument of the subject development as

all public planning policy documents advocate the consolidation of existing town

areas particularly those close to public transport nodes.

The proposed development will interact in a meaningful way with the Victorian town.

There will be a distinct contrast between the new development and the Victorian

character of the existing harbour development. Rather than merging the two

architectural forms there will be a distinct contrast.

The existing protected structures in the area were never directly impacted upon by the

proposed development given their separation from the development. However

separation has now increased in distance. In the case of houses along Cliff Road the

clubhouses are now 24 metres away from the nearest protected structure. The

previous figure was several metres. They also may be single-storey at a lower ground

level. The impact as previously occurred with two-storeys is in no way similar.

The protected houses on Victoria Road are now 112 metres at the nearest point from

the proposed development. They were formerly quite close at 14 metres. These

houses do not have a direct visual relationship with the proposed development given

the intervening structures.

There is no direct impact on the protected structures. In townscape terms both sets of

buildings can be seen in contrasting separate and complementary juxtaposition.

In relation to views into and out of the development, Views 1 and 2 originally

submitted were long distance views as seen from the cliff walk. The proposed

redesign does not have any impact on these views.


View 3 is an accurate description. View 4 is also a proper assessment and accurate

description.

View 6, northwards from the public coast road is an accurate representation of what is

proposed.

For the Planning Authority Ms. S. Walsh stated that the Local Area Plan was not in

place at the time of the last oral hearing. It has been referred to in a number of

submissions. While it is not strictly relevant to the issues raised in the further

information request it has been raised in submissions.

The Local Area Plan was adopted in December 2006.

The revised submission by the developers to An Bord Pleanála fully accords with the

provisions of the Local Area Plan and indeed the Action Plan for the area.

One significant change made to the Local Area Plan related to land in Charlesland

owned by a company called Zapi Developments. These lands were changed in the

Local Area Plan from employment use zoning to residential, and a mix of

employment and office use with a significant element of retail use. This was in spite

of the fact that the proposal was opposed by the Executive of Wicklow County

Council.

Although the site is 2.5 kilometres from the core retail area of Greystones it has the

potential to impact negatively on the vitality and vibrancy of the town centre.

The provision of retail accommodation at the harbour could also be impacted.

What is proposed in commercial floorspace at the harbour is intended to complement

the town centre.

The local area plan does not promote the relocation of the two existing schools from

east of the railway line to another location.


Mr. C. Hayden stated that he was President of the Greystones and District Chamber.

The Chamber supported the proposed development in particular the creation of a new

public square provided in the current proposals. This would be a major benefit to the

community and the business community alike. It has the potential to host exhibitions,

concerts and art festivals, street theatre and even possibly the National Boat Show.

The economic benefits of a facility like this are endless. Commerce will thrive in this

area of Greystones once these facilities are in place.

The proposal will also have a major benefit to tourism.

The proposal is also fully supported by the County Wicklow Chamber.

Mr. J. White stated that his submission was presented on behalf of the Greystones

Rowing Club, the Greystones Motor Yacht Club, the First Wicklow Sea Scouts

Greystones, the Greystones Ridge Angling Club, the Greystones Fishermen and the

Wicklow Aquanauts, who are based in Greystones.

This is a joint submission by regular users of the harbour and surrounding area. It is

in support of the proposed relocation and new design of the clubhouse section of the

development.

The rowing club will benefit greatly as the new facilities will mean space to store

boats indoors and the use of toilets and showers which are not available at present.

There will also be proper launching facilities.

The recently formed Greystones Motor Yacht Club welcomes the proposal which will

allow it to provide a sailing school and power boat instruction. Members of the club

intend to use the marina.

The sea scouts have been active in and around the harbour since 1908. They support

the development. At present their facilities are almost 500 metres from the water.

This results in the need to transport all equipment by trailer or by hand along a very

busy road with safety concerns.


The Greystones Ridge Angling Club is one of the main users of the harbour. The club

is in full support of the location of the club facilities currently proposed. The Wicklow

Aquanauts are based in Greystones and fully support the proposal. At present the club

does not have any facilities at the harbour.

Local fishermen support the proposal as it will have a particularly positive impact. A

number of the group keep their boats in Greystones Harbour but there is significant

difficulty with security, lack of amenities and damage to boats due to the lack of

shelter currently provided by the harbour. Catches have to be landed at Wicklow

Harbour due to the lack of access at Greystones Harbour. This would be greatly

improved if the development is carried out.

The provision of a coastguard station is also welcome.

Councillor D. Mitchell stated that he was a member of Wicklow County Council and

also Mayor or Greystones.

Moving the apartments north and using the height of the side facing the square as well

as reducing the impact of the clubhouses, has made an excellent scheme. It will

produce the best public square in Ireland, larger than Smithfield and overlooking an

excellent community harbour. It will solve 100 year old problems.

8 of the 9 town councillors have consistently supported the plan. Of the objections

about 1,700 came from Delgany which is 10% of the population.

Permission should be granted for the scheme subject to a number of minor

amendments.

The location of the clubhouses is acceptable.

It would be preferable that beach nourishment take place every 5 or 10 years from the

off-shore banks.


There have been areas where deposition of beach material has occurred, at south

beach.

While the plan protects the beach at the southern and central part of the cliffs it does

not cover the northern part. Erosion here is occurring at a fast rate. It has resulted in

closure of the cliff walk since last year. If surface water was properly channelled it

would greatly reduce the amount of erosion at the northern and central end of the

beach. A scheme of land drainage would not be particularly expensive however it

would protect the cliffs.

What is proposed is a doubling of the facilities available to Greystones Sailing Club.

This is a major improvement. The proposed sailing clubhouse would be in a prime

position in the harbour.

There should be a boat yard probably in part of the public park where people can store

boats when they are maintaining them. There is a need to place boats on shore and

work on them at any harbour.

There should be an extension of public parking at the harbour area.

For Greystones Sailing Club Mr. G. Cannon stated that he did not wish to make a

special case for the sailing club except insofar as the requirements of the club are

different to those of other organisations using the harbour.

The sailing club currently owns its own clubhouse and boat storage area.

The location of the new clubhouse is really the primary concern of the sailing club.

The location and design of the new premises is crucial to the ongoing success of the

club. The club has not been fully consulted prior to publication of the final proposals.

The plan fails to take account of the needs of the sailing club.

In the current proposal the club will be split between the clubhouse building and the

boat storage yard.


The location for the clubhouse is essentially on the sea walls. In some conditions the

club would be subjected to inundations by overtopping waves. The architects have

agreed that the buildings would have to be designed and engineered to withstand the

impacts of overtopping. This is not acceptable, appropriate nor sustainable.

The club insurers have informed them that the likelihood of overtopping would be

likely to preclude flood cover from any insurance policy taken out on the new

clubhouse. This would be a very serious matter for the club which must then be

addressed by adequate provisions being included in the design phase to safeguard the

clubhouse from flood damage.

It is important that the clubhouse and storage areas are sited adjacent to each other.

Because of the relevant locations of the sailing club and the coast yard building, the

use of the harbour entrance and the sailing area to the north of the harbour would be

severely restricted. This is a potentially serious safety issue especially for younger

and less experienced sailors.

A number of alternative locations for the clubs were examined. The sailing club were

not involved in this exercise.

A location other than that currently proposed for the sailing club would provide

uninterrupted oversight of the launch area and the harbour entrance. It would provide

a sheltered site for the clubhouse free from the overtopping that would occur in the

exposed location proposed.

If the sailing club was relocated within the harbour its presence would form a lively

and vital part of the fabric of the harbour.

The sailing club building and pen should be located together in a single location in the

heart of the harbour. The main concern is to do with the actual location of the

clubhouse building. The traditional sailing area is in front of the north beach and up to

Bray Head. This is a safe natural area. The preferred location is centrally in the public

square area. This has been referred to by Councillor Mitchell as in front of the chip

shop. That is the kind of area. It may be near the public square. However what is


proposed is a harbour development and is not a public square. It would not be out of

place.

The issue is not about the size of the clubhouse. It is more its location.

There were concerns in relation to title to the premises. The club would request

freehold of any new proposed premises. There is also concern that the club should be

able to apply for a licence to serve intoxicating liqueur to its members. There is

concern in relation to liability to value added tax and/or stamp duty with the club

moving from its existing building to a new building.

There should be insufficient storage facility available and off-street car parking for

club members.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association Mr. J. Fox stated An

Bord Pleanála in their letter of 14th August 2006, to the developers, requesting further

information, also appear to instruct the developers in certain areas.

On the second page of the letter at Paragraph 6 it is stated:

“In relation to the issues raised in 4 and 5 above, it is considered that Blocks B

and C and adjacent Terrace 13 should be omitted from the proposed

development.”

It is the use of the word “should” and the line that is used in the sentences following

which are a concern to the Greystones Protection and Development Association. It is

not clear if the letter is seeking information or if it is instructional. It has all the

appearance of being instructional.

In reply the Inspector stated that the words “shall” and “should” are the two which

seem to give people the greatest problems in relation to interpretation. “Should”

appears to connote “maybe”. In the use of the word “shall” there is no maybe about it.

“Should” is somewhat directional. “Shall” is totally directional. Use of the word

“shall” in the letter of the 14th August 2006, may have been more appropriate.


Continuing Mr. Fox stated that the letter seeks information in accordance with Section

175(5)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

There has been little or no information furnished by the proposers as to the nature of

the contractual relationship between Sispar and Wicklow County Council, particularly

concerning the acquisition of the foreshore and the gifting of it to a developer. It is

remarkable that An Bord Pleanála has not sought this information in the letter seeking

additional information from the proposers. This is the information which the people

in Greystones and beyond would like to have, the contract and the valuation as to the

foreshore closure of rights of way.

Transparency should be available in public/private partnership arrangements. This is

a precedent acquisition of foreshore and a gift to the developer which is going to have

repercussions right across the country.

The modified proposals do not in any meaningful way address the concerns raised by

objectors.

There is no evidence that the revised development is in an way more acceptable to the

community in Greystones than the original.

The resubmitted development has failed in almost all aspects to address the concerns

of An Bord Pleanála.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association Mr. O.Reynolds gave

evidence in relation to traffic. The revised traffic arrangements has been reviewed.

An Bord Pleanála requested that the development be redesigned to achieve a

reduction in traffic. However based on the objector’s estimates the reduction in the

overall content of development will not result in a significant reduction in traffic

generated compared with the original scheme.

In traffic engineering terms 10% is considered to represent the expected variation in

traffic conditions on a day-to-day basis. The Institution of Highways and

Transportation Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments states in Paragraph 3.1.3


“traffic flow on any uncongested road frequently varies by up to 10% on a

day-to-day basis. In congested conditions where flow variations are smaller it

may be difficult, if at all possible, to distinguish these variations from traffic

specifically related to new development.”

The reduction in traffic is not considered to be significant.

The amended Environmental Impact Statement does not appear to have been amended

sufficiently to reflect revised traffic conditions as exist today.

Continuing Mr. Reynolds stated that the traffic survey information on which the

original traffic impact assessment was based was obtained in 2005.

A revised traffic survey was carried out by the objectors during March 2007 to

establish current network flows. This survey confirms that the current 2007 a.m. peak

hour traffic flow on Rathdown Road is 804 vehicles per hour with the peak hour being

8.15 a.m. to 9.15 a.m. and that equates to 884 passenger car units assuming a heavy

goods vehicle content of 5%. This compares with the 485 two-way pcu volume as

used by Arup in the original EIS.

It can be concluded therefore that the original traffic volumes upon which the EIS is

based are wholly unrepresentative of existing network pre-conditions or

traffic growth in Greystones is running at 35% per annum which is doubtful.

A new Traffic Impact Assessment should have been undertaken. In relation to the

new access arrangements to the site, the design manual for roads and bridges has been

referred to. This manual governs all matters such as junction space, sight line,

stopping distance, overtaking distance etc, on public roads. There is no other

standard.

The DMRB has been adopted by the Department of the Environment and Local

Authorities throughout Ireland.


Section 7.3.2 of the County Development Plan in relation to roads, design and layout

states:

“The Council’s road requirements would be based on:

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Traffic Management

Guidelines and the Cycle Manual.”

The DMRB at TD41/95 sets out the sight line requirements for accesses. The

proposed development was for a 2.4 metre set back distance. This is critical. The

revised access designs do not even meet minimum road design standard in terms of

exit visibility.

Determination of the sight line requires consideration of the set back or X distance

and the Y distance measured along the road, which is in turn related to the design

speed of the major road traffic. In this case Paragraph 2.21 of DMRB requires the set

back or X distance of 4.5 metres and Paragraph 2.22 requires a Y distance of 70

metres in each direction.

Paragraph 2.21 of DMRB states:

“Normally an X of 4.5 metres shall be provided for a direct access where use

in design year is forecast not to exceed 500 AADT. A choice of set back

distance is related to the forecast traffic using the access. For lightly used

accesses, for example those serving a single dwelling or a small cul-de-sac of

a half dozen dwellings, then the set back X may be reduced to 2.4 metres.”

No flexibility is permitted in DMRB in relation to these measurements. They are

mandatory. The required access sight line is clearly 4.5 metres by 70 metres.

Both the proposed sight lines and the necessary design sight lines cross the proposed

bus lay-by.

Section 2.28 of TD41/95 states the following:


“The design organisation shall ensure that the position of lay-bys, bus stops,

traffic signs and other street furniture does not interfere with the driver’s

visibility requirements and that the obstructive effect for all road users is

minimised.”

The sight line is impeded by the bus lay-by at both access points.

The required sight line for Access 1 appears to cross third party lands which may not

be in the control of the developers. They also appear to be restricted by a building, a

toilet block.

In reply to a number of questions from the Inspector Mr. Reynolds stated that by

removing the bus lay-by and setting back all hedging etc, and by removing the toilet

block, requisite set back and visibility could be obtained.

In relation to traffic under the railway bridge it is clear that the design manual for

roads and bridges, requirement for minimum forward stopping distance is not

achievable for any vehicle type under the bridge. The minimum distance is 70 metres.

This could be relaxed to 50 metres under certain circumstances but even that is not

achievable. 35 metres is only achievable under the bridge. The forward stopping

distance is measured from the centreline of the approach lane in each direction. It is

not achievable in both directions. This will impact upon the safety of traffic but

particularly cyclists and pedestrians.

The introduction of a pedestrian guard rail may have significant adverse effects on

safety for cyclists because in the event of an accident they will not have a safe buffer

or escape zone in the form of an open footpath. Footpaths without guard rails provide

a means of escape for cyclists in the event of an accident. Cyclists can be pinned to

guard rails increasing the severity of accidents.

In urban areas the normal width of a footpath should be 1.8 metres. A minimum

clearance of 450 metres between the guard rail and the kerb edge should be

maintained as the guardrail could interfere with cyclists on the road. The proposed


development allows significantly less than 1.8 metres in the width of the footpath.

The proposed width is 1.5 metres. The provision of a pedestrian guardrail 50

millimetres thick in addition to the 450 millimetre clearance leave just 1 metre of

footway, significantly less than the recommended 1.8 metre minimum width. This

does not provide sufficient space for a wheelchair or a buggy to pass side by side in a

safe manner.

The proposal to further increase traffic under the bridge structure will result in a

significant and adverse impact upon traffic safety.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association Professor A. Cooper

stated that his expertise was in coastal process and coastal management.

The beach sand at Greystones comes from erosion of the cliffs largely behind the

beach. These beaches are not made of clay but they are made of the mixture of clay,

sand and gravel. That material is reworked by waves to produce beach material.

Beaches are loose accumulations of sand and/or gravel which can adapt their shape to

variations in wave, tide and wind conditions, and dependent sediments supply and

type. Beaches are also bounded headlands or backed by rock of variable resistance to

erosion. A beach adjusts to the combined effects of these parameters in any given

time and achieves a dynamic equilibrium. A change in any one of the factors

affecting the beach may produce a change in the beach itself.

Construction of the harbour changes the framework within which the beach exists.

This changes the physical boundaries and alters wave dynamics and produces a

change in the beach’s shape. There is no accurate way of modelling the likely future

shape of the beach under these dramatic changes to the geological framework of the

changing dynamics.

The models used by the developer are part of the Danish Hydraulic Institute Litpack

Suite. They have been used in the EIS at Appendix 6 to predict shoreline erosion for

different marina scenarios. These are complex numerical models which aim to bring

various predictions regarding coastal dynamics, the volumes of long/shore sediment


transport and future shoreline positions under various scenarios. To make accurate

predictions of future shoreline positions and sediment transport the models have to

take account of all variables which impact on sediment transport. There are several

reasons which mean that those models cannot produce accurate simulations. Certain

important parameters have to be left out of the equation for example the packing and

density of sediment.

Not all the model parameters and their interactions are understood. The scientific

understanding of the transport of mixed grain populations such as exists on

Greystones Beach, which is a mixture of sand of gravel, are very limited.

There is a ubiquitous inability to accurately characterise the starting conditions before

a model starts to be run. This includes the grain size, wave conditions, precise beach

shape, the underlying rock depth, resistance to erosion and so on.

Some questionable relationships are used in models for example the relationship

between wave angle and long shore drift rates. The factual situation on the ground is

much more complex than models acknowledged.

Constants are frequently used to adjust model outputs to achieve reasonable

predictions. For example the range of wave theories can be selected as well as bed

roughness parameters, wind or currents can be omitted or included as the operator

chooses. This enables the operator to adjust the model result to match a target value.

The unpredictability of future wave type, weather conditions constrains ones ability to

predict into the future.

The role of extreme but infrequent storms that may strongly influence or even

dominate shoreline behaviour can either be predicted or simulated. Those type of

storms might produce more change in a few days than decades of normal or average

conditions. At Kilpatrick Beach in North Wexford, storms in early December 2006

caused more than 10 metres of erosion on a beach and dune that had been essentially

stable for the previous decade.


Using models produces a single quantitative prediction without giving any indication

of the probability such a scenario might actually occur. One can have little

confidence in such a simulation and in the case of Greystones the predicted impact of

the marina derived by modelling is therefore quite uncertain. As a consequence the

volume of material required to remedy the situation cannot be known. The volumes

cited, 6,000 cubic metre per year and an initial 30,000 cubic metres, may be much too

low or much too high. Raising the amount from 4,000 to 6,000 has been done in the

EIS to account for the inaccuracy of the model however this has no basis in reality as

the model itself has no error bands.

The practice of placing sediment on an erosion beach to replace or augment natural

sediment supply is now a widespread practice in many heavily developed coastal

areas. Because of the complexity of interactions it is not possible to accurately

predict future beach nourishment requirements or the longevity of nourished beaches.

While models are commonly used to make such predictions they suffer from several

fatal shortcomings.

Studies have shown that nourished beaches almost always last for a shorter time

period than predicted. The poor performance is explained by an unexpected storm.

There have been several instances when entire nourished beaches have been eroded

within a few days.

The potential situation whereby nourished material is washed away rapidly by a storm

is not considered in the developers report.

As a result of sea level rising climate change resulting in the likely increased instances

of storms in the Irish Sea, the volume of material required to maintain the beach

position will not remain constant but an even greater volume of material will be

required in the future. There is no commitment to providing a greater volume than

that laid out in the proposals. Any increase in volume would increase the traffic

volume and the level of disturbance on the beach.

The beach at Greystones derives it sediment from the eroding cliffs of fluvio/glacial

sediment at the rear of the beach. The particular packing arrangement is achieved.


However using material from a different source for example an inland quarry and

depositing it directly on the beach by a different mechanism, dumping from a lorry,

for use as a different packing arrangement. This will cause the beach to respond

differently to the wave processes. Nourished beaches are usually found to erode more

rapidly than their natural predecessors.

In addition no quantitative analysis of the textural characteristics of the proposed

source material and the natural beach source material has been undertaken to

determine difference. The high incidence of broken stones in the Ballyhorsey quarry

material and its angular nature, contrasts markedly with the smooth and round nature

of the present beach material.

Beach nourishment involves a high level of vehicular and mechanical activity around

and on the beach. This will have adverse impacts on plant and animal life on the

beach. This in turn will impact on the recreational value of the beach. Beach

nourishment is being proposed as an antidote to problems which will arise through

construction of the proposed marina. This is an acknowledgement that an undesirable

impact will be created and this is a proposed mechanism to reduce the impacts.

Management of adverse impact into the future is a concern.

Once humans interfere with the shoreline there is usually no going back. The first

intervention usually produces undesirable impacts which require addition as a

remedy. This in turn produces further impacts and the beach is transformed from a

natural system to an increasingly human influenced system dependant on political

decisions and economics for survival. The artificially nourished beaches of southern

Spain, backed by sea walls and defended by off-shore breakwaters, are the ultimate

expression of this urbanisation of beaches. There, the high volume of beach

dependent tourism provides an economic driver to sustain beach nourishment. No

such driver exists at Greystones.

Nourishing a beach creates an artificial addition and commitment to sustain that beach

forever. This is a major commitment for this and future generations to enter into.


In reply to a number of questions from the Inspector, Professor Cooper stated that left

to itself the coast will continue to erode. It needs to erode in order to supply the sand

that is on the beach.

With predicted rises in sea level and predicted increases of storms that rate would be

expected to increase. There is no problem for the beach as long as the material is

capable of being eroded. The waves will continue to do the erosion work and the

beach will continue to exist into the future. It is when man interrupts the supply or

changes the boundary conditions that things can go astray. Natural beach

nourishment is occurring as a result of the erosion. This has been taking place for the

last 10,000 years without any human intervention. Beaches have continued to persist

and will continue to persist into the future without any human intervention.

Building a marina changes those conditions. It accelerates the erosion process and

requires a response to try to undo the rapid changes which take place. That requires

an ongoing commitment for human intervention.

Rainfall contributes to the instability of the cliffs behind the beach. There is quite

porous material forming the cliffs. This can absorb quite a lot of water but during

heavy rainfalls there is an excess of water and that contributes to the erosional

processes. Material which is eroded augments beach material which is partly being

lost by the off-shore currents and transport off-shore.

The coast line is a very dynamic zone a very hazardous zone within which to

undertake development. Very often in the past it was felt that engineering works

might rectify impact. However such works are an open ended commitment into the

future. This begs the question as to whether such sensitive zones should be

developed.

What is proposed is a major intrusion into the natural landscape. Beaches constitute

part of the natural landscape. An alteration or further urbanisation of a beach reduces

its appeal both to locals and to visitors.


For the Greystones Protection and Development Association Mr. F. Etchingham

stated that the information in relation to the availability of beach nourishment material

from quarries was very inadequate. Some of the detail submitted is also somewhat

perplexing. For instance stockpiling is mentioned at Wicklow Port however the need

to stockpile on the quay in Wicklow has not been addressed.

Likewise the use of a barge to deliver beach nourishment material directly into the

harbour was discounted as the developers consider that it would constitute a

disruption and closing off of the harbour and would cause damage. Considerable

disruption would also be caused on the beach.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association Mr. J. O’Sullivan stated

that he was an environmental scientist with considerable experience. His evidence

would deal with the proposal for the excavation and relocation of the town landfill.

In the letter of 14th August 2006 An Bord Pleanála expressed the concern that it might

not be satisfied that the developers overall approach for dealing with the old dump by

redepositing approximately 9,000 square metres of material on the site, might give

rise to environmental damage.

The developers response was to look at four options, retention of all landfill material

on the site, disposal of excavated landfilled material off site, removal of all landfill

material off site and leaving the dump untouched.

The developers consider the first option retention of all landfill material on site to be

preferred.

Removal of approximately 29,000 cubic metres off site was not considered to be

advisable having regard to the amount of traffic generated. The third option which

was the removal of all landfill wastes off the site was furthermore considered

unsuitable.


The fourth option was to leave the entire landfill intact. However this would require

deletion of the residential units which it is proposed to build in the location of part of

the dump.

Based on the information from Wicklow County Council there are no details of the

composition of the waste deposited in the original landfill. While the landfill may

have been closed since 1976 illegal dumping may have occurred for a number of

years subsequent to that. It may also be possible that the area is used sporadically for

fly tipping.

Dumps operated in the 1960s, 70s and 80s would have contained a variety of waste

and not only domestic refuse.

The analytical results of the testing of samples taken from the landfill indicate that

many of the samples contained levels of metals which significantly exceed the Dutch

Intervention Values. These are based on the background values for Dutch soils.

Intervention values indicate the levels of contamination of which soil contamination is

considered to be serious.

Site investigations carried out on the landfill were intended to determine the

suitability of ground conditions for construction and other land uses associated with

the proposal. They did not constitute a full environmental investigation of the site.

Nevertheless the investigations found that the composition of materials is quite

variable and included mixtures of rubble, bricks, concrete, glass, cinders and timber.

It is quite possible that very significant portions of deposited wastes were missed in

the sampling programme. As such the programme should not be relied upon as a

definitive indication of environmental condition or as an indicator of the likely

presence or absence of contaminants. There is therefore no proof that the deposited

wastes have fully degraded so as to present no environmental or health hazard. This

is a situation in which the precautionary principle should be invoked.

There are quite high levels of heavy metals within parts of the landfill. There were

also a number of chemicals present. These are materials normally associated with tar

substances which would have been dumped by local authorities following road works.


The developers contention that the soil fill material tested was found to be chemically

inert is not accepted. While the metals may be relatively immobile under the existing

conditions beneath the site mobilisation of a proportion of the heavy metal

contaminants would be likely following disturbance of fill material. There is

therefore a risk of environmental contamination if the old landfill wastes are reworked

on the site.

The recommendation in relation to this would be to leave the undisturbed landfill

wastes in place. Any wastes which have to be removed for genuine reasons should be

fully and completely exported from the site. One either removes it from the site or

leaves it in situ.

The option preferred by the developers, to move part of the material to another part of

the site, would lead to mobilisation of contaminants and would on the basis of the

information provided by the developers, create an environmental risk. Disturbance of

the old landfilled waste should be minimised. Undisturbed landfill wastes should be

left in place. Any wastes which have to be removed should be exported from the site.

The amount of waste to be removed from the site should be based on the need to

protect landfill material from coastal erosion caused by rising sea levels. If it is

accepted that sea level is rising there is a need to protect the old landfill from coastal

erosion.

In determining the amount of waste to be removed it should be based on that need and

not on the developers need to maximise the extent of residential development on the

lands available. A study should therefore be undertaken to determine how much

material could safely be left in situ, with adequate coastal protection works to prevent

exposure and erosion of the buried wastes and how much material would have to be

exported from the site.

An Bord Pleanála should also give consideration to the alternative of reducing the

land area to be occupied by housing or other buildings so as to eliminate the need to

excavate any part of the old landfill and the need to refill the void with clean material


as a foundation for construction. While the developers state that this option would

lead to a reduction in the number of residential units the extent of this reduction

should be quantified. Such a reduction would not make the overall development

uneconomic and should therefore be considered as a viable option. A reduction in the

number of residential units is a matter which An Bord Pleanála should seek to have

clarified by the developers. If such clarification is not provided they should be

considered by An Bord Pleanála as a reason for refusing permission.

The result of soil analysis described in the Environmental Engineering Assessment,

carried out by the developers, indicated that the former landfill is continuing to create

a definitive, though minor risk to groundwater in the area. Any contamination of

groundwater will be in breach of European Union Directive 80/68/EEC of 1979

relating to the protection of groundwater against pollution by certain dangerous

substances. That directive was transposed into Irish legislation by the Local

Government (Water Pollution) Regulations 1992 later amended by the Local

Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Regulations 1999.

The cumulative effect of the directive and the Irish Regulations is to make further

provision for the control of discharges of harmful substances to groundwater and to

prohibit the discharge of certain harmful or polluting substances to an aquifer.

An Bord Pleanála should take this legislation into account before agreeing to any of

the developers proposed options.

To minimise the long-term risk to groundwater either or all of the buried waste should

be left undisturbed or all of the waste should be removed and re-deposited in a

licensed landfill.

The European Council Directive 75/442/EEC of July 1975 on waste, was amended by

the European Council Directive 91/156/EEC. Under this Ireland was taken to the

European Court by the European Commission. In an opinion delivered by the

Advocate General (Geelhoed) in September 2004, it was stated that Ireland had failed

to fulfil its obligations as follows:


“The (European) Commission contends that by allowing a significant amount

of waste disposal and recovery operations to take place outside any permanent

framework, Ireland cannot be considered to have taken all the necessary

measures for the implementation of Article 4 of the Waste Directive because

without permits, disposal and recovery methods are not properly conditioned

and controlled. Various complaints submitted to it provide evidence of actual

environmental harm and in view of the objectives set out in Article 4 of the

Directive, waste which has been deposited contrary to the terms of the

Directive must be rendered safe, which means that it must effectively be

cleaned up. It is therefore not sufficient in this light to limit action to bringing

about a cessation of such waste operations.”

Where waste has been deposited without a proper permit system it is not sufficient

merely to stop the deposition. Such sites must effectively be cleaned up.

A waste permit from the EPA is therefore required if waste is causing or is capable of

causing pollution. While this directive does not require all landfills to be excavated

and re-deposited.. it does imply legal responsibility to ensure that any continuing or

further pollution or contamination is not caused by leaving the waste in situ or by

reworking the waste on the original disposal site.

In a letter dated 12th September 2006 from the Environmental Protection Agency to

Arup Consulting Engineers it was stated that:

“The deployment of the 29,000 cubic metres excavated material fill for

landscaping use would be considered a beneficial engineering project

(provided negligible environmental risk) and not landfilling.”

The developer than concluded that as the dump has effectively been stabilised and the

contamination is not mobile there is no environmental risk other than on-going coastal

erosion. The further conclusion of the development document is that the option to

retain the landfill material on site within the boundaries is the best practical

environmental option for the site as confirmed by the EPA. This however was a

considerable worry to the Greystones Protection and Development Association. The


Association therefore wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency in January 2007

pointing out that there would be significant environmental adverse consequences

resulting from the developers proposal to excavate and remove a portion of the

landfill.

In a response by the Environmental Protection Agency dated 2nd February 2007, it

was pointed out that the EPA has no licensing function in relation to the proposed

development in Greystones. The agency say they were consulted about a proposal to

use historical fill material, that is material waste, from one area of the landfill in the

landscaping of another area. The agency took the view that this activity would not

constitute landfilling and could be classed as a recovering operation. The agency

however pointed out that this view was based on the important caveat that:

“The pollution risks associated with the fill are negligible in the context of the

solution proposed.”

The EPA did not say that the pollution risk was reduced or mitigated they said

negligible.

The risks are not negligible. They exist. The developer cannot therefore rely on the

view of the EPA. The EPA response to the letter from the Greystones Protection and

Development Association further noted that the burden to prove that pollution risks

are negligible rests with the consultant to the developer and with An Bord Pleanála.

Therefore for this option to be considered a suitable environmental option the

developer has to show that the pollution risks are negligible and An Bord Pleanála has

to be satisfied that the pollution risks are also negligible.

If the developers proposal fails to guarantee compliance with this then any

disturbance of the deposited waste could be considered as a non-recovery activity and

would have to be classified as landfilling.

If the landfill on the site was shown to be actively accepting waste for disposal after

July 1977 it would fall into the category of sites which will be subject to proposed

legislation relating to such sites and would therefore require retrospective assessment


and authorisation. The legislation would apply regardless of the proposal for waste

reworking and relocation being proposed on the site. The legislation has not been

brought forward by the government so therefore its requirements are unknown. It is

likely that it will require a detailed assessment and characterisation of the waste

located on old landfills as a requirement in the detailed risk assessments.

It is the submission of the Greystones Protection and Development Association that

An Bord Pleanála, as the competent authority to decide on the proposed development,

should have regard to all existing legislation and court judgements. A grant of

permission for the proposal may inhibit or prevent a proper, full and detailed risk

assessment of the former landfill before anything is done on the landfill site. Such a

permission would be contrary to the European Courts judgement and to the intention

of forthcoming legislation. The European Commission judgement is in the case of

C/494/01. This was taken against the State.

The assessment and characterisation of the former landfill site undertaken by the

developer is inadequate and cannot be relied upon to show that the risk of

environmental pollution arising from the disturbance and reworking of wastes is

negligible. The Board should refuse permission for the proposed partial reworking

and relocation of the landfill wastes within the subject site.

A more appropriate solution and a better practical environmental option would be to

require removal from the site of all deposited wastes by seaborne transport, as already

suggested by the Board. Another option is to leave the deposited waste in place,

undisturbed, with adequate protection from accelerated coastal erosion caused by

rising sea levels. This option should be only considered after a detailed study has been

carried out to show that it is safe and practicable to do so and would prevent any

further or continuing pollution of soil or groundwater.

In reply to a number of questions from the Inspector, Mr. O’Sullivan stated it would

be very difficult to state whether complete removal of all landfill material or leaving it

undisturbed on-site is preferable. If the landfill is to be removed completely that

should be in total compliance with both the spirit of the European Judgement and with


the spirit of the Waste Directive. From a legal and waste management perspective that

would be the preferable thing to do.

Removal of all material from the site would result in a considerable amount of

transportation. An Bord Pleanála has suggested that this should be done by sea. In

Ireland this is normally a road transport option which is favoured. However in

Holland or Germany. the relevant authorities would think in terms of seaborne

transport.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association, Mr. S. Fallon stated that

he was a retired Garda. While serving in the Garda Siochana he was stationed at

Greystones between 1967 and 1984. He lived at the harbour during this period and

could see the dump from where he lived. The nature of his work caused him to pay

regular visits to the dump. The purpose of the visits included searching for lost and

stolen property and engaging in regular patrols.

The dump contained large quantities of domestic refuse of all kinds as well as

considerable quantities of commercial refuse. These included car batteries, dry cell

batteries, whole cars, garden waste, food, cooked and uncooked, household chemicals,

bulbs, cosmetics, shoe polish, broken electrical equipment and kitchen appliances.

Among the commercial refuse deposited were paints, oil cans and pharmacy products.

A number of containers were also deposited.

It was common practice for locals when servicing their cars to drive to the dump and

drain the oil into the ground as well as disposing of engine parts which had been

replaced.

There was a large quantity of paint deposited on the site.

The dumping of material on the site continued up until 1984.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association, Mr. Jim McNulty stated

that he was a planner working with the Grainne Mallon & Associates Company. The


company had been working with the Greystones Protection and Development

Association since the proposal came to light.

The additional information submitted does very little to address the issues and fears

raised in the original submission.

Permission should be refused for the proposal on the grounds that it is not in

accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and also

because of the significant negative impact on the environment which it will have.

The additional information does not meet the Board’s request for a reduction in the

quantum of the development. The commercial element has been reduced by only

12%. The number of residential units has been reduced by 9% from 375 units to 341

units.

The residential population has been reduced by 3% from 2,438 persons to 2,352

persons.

The height of the development is unchanged at four-storeys.

The size of the marina is unchanged.

The changes requested by An Bord Pleanála in the omission of Blocks B and C and

Terrace 13 appear to have been achieved through an increase in the density of the

remaining residential area.

The Greystones/Delgany Local Area Plan 2006 has a new E2 zoning which includes

provision for a district level shopping centre of 20,000 square metres and retail

warehousing of 16,000 square metres. This renders Section 3.1.3 of the amendments

to the EIS relating to economic activities, employment and population, retail impact

assessment as invalid and out of date.

The Local Area Plan also includes for the relocation of the St. David’s Secondary

School and the redevelopment of that. It also includes provision for a primary school


in the area to the east of the railway line. This will increase the amount of activity in

the area.

Ms. E. Cawley stated that she was speaking on behalf of the Greystones Protection

and Development Association. There are a number of existing and commercial

properties in the Meridian Centre which are empty. There was no need for the

amount of commercial floorspace proposed.

.

An Bord Pleanála has considered architectural style and development in general and

have referred to this in their own publications such as the Annual Report of 2004

where concern was expressed that the quality of the architectural planning proposals

was a concern in many cases.

In spite of seeking information no figures have been produced in relation to the

valuation of the foreshore. It is not known therefore what value has been put on the

foreshore. This should be available and factored into the figures relating to the public

private partnership.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association, Mr. D. Flynn stated that

he would address issues relating to the concrete batching plant, the casting yard and

the borrow pit.

It is not clear to what depth the borrow pit would be excavated.

The storage area available for the precast blocks is considerably reduced by the lack

of availability of the area at the northern end of D’Arcy’s Field.

The large concrete blocks to be used in the breakwaters could have been cast off-site

and brought by sea to the site. This form of transport has been favoured by Irish Rail

in regard to all of the reinforcement that they have put in against the railway line

south of Greystones down to Kilcoole.

There seems to be a lack of marine engineering experience in the developers team.


Because the option of seaborne transport of materials was not properly explored the

presence of a precasting yard which has the capacity of 800 tonnes per day within 200

metres of existing housing is not justified.

The borrow pit is an effective quarrying operation. It will be less than 25metres of

existing houses.

Some 400,000 tonnes of material is needed to backfill the sea area which is being

reclaimed.

It is a moot point as to whether the backfilling of the borrow pit by dredged material

constitutes a new landfill.

. The only way that one can evaluate noise effects is to see the overlayering of all the

noise emissions sources one on top of the other.

This is something which is missing from the information presented.

A traffic survey carried out by the Greystones Protection and Development

Association found that the peak hour was between 8.15 and 9.15 in the morning.

Trucks would not be able to get through during the peak hours. There would be

difficulty during the lunch time peak hour.

During the off-peak times throughout the rest of the day traffic levels were 80% of

that peak.

Mr. F. Etchingham stated that the developers have accepted that the north and south

breakwaters will be prone to severe wave overtopping during extreme storms. They

also stated that physical model tests were commissioned, at the time of the original

oral hearing and would be completed within 3 months. That was March 2006. In

December 2006 the Greystones Protection and Development Association became


aware that the modelling had been completed. The developers had stated that the

modelling showed that the fundamental design of the harbour breakwaters are robust.

Due to the fact that the developers have stated that there will be serve wave

overtopping it would seem that the results of modelling are essential to any appraisal

of the design of the harbour. The harbour design with severe ware overtopping has

potential to be very dangerous. It is unreasonable therefore not to make this

information available to the public in particular and to An Bord Pleanála.

It is also apparently possible that there may be flooding of the public space during

severe weather conditions.

J. Sweeney, Professor of Geography at NUI Maynooth, stated in an article that “for

the east coast of Ireland, we are suggesting that basements of buildings along the

quays and the coast should not be any less than about 4 metres above sea level.”

It is important that a certain element of precaution should be taken in terms of

anticipating future storm surges and high water events.

The basement levels of the car parks within the development do not meet these

criteria as they are lower than 4 metres.

The north and south breakwaters proposed are lower than the breakwaters at Dun

Laoghaire Harbour. The east pier in Dun Laoghaire is overtopped during storm

conditions.

The location of the clubhouses is exposed. It would be regularly overtopped by

waves during storms. The Environmental Impact Statement concedes this point.

At the existing harbour, in 1910, there was a fatality when two locals were washed

into the sea whilst attempting to tend to a moored boat during a storm. Both of them

died.


In recent years the coastguards in Greystones have raised the issue of pedestrians

walking on the east pier at Greystones Harbour during storms, to watch the waves.

They correctly referred to the safety hazardous associated with this and suggested the

erection of signage warning the public of the dangers.

There seems to be a serious health and safety issue surrounding the location of the

clubhouses given the statement about severe overtopping.

The inclusion of the sailing club as a two-storey building essentially makes it part of

the breakwater itself. The seaward side of the clubhouse would be exposed to

considerable impacts from waves during storms.

Clubhouses should not be located in such exposed positions unless they have virtually

no windows on their exposed side.

It might be difficult to obtain insurance for the clubhouses given their location.

Ms. L. Bertram stated that she lived at north beach, directly to the west of the site.

The works proposed will give rise to noise, dust, overspill of light and traffic

disturbance. Particular concern was voiced in relation to the concrete batching plant.

An Bord Pleanála requested the developers to consider an alterative option showing

the complete removal of landfill material from the site. It is not acceptable that this

request was not complied with.

An Bord Pleanála also requested that beach nourishment material be possibly brought

in by sea to mitigate any potential negative traffic impacts. If this is not done it will

mean that the residents will be subjected to an unreasonable amount of heavy and

potentially dangerous traffic on an ongoing basis.

While the removal of Blocks B and C and adjacent Terrace 13 is welcomed the

overall reduction in housing numbers is very little. The development will still be


visually obtrusive and a dominant form of overdevelopment in relation to its harbour

side setting and existing built fabric including residential properties.

What is proposed now is a large public square. There is concern that it will become a

noisy arena both by day and night which could provide opportunities for anti-social

behaviour. This will have a negative effect on present and proposed residents.

The development will reduce the value of the objector’s property by 30 to 40%.

Mr. P. Walsh, representing the Bertrams stated that the amended development would

result in a devaluation in the residential properties owned by the Bertrams.

Reverend R. Bertram stated that the amount of traffic generated by the proposed

development has not been adequately considered.

The sewerage system serving the area is inadequate.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Flanagan, Mr. J. O’Sullivan stated that the

EPA is responsible for matters relating to emissions where the activity causing the

emissions is a licensable one. Where the activity is not licensable by the EPA then

An Bord Pleanála can take emissions into account. It cannot however grant

permission which contains conditions governing emissions.

The reason the Greystones Protection and Development Association wrote to the

Environmental Protection Agency was to clarify what had been asked of them by the

developers and what they had actually said. The reply which they received back from

the EPA differed from the original interpretation of what this development might cost.

Since An Bord Pleanála has both of these communications from the EPA the position

is therefore clarified.

No groundwater testing had been carried out by the Greystones Protection and

Development Association. .

There is no evidence of an aquifer in the area.


The European Legislation would not have had in mind that waste which had been

landfilled would then be dug out and recovered.

What the EPA letters have said was that if the waste was totally inert or had become

so by the passage of time, and the risk of environmental contamination or pollution or

the risk to the environment was, negligible, then the operation would not be classified

as landfilling. However if there was any risk to the environment over and above that

which could be regarded as negligible, then it must be a licensable activity. The

removal, disturbance or landfilling of waste which would have been licensable by the

EPA in that case.

There is no evidence of leachate in this landfill.

It is possible that the landfill was used by persons other than the local authority, after

it closed in 1976.

The fact that the executive of a local authority decides to close a dump does not mean

that the letter may have been disregarded. The only evidence before the hearing in

relation to the dump is the evidence of retired Garda Fallon who explicitly stated in

very clear terms, as a Garda, he had on occasions frequently to visit the landfill site

and found it was being actively used. He did not say by whom or by what persons but

I think for the purposes of the hearing what happens is that materials, unwanted waste

materials, were being placed or dumped or deposited on the site for many years

subsequent to the letter of 1976 .

In relation to Judgement C494/01, the European Commission versus Ireland the Court

referred to the fact that Ireland took a period of time before implementing a licensing

system. The Court was concerned that there was no licensing system when there

should have been one as required by the Waste Directive. The Government has now

moved to bring in legislation to fill the gap so that landfills which were in operation,

or may still be in operation, or more particularly those which were in operation at the

time of the coming into force of the Waste Directive, will be affected.


An Bord Pleanála in consideration of the matters should take account of the fact that

legislation is not in place in dealing with landfills which are of a considerable age and

which were being used post 1976.

The legislation which is impending will be particularly directed at landfills during the

period 1977 to 1997.

As far as can be ascertained at the moment the landfill on the site poses a minimum

risk. When it is disturbed it is not possible to say whether it would pose a minimum

risk. The letter set out by the EPA is very clear. It is up to the developer to satisfy An

Bord Pleanála that any disturbance in the landfill would pose a negligible risk. In this

case negligible risk is a very strong phrase.

The only surprise in relation to the testing already carried out in the landfill is that

none or very little organic waste was found. In this regard provided that the organic

waste is held or is trapped in an area of very low or zero oxygen, an anaerobic

environment, that is constantly wet, the decaying process more or less stops.

Mr. O’Sullivan stated that he had not carried out any tests on the landfill.

The testing carried out by Arup & Partners was to examine the site from the point of

its suitability for construction. It was not a report which had to address itself to the

question of environmental risk. . The site had been looked at to its suitability from

the point of view of construction of dwellings upon it.

If An Bord Pleanála was minded to grant permission, it would be very important to set

a condition requiring a risk assessment of any disturbance of the site. If such an

assessment proved to show that there was negligible risk then any work carried out or

undertaken would have to be done in such a way that the environmental pollution was

minimised.

The examination of the landfill by the developers was as a result of a fairly

comprehensive brief.


In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Flanagan, Professor Cooper stated that he

had carried out modelling studies in a number of locations throughout Ireland.

However he had not used modelling to provide a quantitative prediction of what the

future shoreline would be. He was aware of the type of models that had been used

however these do not deliver a reliable quantitative prediction of the future coastal

state. He had published several papers in international literature that have been peer

reviewed and that have undermined the use of these types of models for beach

purposes.

While the beach nourishment at Bray had been successful success should be measured

in terms of long-term sustainability of many projects and that remains to be seen.

With or without the proposed development there would be coastal erosion.

The beach is reliant on of a source of sediment which is at the back of the beach, the

cliffs. It is important that rates of erosion are not accelerated.

The beach does not necessarily have to be nourished as there are other options which

could be looked at. There could be for example a do nothing scenario which would

allow the coast to respond naturally in which case it will find its own equilibrium.

However it would have undesirable effects on the coastline that would not have

existed had development not been put in place. While there will erosion one way or

the other it would be accelerated if the development was not carried out.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Flanagan, Mr. O’Reynolds stated that

traffic calming in an urban environment is a remedial measure which should be based

on history of accidents. An admission that a problem exists on an existing road and

without having any information on accident trends in Greystones and in light of the

very poor geometry that exists under the bridge, traffic calming is something that the

Council should be putting on the ground for existing road conditions. It should not be

to facilitate additional and inappropriate heavy goods traffic.


There is no such thing as a 30 kph statutory speed limit in Ireland. There is no such

speed limit in existence in Ireland nor is there provision in any design standard for a

sightline or a forward stopping distance for a 30 kph environment.

A 30 kph speed limit is a low speed environment. The design standard do not allow

one to design for 30 kph roads.

Multiple access points are always better in terms of traffic impact than single points.

A low speed traffic environment would be welcome.

Councillor. T. Fortune stated that he was an elected member of Wicklow County

Council representing the Greystones electoral area.

He was fully in support of the Greystones Protection and Development Association

position.

The Board made four requests in its additional information letter. They required the

removal of a block of apartments. They required a reduction in the scale of the

development having regard to traffic generation. They required consideration of the

complete removal of the dump. They also required consideration of transporting the

beach nourishment by sea.

The developers have complied with only the first of these four items.

In relation to Item No. 1 however the reduction is only about 3.5% less in population

numbers. It is almost the same development as originally proposed.

There are serious health and safety issues in relation to the batching plant.

A square in any town is a great benefit however if the proposed square is too big it

will give rise to more problems than it will solve.


Councillor. D. DeBurca stated that she was an active member of Wicklow County

Council.

The revised plans submitted do not in any meaningful way address the concerns

expressed by the community in their submissions on the original development.

The developers have also failed to meet the requests set down by An Bord Pleanála in

its request for further information. To a certain extent they have merely used the

opportunity to defend their original plans.

The proposed batching plant is too close to residential accommodation. Mitigation

measures proposed for this aspect of the development are inadequate.

The contents of the dump include heavy metals, unwanted tar, bitumen, tarmacadam

and general construction materials. The sampling programme carried out by the

developers missed much of the deposited waste. A comprehensive sampling

programme combined with a proper environmental study is necessary.

Moving material from one part of the site to the other should be looked upon as a

new landfill requiring a new EIS and an EPA Waste Licence.

The road network is incapable of dealing with the excess traffic which will be

generated.

The developers appear to have rejected the Board’s request in relation to transporting

beach nourishment by sea largely on grounds of cost.

In extreme weather conditions it would appear that there will be severe wave

overtopping of both the north and south breakwaters. The clubhouses are too close to

the breakwaters and will be at high risk of flooding.

The ongoing cost of beach nourishment materials have not bee factored into the

development.


The developers should have been requested to submit a revised EIS taking into

account the provisions of the new Greystones/Delgany Local Area Plan.

The amount of building proposed is excessive considering the limited modifications

proposed. The development is inconsistent with the existing pattern of development

and represents overdevelopment of the area east of the railway line.

Wicklow County Council has failed to provide appropriate architectural protection for

the important area of Greystones Harbour. The Council refused to place an

architectural conservation area status on the harbour area in the Local Area Plan,

despite the fact that the area has the highest concentration of protected structures in

the town.

The utterly meaningless designation of a local urban character area was proposed for

the Greystones Harbour. A proper designation of the area as an architectural

conservation area would have precluded a massive and ultra modern development

such as proposed.

Mr. R. Fallon stated that he was a member of the Greystones Harbour Residents

Association. The association welcomed the decision of An Bord Pleanála to reopen

the oral hearing however they would have preferred a refusal of the proposed scheme.

As the local authority would be taking over the project at a date in the future the

public has the right to know the detail of finances. They need to be able to provide

that the project stands up financially.

Given the scale of property price increases since the scheme was first announced, a

further reduction in apartment numbers should have been possible.

The commercial floor space element of the development may not be viable.

The reduction in residential units at 34 would account for less than 100 occupants.

The traffic cannot be accommodated on the local road network.


Contained in the new proposal is one of the largest public squares in Ireland. This

could be a mecca for anti-social behaviour.

The design of the development continues to clash with existing buildings in the

environment. The development will obscure views to the mountains behind. The

area is subject of two listed views directly affected by the development.

The clubhouse buildings are now proposed to be moved. While the Harbour

Residents Association support the clubs in their request for better facilities they

should be provided with a proper location.

The clubhouse facilities are the only real community gain in the development as the

marina will largely be open only to fee paying members.

The residents adjoining the clubhouses will be subject to noise day and night from

pulleys, ropes and masts banging day and night as well as the issue of drinks licenses

on the site. It is a cynical move not to place the clubs in front of the new proposed

apartments. They have not done so as they would obviously affect the value of those

new residences.

The clubhouses are isolated in their new position and stick out like a sore thumb.

The development is of national importance for the precedent it will set whereby local

authorities can neglect public amenities and then permit development to the highest

bidder.

The Greystones Protection and Development Association should obtain an award of

costs as previously requested.

An Bord Pleanála should reject the proposal.

Councillor. Kay Kelleher stated that she was a member of Greystones Town Council

and also Wicklow County Council.


She welcomed the proposed changes to the plan. Great effort had been made to take

into consideration comments and suggestions made at the oral hearing last year. The

clubhouses have been moved. House numbers have been reduced. The entrance to

the development has been widened. A magnificent public square has been introduced.

Modern architecture has been proposed however it has already been permitted in the

area.

The commercial floorspace will be successful.

The new position for the sailing clubhouse will improve visibility of the water.

The value of houses in the area will increase once the scheme is completed.

Councillor M. O’Callaghan stated that she was a member of Greystones Town

Council.

The utilisation of a beach for commercial development against the wishes of the

community sets a dangerous precedent for the whole country.

The proposed public square would more likely be a vast wasteland for most of the

year and will lead to unwanted anti-social behaviour in the area.

Dr. C. Etchingham stated that he was a lecturer in the Department of History in the

National University of Ireland, Maynooth. He specialised in medieval history in early

Ireland. As a pastime he had been researching the early history of the Greystones area

since 1990. He is a resident of the area.

While the original settlement of Rathdown is quite extensive recent geophysical

survey work carried out by Target Archaeological and Geophysical in September

2006, shows that the settlement extends well south of the designated national

monument at St. Crispin's Cell, into what is known as D’Arcy’s Field.


What is proposed in D'Arcy's Field is a borrow pit and a batching plant, both of which

are temporary facilities.

The historical significance of Rathdown in the medieval period was that it was the

centre of the lordship of an important Gaelic aristocratic family which have been in

situ before the Norman invasion. This is the historical significance of the medieval

phase of the archaeology which probably extends into D'Arcy's Field.

Dr. C. Smal stated that the additional information submitted by the developers has

included important information on the archaeology of D'Arcy's Field. This has been

derived from geophysical surveys. The original EIS submitted for the application

included no new historical or archaeological information.

Given the lack of appropriate archaeological assessment of D'Arcy's Field and

historical features on or within the site, the geophysical and other evidence has been

reviewed. The Friends of Historic Rathdown have also employed expert consultants

who have considered and evaluated the information supplied.

They have also been in contact with the National Museum of Ireland in relation to the

important conservation issues at Rathdown.

Following the first EIS as submitted, they considered the proposal to be premature on

the grounds of archaeology as there was a need for detailed archaeological

investigations such as geophysical ground radar, aerial photography and non-intrusive

testing on D'Arcy's Field.

D'Arcy's Field is situated to the south of the registered Rathdown monument site.

Concern was also voiced in relation to archaeology along the coastal fringe where

there could be impacts from the proposed regrading of the cliffs.

The archaeological area of Rathdown is undoubtedly larger than the designated area

under the Monuments Act.


The archaeological potential of the site proposed for development should have been

investigated in full prior to the designation of D'Arcy's Field for any purpose

whatsoever.

The EIS should have a contained a true and complete archaeological profile given that

it has a major national monument boundary on its northern perimeter.

The geophysical survey presented as additional information on behalf of the

developers has fully confirmed the expectation of the Friends of Historic Rathdown

that D'Arcy's Field is an integral part of the archaeological area at Rathdown. The

recent investigations have served to confirm the society’s consultants assertions that

the Rathdown site is extensive and that D'Arcy's Field is of substantial archaeological

and historical importance. Previous submissions to An Bord Pleanála in previous

planning appeals in Rathdown since 1990, have all been proved to have been

appropriate and correct in ascertaining the importance of the Rathdown archaeological

area.

An Bord Pleanála should once again refuse the application on the grounds of

prematurity relating to the archaeology of D'Arcy's Field and the Rathdown Historical

and Archaeological Area.

The developers have already conceded that there are very significant archaeological

remains within D'Arcy's Field. They have accepted the necessity in their additional

information to restrict the area of the proposed development to a southern portion of

D'Arcy's Field. This outcome has resulted from their own recent archaeological

investigations.

The Manor of Rathdown extended over 248 to 300 acres. Of this area only 25 acres

has been registered to date under the Monuments Act.

The 300 acre area is likely to include D'Arcy's Field.


The field to the north of D'Arcy's Field revealed a significant beaker settlement,

numerous artefacts, prehistoric jars, corn drying kiln and medieval artefacts. This is

in spite of the fact that the geophysical evidence was weak.

The total number of finds at Rathdown based principally from the finds on the

western field is at approximately 2,000 items.

Geophysical investigation is an aid to archaeological assessment however it is not

conclusive or comprehensive.

Geophysical survey cannot usually reveal wooden structures and similar remains.

Such investigation can also be affected by electricity poles, telegraph poles, lighting

etc.

There are almost no boundaries within D'Arcy's Field. The field has been laid out as a

number of playing fields for several decades. Prior to this there were boundaries.

The field has been considerably altered by coastal erosion since 1840. The railway

line at the gap bridge was originally approximately 22 metres further east of the

bridge. Coastal erosion caused a move inland to the position of the bridge. However

with erosion at the gap bridge an entirely new tunnel was built through Bray Head and

a new line created where it is now, well to the west of the coast.

The geophysical survey carried out by the developers in D'Arcy's Field indicates

significant archaeological potential throughout the entire field.

It is fairly clear that the proposed working area at the batching plant and the borrow

pit impacts on Site B and the large ringfort structure and also impacts on Item C.

Although the reduction in the size of the batching plant is supposed to protect the

features which the developers archaeologist indicated Sites A, B and C, they are not

being protected. They will be severely disrupted or damaged.

While the protection afforded to the northern portion of the D'Arcy's Field is

welcome,. these archaeological features will or could in fact be severely damaged

within a protective zone as offered within the map issued to An Bord Pleanála. It

would be premature therefore to grant any permission which allows the


archaeological resolution of the remainder of D'Arcy's Field in the manner proposed

by the developers. Significant further testing is required to determine whether the

southern portion of D'Arcy's Field requires the same protection as is now afforded to

the northern portion.

The southern section of D'Arcy's Field as shown by survey carried out by the

developers, contains a striking number of unidentified anomalies and features of

archaeological potential. These should be validated prior to any determination as to

the future status of the field. To do otherwise would be premature.

A written submission from the National Museum, by Dr. A. Halpin states “I am

persuaded by Dr. Clinton’s argument that it would be premature to grant permission t

the excavation of the borrow pit and other works in this field until the nature of the

possible archaeological features revealed by geophysics has been adequately

established. In view of the fact that the proposed development works are purely of a

temporary nature, there can be no possible justification for any assumption that

archaeological features can be removed to facilitate development until the

significance of such archaeological features, if any, is known. I would also strongly

endorse Dr. Clinton’s warning about the potential danger of large scale mechanical

stripping of topsoil over possible archaeological features.

The only other comment I would make relates to concerns raised in the Friends of

Historic Rathdown submission to An Bord Pleanála about the possible or likely

impacts on the archaeology of proposed coastal works. These concerns which I feel

are well founded were not addressed in the revised EIS and consequently have not

been addressed by Dr. Clinton either. Perhaps they have been taken on board by An

Bord Pleanála but if not I would suggest that this is an issue which requires to be

examined closely.”

The developers archaeologist, Dr. Brady, stated that all recommendations that have

been made by the Department of the Environment and the National Museum of

Ireland would be taken on board.

John Oxley, archaeologist to York, in Great Britain, has written stating:


“I am in wholehearted agreement with Dr. Mark Clinton’s conclusion and

recommendations of his report.”

In a 1996 report John Oxley and Duncan Browne also an archaeologist, were involved

in a planning appeal in the western field. At that time they stated:

“Rathdown is a site and landscape of national importance which should be

preserved.. All of the scheduled area should be put under a management

agreement which would allow for the conservation of the site and this

preservation to a national and wider audience.”

All of D'Arcy's Field is part of the Rathdown Archaeological Landscape. Objection is

taken to any permission being granted on the site.

At D'Arcy's Field, a historical town, appears to have extended southwards towards

Greystones. Part of the area covered by the landfill, the old dump, has similar

archaeological potential. This is a matter that has not been addressed by Dr. Brady.

The developer has accepted that no works will be permitted or entertained on the

northern part of D'Arcy's Field. The Friends of Historic Rathdown will be seeking to

have this area registered under the National Monuments Act. Dr. Brady has noted this

as a recommendation of merit. The setting and landscape in which a monument is

situated is as important as the monument itself. In the past John Oxley has stated:

“Where nationally important archaeological remains whether resolved

or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development, there should

be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation. In aesthetic terms

the setting of a monument provides it with its contemporary visual and

emotional context. Medieval Rathdown is essentially an island of intense

activity within a sea of agricultural land and woodland. All too often it is a

setting of a designated monument which is at risk rather than the monument

itself. In a place such as Rathdown, the setting of a monument is almost of

equal importance to the designated site. The utilisation of D'Arcy's Field as a


temporary facility only comes about due to constraints imposed on developers

by the Victorian road network. The developers do have the option of sourcing

their completed materials from other locations. They have not presented other

scenarios which would offer proper and sustainable protection to the

Rathdown site and to the coast.”

The archaeologists to the Friends of Historic Rathdown (Clinton, Halpin and Oxley)

have indicated that there is no professional or archaeological justification for the

removal of archaeological features just to facilitate a temporary development.. in the

likely event that any one of the anomalies identified in geophysical investigations

prove to be an extensive feature, as occurred at the western field.

Dr. Smal stated that he did not know at this point in time if any or many of these

features are present. However in such a rich archaeological context it is at least

probable.

Errors occurred in submissions. It is totally unacceptable for a series of maps to be

produced within an EIS with the same map number, the same author and sometimes

with the same preparation date and yet with a different mapping content.

This leads to obfuscation planning, pre-construction and construction phases. It has

already been shown that the maps issued in relation to D'Arcy's Field, the proposed

borrow pit and batching plant, will actually result in the works impinging on and

damaging and not protecting the archaeological features identified in the northern part

of D'Arcy's Field.

Mr. Flanagan interjecting stated that the first map prepared in September was

produced before Dr. Niall Brady’s recommendations were made relating to the

northern section of D'Arcy's Field. The hard copy submitted as additional information

is correct.

Continuing Dr. Smal stated that:

All of the EIS material should have been dated to exclude development to the

northern section of D'Arcy's Field.


The Greystones Harbour area should have merited architectural conservation area

status. Equal protection and consideration should be forwarded to the harbour and

listed buildings there.

The revised layout proposed is not appropriate to the Victorian setting and the

seascape. The new layout is equally damaging to the integrity of the coastal

landscape and the harbour as was the previous plan.

The gap bridge and the old culvert of the water of Rathdown have historical

connotations. They are located within the site of a registered historical monument.

Removal of the gap bridge is not required by the present project. However in the

interest of safety Sispar and Wicklow County Council have offered to take the bridge

down. In the event this work is carried out the bridge will be archaeologically

surveyed in detail before works begin and the removal works will be archaeologically

monitored. Recovered stone will be reused as part of the amenity works for the

proposed park. However only the Department of the Environment, Heritage and

Local Government has the power to decide the fate of the structure. The bridge must

be archaeologically surveyed in detail and the appropriate secondary research be

conducted before any such proposal can be properly made or suggested. As one of a

number of structures or sites within a national monument the bridge cannot be

considered as a problem which can be solved by demolition. There may be better

solutions available.

The archaeological complex at Rathdown is a major site of very significant interest

locally and nationally and one of the few positive aspects of the proposal has been to

extend our knowledge of the site. The report submitted by the developers and by the

Friends of Historic Rathdown have confirmed the archaeological value and potential

of D'Arcy's Field as an integral part of the Rathdown archaeological area. The

Friends of Historic Rathdown was established to protect the archaeological and

historical area and to promote its use for the community both locally and nationally.


The proposal should be refused on grounds of prematurity in relation to archaeology.

It would impact negatively on the archaeology and landscape setting of the Rathdown

site.

Ms. E. Singleton stated that she too is a member of the Friends of Historic Rathdown.

The EIS is still very much a work in progress.

The proposal is quite varied with 10 very diverse elements which impact in different

ways on different communities around Greystones. It is extremely important

therefore that proper communication should exist between the development agencies

and particularly that proper mapping and a full understanding of the development is

available to the developers to prevent errors being made if the development is to be

carried out.

Presenting evidence on behalf of the Friends of Historic Rathdown,Dr. M. Clinton

stated that he was a graduate of early and medieval history and archaeology. He had

been active in archaeology over a period of 35 years.

There has been a spectacular bounty of finds or artefacts discovered in the area to

date. Included in this are four coin hoards of mostly late 16 th to early 17th century

date. In all 400 to 500 coins have been recovered within the general environs of the

Rathdown complex. However according to the National Museum of Ireland there is a

distinct ambiguity as regards specific find spots. Given the fact that four coin hoards

have already been retrieved from the general environs of the Rathdown site, there is

an active possibility that further finds of this nature may await discovery in any part

of D'Arcy's Field.

The survey conducted by Target Archaeological Geophysics in September 2006 has

established the presence of substantial archaeological remains in the northern section

of D'Arcy's Field. In addition to a series of potential archaeological finds in the

central and southern part of the field it is possible that coins or some of the coins

could have come from D'Arcy's Field.

Dr. Clinton fully endorses the recommendations contained in Dr. Brady’s research

that the northern section of D'Arcy's Field should be excluded from any construction


activities. It should be formally acknowledged as a total exclusion zone and therefore

exempt from any extraneous interference. The coastal pathway along the eastern

flank of the area should be recognised as being integral especially given its known

archaeologically investigated status.

The provision of a 25 metre cordon sanitaire should be established south of the most

southern feature which is Feature C as denoted on the geophysical survey. The faint

representations of some features illustrates how easy it is to miss the presence of

additional associated features when relying on geophysical detection methods alone.

The physical setting and environment of a monument is integral to its proper

understanding and enjoy protection under the National Monuments Act.

The southern perimeter of the cordon sanitaire should be protected by a robust wire

fence.

Section 2 of the National Monuments Act states:

“In addition to the monument itself, the site of the monument and the means of

access thereto and also portion of land adjoining such sites as may be required

to fence, cover in or otherwise preserve from injury, the monument, or to

preserve the amenities thereof.”

When a monument is to be protected it is not just the monument itself but a significant

band around it.

The creation of an exclusion zone is fully warranted on the basis of the results of the

geophysical survey conducted by Target Archaeological Geophysics. The

identification of three definitive and one probable archaeological anomalies in this

area is of prime importance. Their siting to the south of the river, the water of

Rathdown and towards the old coastline raises the possibility that these features were

integral to the moated castle, church, settlement complex position to the immediate

north of the river.

Features A, C and A2 could alternatively be of pre-historic date.


Should that prove to be the case then it could be a cemetery of late Bronze Age or

Iron Age. The major discoveries in the field that lies to the immediate west of St.

Crispin’s Cell firmly establish that there is a high concentration of pre-historic activity

in the general area of D'Arcy's Field.

Feature B, an enclosed site within the region of 40 by 50 metres, lying to the

immediate south of the confluence of the water of Rathdown and the sea, raises the

possibility of proving to be the original dwelling place of the occupants of the early

medieval site known to have existed at Rathdown. As there has been a continuity of

occupancy it has always been expected that the original homestead would be present

in the general vicinity of the complex.

In relation to the central and southern sections of D'Arcy's Field it is imperative that

the precise nature of the myriad of potential archaeological features be ascertained in

advance of any planning decision regarding development related activities in these

areas. Any topsoil stripping in D'Arcy's Field would be counter-productive in the

preparation of accurate and comprehensive analysis and subsequent interpretation of

the archaeology present in the area. Topsoil stripping will inevitably lead to the

removal of artefacts from their original association related context.

The dumping elsewhere of topsoil with these finds would contaminate and thus distort

the archaeological profile of the receiving area. The materials which have represented

the Mesolithic, manifest themselves in the form of stone artefacts and the waste from

the preparation of these objects. The same holds true for the non-ceramic material

from the Neolithic period. This material which represents the earliest human activity

on the island, often comes to light in the context of ploughed fields. Material is

therefore contained in the topsoil. The fact that there is material of this description in

the area was proven by Cafferky in the form of the flints recovered from the ploughed

fields to the north of the moated castle complex.

An archaeological excavation remains a journey into the unknown and the

unexpected.

In other cases up to 80% of all surviving artefacts are present in the topsoil.


The National Monuments Act, (Amendment) 2004, make specific provision for the

preservation of archaeological objects. Section 25.1 of the Act states:

“It shall not be lawful for any person to injure, deface or destroy, clean, restore

or sample by cutting, drilling or other process any archaeological object nor

shall it be lawful for any person to alter any archaeological object otherwise

than under and in accordance with the licence that they have granted under

this section.”

The use of a mechanical digger either to remove the topsoil or to dig trenches would

almost certainly lead to a direct contravention of the National Monuments Act

because of the likelihood of interfering with an archaeological object.

Until the true and complete archaeological profile of D'Arcy's Field has been

scientifically investigated and determined the granting of permission for any

development related activities will be premature.

Heritage is a finite resource and a finite national recourse. It should not be diminished

for the sake of what is after all only a temporary local facility.

Geophysical surveys have been carried out at other sites in the recent past.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have not

adopted any stance on the extent of the cordon sanitaire safety margin. 25 metres

would appear to be acceptable. Erring on the side of caution would seem reasonable.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in relation to

the proposed development have stated:

“It should be further noted that should potential archaeology be discovered or

impacted during the course of the construction phase, avoidance, preservation

in situ, archaeological test, excavation or full archaeological investigation

would be the preferred mitigation.”


The option of preservation in situ is of note.

Section 3.4 of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

publication “Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological

Heritage” states:

“Preservation in situ refers to the actual physical preservation of

archaeological sites and monuments including archaeological deposits,

features and structures. There should also be a presumption in favour of

avoiding developmental impacts on archaeological heritage.

Preservation in situ must always be the first option to be considered rather

than preservation by record in order to allow development to proceed and

preservation in situ must also be presumed to be the preferred option. Above

any other considerations all developments must be compliant with the

National Monuments Act and particularly in this case with Section 25.1.”

The National Monuments Act is the law and therefore must be fully complied with. It

is well within the remit of this oral haring to evaluate whether the Act and stated

government policy is being advanced here or not.

Ms. M. Egan stated that she was a resident of the area living at 1 Triton House, The

Harbour.

She had grave concerns particularly in relation to noise, dust, traffic and concrete

batching. Transportation of materials to and from the site would be very disruptive.

The entire development does not fit with both the Victorian Harbour and the natural

landscape.

The Planning Authority had not adequately addressed the batching plant, the removal

of the dump, traffic generation and beach nourishment.


The size, scale and design of the square is excessive. Noise generated from the square

would make it impossible to live within the area. During the annual Greystones Arts

Festival the witness has to vacate her home for between 18 and 21 hours a day due to

constant noise. There is also unacceptable anti-social behaviour.

The design of the proposed square is a hotch/potch of various designs. It is

completely at odds with the Victorian structure of the harbour.

The location of the clubs in one area would be intrusive to the residents. The design

of the clubhouses is ugly and incongruent in terms of the old Victorian harbour and

the surrounding houses.

Mr. C. Demery stated that he lived at North Beach. His home was closest to the

development planned on the site.

The additional information submitted has only added to fears over the construction.

The new layout still obstructs the view from his house. The four-storey blocks are

still only feet away from the house.

The developers have underestimated the amount of waste material dumped on the old

landfill site.

There was an old sandpit on the site. The pit was the last area of the dump to be filled

in and it is more than likely the source of any contaminated waste.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Flanagan, Dr. Clinton stated that the new

discovered sites in the northern section of D'Arcy's Field may well qualify for national

monument status in the future either structurally or by associated finds. It is

important to preserve their integrity until they are finally designated. Geophysical

surveys are an opening gambit. The archaeology of a site would never be published

on the basis of a geophysical survey. A 25 metre corridor should be maintained from

the nearest feature southwards. There may be associated features so therefore one has

to err on the side of caution. However features could be extending into the central

and southern part of the field.


The geophysicist John Pickles, who carried out the geophysical survey of D'Arcy's

Field, although being aware of the sewerage disturbance through the field, still

declared a feature in the central part of the field to be of possible potential

archaeological significance.

If a feature in the middle or the central or southern part of the field turned out to be

a bona fide, good, important archaeological find, either from its structural or

associated form, then one could have, right in the middle of the central or the southern

part of the field, another feature that had to be preserved in situ. That would very

much render the borrow pit unviable.

The legislation provides for input for both the Department of the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government and for the National Museum of Ireland. The

National Museum of Ireland have come out clearly and said that the development is

premature.

Under advice from the National Museum of Ireland it is a function of the Department

of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to statutorily regulate any forms

of resolution in relation to archaeology.

Precedent has illustrated that if the National Museum of Ireland has serious

reservations in relation to the development of a site, the Department of the

Environment, Heritage and Local Government will alter their stance.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must be

compliant with the legislation and especially Article 25(1) of the National Monuments

Act 2000. Anything which they do must comply with the article or else they are

subjected to judicial review. Section 25 relates to a licence issued by the Department

of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The department has a certain track record now in consistency. At an oral hearing in

Waterford, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

officials were advocating that the archaeology of the site had been resolved and that

no further work was needed. This however was later overturned by the Minister for

the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.


In reply to a question from the Inspector, Dr. Clinton said that he gave expert

evidence at the hearing in the Waterford case. In that case it was stated by Dr.

Clinton that approving the alternative road past the site would be premature because

the entire perimeters of the site had not been fully defined. In spite of this the

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government officials who were

present at the oral hearing, did not provide any evidence that there might be additional

archaeological investigations required. However within a couple of months the

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government considered that no

more excavation was required.

In reply Mr. Flanagan stated that the amount of information available in relation to the

instant site was way beyond that available in the Woodstown site in Waterford.

In reply Dr. Clinton stated that a full geophysical survey, just like the one carried one

on the instant site, had been done at Woodstown. It was being advocated at the time

that the archaeological finds were only minor stuff. It was also advocated that there

was no need for full excavation, a proper explanation. On the day that was the

attitude adopted. It is available in the record of the case in the files of An Bord

Pleanála. However within a month or two the Minister reversed the whole thing and

said no new excavation should be carried out.

Mr. Flanagan stated that the developers fully bought into the requirements of the

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

In reply to number of questions from Mr. D. Flynn, Mr. S. Mason stated that in

relation to truck movements into and out of the site, the amount of such movement

was estimated on the basis of the amounts of material to be moved in and out of the

site. Because the development has been reduced material to be moved would be

approximately 10%.less.. Traffic movement reduction of between 9 and 13% would

occur.

It was shown at the previous oral hearing that, unusually, the peak hour in the

morning for traffic movement was later than one might expect. It was at the school


delivery period around 9.00 whereas one might normally expect the peak hour to be 7

to 8 or 8 to 9.

Delivery times were an 8 hour period per day. There would be no delivery at times of

peak traffic flow.

Dr. I. Shanahan stated that there would be a traffic management plan put into place

which would provide the specifics as to what would happen on the ground.

Continuing in reply to questions from Mr. Flynn, Mr. Mason stated that there would

be sufficient space for trucks to manoeuvre within the site. Large numbers of trucks

will not be parked overnight on the site. A small number of vehicles would be

required to remain on site. These would be used in moving material from the

batching plant to the casting yard.

Fuel storage would also be provided for on-site. This would be for the refuelling of

vehicles and would contain a couple of hundred litres as is normal on a construction

site. Such facilities are bunded and protected. Measures would be in place to deal

with any spillages etc.

Dr. Shanahan stated that it was intended that there would be four mixer trucks

transporting concrete on site. These would take concrete from the batching plant and

transfer it into the casting yard for pouring into moulds. There would be an excavator

operating on the site transporting materials from the storage bins into the hoppers.

There would also be a number of crawler cranes.

Specific procedures have been put in place for the delivery, transport, handling and

general management of fuels and other materials on site. Appendix 6 of the further

information submitted to An Bord Pleanála in October 2006 contains a detailed

manual dealing with all aspects of the environmental management practices which

will be implemented on the site.

In reply to a number of further questions from Mr. Flynn, Mr. Mason stated that there

were no plans to physically stockpile dredged materials unless there was something


dug out that was considered to be unsuitable by virtue of the type of material. The

general plan is that as material is dredged it would be brought to its point of

deposition.

The bulked value of dredged material resulting from the operation proposed is in the

order of 130,000 cubic metres.

In relation to the suitability of the dredged material, all evidence to date would

indicate that it is suitable as fill in the borrow pit. There is no indication as to why it

would not be suitable.

The borrow pit does not need to be licensed as a landfill.

The area of the borrow pit now currently proposed is 12,000 square metres. At an

average depth of borrow material of 8 – 9 metres, the amount of material to be

excavated would be approximately 100,000 cubic metres.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Flynn, Dr. Shanahan stated that it was not

specifically planned to have lights around the perimeter of the borrow pit. It would be

fenced off for security and safety reasons. There are no plans to light the perimeter.

The only continuous lighted area would be at the batching plant and the pre-casting

area, on the eastern part of D'Arcy's Field.

Appendix 4 of the further information submission of October 2006 provides figures

which relate to all of the noise generating activity associated with the batching plant

and the casting yard.

A separate assessment was made of the borrow pit in Section 5.4.13 in the body of the

report. The first sentence of Section 5.4.13 is as follows:

“The assessment showed that the borrow pit would result in an addition of

approximately 3 dB to the noise levels associated with this phase of the

development at the nearest residences to the site. This would lead to an Laeq

1 hour which is the noise that people would experience over a period of 1 hour


at the nearest residences, of 62 dB, which is still well within the acceptable

noise level assessment criteria of 70 dB(A) for the construction phase of the

development.

The borrow pit is only going to be in use occasionally. . Even the worst hour

that it is operating would not add more than 3 dB to noise levels.

If there is a change in noise levels of 3 dB, that will not be a significant change

in terms of what people can understand and perceive.

At no time are noise levels going to exceed 70 dB. The maximum noise level

will vary depending on the activity taking place and its locations.”

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Flanagan, Mr. S. Fallon stated that he was

a member of An Garda Siochana for 25 years and retired from the force in 1984. He

had been based in Greystones all of that time. He had however moved from

Greystones to Delgany around 1978 as he had built a house in Delgany and moved

from Greystones because of the dump.

There has always been comings and goings to and from the dump. Fly tipping as it is

now called took place the whole time. He had observed activities at the dump on an

official and unofficial basis.

When illegal dumping was occurring on the site it was not his duty as a Garda to

pursue the dumpers.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. F. Etchingham, Dr. I. Shanahan stated that

she did not have any reservations about objectivity on any of the work carried out for

the developers.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Etchingham Mr. Mason stated that

Ballyhorsey was originally named as the source of beach nourishment material in the

original EIS. It was also specifically named in the additional information.


Ballyhorsey contains enough material over the next 10 years or so and an assurance in

this regard has been obtained by the developer.

There are many other sand and gravel pits which will have a similar type of

geological material. A number of these would be available for use in the future.

There has however been no direct assessment of sources other than those indicated in

the additional information.

Given the nature of the deposits which are required, glacial outwash, comprising stone

from the Wicklow area generally, these types of deposits are available elsewhere

within County Wicklow.

The developers comments in relation to beach nourishment specifically referred to

information required in relation to seaborne deliveries of nourishment material. It

was in that context that the proposed delivery by land from local quarries was

included as an option.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Etchingham stated that he

was a trustee of the sailing club. He was aware that the sailing club was the only one

of the clubs which has outstanding concerns.

There was an issue in relation to VAT. If the proposal to the Council to grant a long-

term lease on the site was successful, that could trigger a VAT liability. If such a

liability arose the club would effectively have been unable to occupy the premises as

the sums of money involved would be too great for them to pay. Wicklow County

Council would not indemnify the club against a VAT liability.

Mr. Etchingham said that he was not representing the sailing club.

For Wicklow County Council Mr. S. Quirke stated that there had been a number of

meetings with the sailing club. The advice given to the Council in relation to VAT

was that the provision of a lease should not attract VAT. Changes in the legislation

are due this year however therefore a cast iron guarantee could not be given in

relation to a lease and the possibility that it might attract VAT.


In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Etchingham, Ms. S. Walsh stated that the

primary function of an architectural conservation area is to protect. Such an area is a

place, area, group of structures or town scheme of special architectural, historical,

archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical value.

Such a designation relates more to buildings but rather to a wider area that has some

characteristics worth preserving. At the initial oral hearing a reference was made to

the old Burnaby which is designated an architectural conservation area. It is more

than just the buildings themselves which give the area character, it is the street

pattern, the trees and the setback of buildings to the road and so on.

It was not agreed, during the making of the Local Area Plan, that the coastal area at

Greystones represented a coherent entity similar to the old Burnaby. That was the

advice proffered by the professional planners. The county manager and the

councillors ultimately decided the status of the harbour area.

The main reason it did not achieve ACA status was that it was not considered to

represent a coherent entity.

The area contains a number of street patterns. A number of the roads could possibly

have been mews roads or lanes initially and were not part of the original Victorian

fabric.

There has also been considerable intervention in the area by modern buildings and

structures which considerably interrupt the character of the area, including St. David’s

School and the Telecom building. There are also a number of modern buildings on

Trafalgar Road.

Even with the designation of an architectural conservation area, there would be

nothing in that designation which would preclude developments at just the harbour

and marina proposed particularly with the considerable distance now between Block

D and the Victorian seafront buildings. Even if this area were to be given an

architectural conservation status this would not prevent new buildings, new

interventions once they respect the character of the area.


The Local Area Plan states:

“The designation of an architectural conservation area does not prejudice

innovative and contemporary design. On the contrary, in principle design of

contemporary minimalist style could be encouraged within architectural

conservation areas provided it does not detract from the character of the area.

It is considered that new buildings should be of their own time and appearance

and should not replicate the style and detailing of heritage buildings.

The replication of historic architectural styles is considered to be counter-

productive to heritage conservation and principle, as it blurs the distinction

between what is historic and what is contemporary and leads to the emergence

of poorly considered buildings.”

Ms. Quinn from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government,

in the initial oral hearing stated that there were a number of protected buildings in the

area. She also made certain comments regarding the design of the proposed

development. These were taken on board by An Bord Pleanála in particular in the

further information request. There was an issue of proximity to the older buildings.

These were fully addressed through An Bord Pleanála in the revised proposed.

Mr. Etchingham stated that for the record the Department of the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government did actually state that the area would appear to merit

architectural conservation area status.

In reply the Inspector stated that that is on the record. However it was possible that

Ms. Walsh was not actually attending the original hearing at that particular time.

Continuing Mr. Etchingham stated that the Manager’s Report on the Local Area Plan

in July 2006 stated:

“Designating the harbour as an architectural conservation area would be in

conflict with the objectives of the Action Plan Z1 to provide a high quality


integrated harbour, marina, mixed development.” That would tie in within the

evidence given by Ms. Walsh in this regard.

ACA status is quite an important status. It is important in achieving objectives and

preserving areas of architectural significance. It would appear that the area was not

afforded that status for the simple reason that it would have precluded or might have

precluded the construction of the harbour and the marina.

In reply to a question in relation to wave modelling by Mr. Etchingham, Mr. Flanagan

stated that at the initial oral hearing a commitment was given by the developers in

relation to over topping. In terms of physical structures there would be no more than

potentially a 0.5 metre increase in height of the breakwater. The developers are not

relying on physical modelling to offer any changes to the proposed works.

In reply to a question from Mr. Flynn, Mr. Quirke of Wicklow County Council stated

that discussions were held with the clubs because the facilities were being provided .

Only a short space of time was available to submit information to An Bord Pleanála.

It was not feasible to hold further public meetings within that time newsletters were

delivered to.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Etchingham, Mr. M. Hussey stated that

View 15 submitted with the additional information is the correct one.

In reply to a number of questions from Ms. Cawley, Mr. Quirke stated that the value

of the foreshore is essentially a matter which will become pertinent if the Compulsory

Purchase Order is confirmed. Wicklow County Council have an assessment of what

they are prepared to pay for the foreshore. It is understood that the Minister for

Finance also has such an assessment. Wicklow County Council will not enter into

negotiations until such time as the Compulsory Purchase Order is confirmed and a

notice to treat is served on the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance has

received a valuation from the Valuation Office. It is not for Wicklow County Council

to reveal what valuation has been put on the foreshore although Wicklow County

Council are aware of the figure.


In reply to a number of questions from Dr. Smal, Mr. Mason stated that the physical

modelling which was done in relation to the beach, do not include any coastal process

modelling. The beach nourishment scheme is founded on the numerical modelling

and not on any physical modelling of coastal erosion.

It is the developers intention to remove all beach shingle. When the harbour is

completed it will be reinstated as the natural shingle beach in the harbour. The precise

storage would be subject to the Construction Management Plan. It will be somewhere

within the overall site.

The initial works to be undertaken will be the establishment of the sides to build the

breakwater. Until such time as the breakwater is in place anything that is done behind

it would be under threat from adverse sea and storm weather conditions. This would

be obviated when the breakwater is in place.

The operation of the borrow pit does not come into the equation until well into the

coastal marine works. The breakwaters would be substantially in place prior to the

start of reclamation and until such time as the developers are confident that it is not

going to be exposed to any erosion or displacement by sea conditions no such work

will be carried out. There is no need to dredge the harbour material until the

breakwater is in place.

Injecting the Inspector stated that it should be pointed out that material may need to

be moved a number of times around the site as various processes are undertaken.

Mr. Mason stated that one of the fundamental principles, with the entire design, is to

minimise the amount of materials brought in and out of the site so there is a very

conscious effort to utilise material on site. The double handling or greater amount of

handling of materials where at all possible will be avoided. This is a commercial

consideration.

Mobile refuelling systems would be used on the site as far as possible. This would

obviate the need for on-site storage.


In a concluding submission Mr. Etchingham stated that the plan is wrong for

Greystones as it does not fit.

The minor modifications undertaken in the additional information do nothing to

render the development more acceptable.

Despite the removal of two blocks the development is still enormously intrusive on

the landscape. Its design is in such conflict with its surroundings that it was necessary

for the Council to withhold architectural conservation area status from the harbour

area. To have accorded such status would have highlighted the unsuitability of the

design of the housing and caused a greater risk that the development would be refused

permission. The receiving environment cannot cope with the traffic the development

will generate. No amount of tweaking of access junctions or traffic calming measures

will overcome this problem.

It is necessary to disturb the old dump and contaminate previously uncontaminated

land to complete the development. The coastline is unsuitable for this type of

development. Erosion will be massively accelerated. The Council will be committed

to costly beach nourishment in perpetuity. This would place a massive drain on the

resources of the local authority and cause silting problems elsewhere as the

nourishment material is washed away each year.

The results of the wave modelling are unknown.

It is not known where all the material for the beach nourishment will come from or

indeed whether it will be suitable.

It is not known if the project is financially viable.

It is not known what will happen if certain parts of the plan for example the borrow

pit proved not to be feasible.

It is unknown if there will be a sailing club. The premises may be unsuitable.


It is not known whether the transport of materials on and off site by sea is practical or

whether this option is simply being dismissed to save money.

The project lacks any significant level of public support.

The only supporters of the proposals are harbour users whose motivations are entirely

understandable.

It should be possible to provide a plan for the area which regards its outstanding

natural beauty, its cultural heritage, the constraints from the infrastructure particularly

in relation to traffic and the potential damage to the adjacent foreshore.

The proposal obliterates what the community treasures most. An Bord Pleanála is

requested to refuse permission for the development.

In closing Mr. Flanagan stated that he was not aware of any environmental protection

agency legislation relating to separation distances from batching plants.

An Bord Pleanála sought information in relation to the batching plant. A very high

level of information has been supplied.

The investigation of the old dump carried out by Arup & Partners was sufficient.

Wicklow County Council have consulted with the Environmental Protection Agency,

who are the competent authority in relation to the question of waste and

environmental pollution. In their opinion what is proposed is a recovery operation.

There is no evidence of any interference with groundwater. There is no leachate.

It is equally acceptable in terms of negligible environmental risk to allow part of the

landfill to be removed subject to an ongoing monitoring situation.

The position in relation to beach nourishment is that the Planning Authority will

pursue an application for a licence in relation to the Codling Bank.


A sea to shore solution for the required beach nourishment is the most acceptable in

terms of traffic impact. That solution requires transfer of material from the Codling

Bank. That in turn requires a licence. The outcome of that statutory process cannot

be predicted. If a licence is granted it is the preferred solution for beach nourishment.

The remaining options are road based or a part road part sea solution. In relation to a

part road, part sea solution, the road element will involve a round trip of up to 59

kilometres instead of 19 kilometres. To that extent the situation from a disbenefit

point of view is that the disbenefit is more widely spread throughout the locality. This

solution outweighs the disbenefits associated with a road only solution. That is

recommended on current knowledge.

The delivery of material via the leisure harbour itself would be completely unsuitable

in terms of adverse disruption and limitation on vessel size.

If a road solution is to be implemented the Board should consider extending the

duration of the road based solution from four weeks to eight weeks. This would

effectively mean that the number of additional truck deliveries would not exceed 15

per day.

If An Bord Pleanála is minded to incorporate an option in relation to a licence for the

Codling Bank the wording could possibly be as follows:

“Within 12 months of the commencement of development, Wicklow County

Council shall make an application for a foreshore licence to the Department of

the Marine, Communications and Natural Resources to provide the necessary

beach nourishment material from the Codling Bank.”

In relation to archaeology and D'Arcy's Field the developers entirely endorse the

contents of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government’s

letter of 29th January 2007.


Any archaeological monitoring would be subject to the detailed requirements

contained in the letter from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government.

This would result in licensed excavation in accordance with the licence granted.

With effect from the 17th October 2006 the Strategic Infrastructure Bill came in to

place. Section 143 of the 2000 Act has been amended as follows:

“The Board shall, in performing its functions have regard to

(a) The policies and objectives for the time being of the Government, State

Authority, the Minister, Planning Authorities and any other body

which is a public authority whose functions have or may have a

bearing on the proper planning and sustainable development of cities,

towns or other areas whether urban or rural.

(b) The national interest and any effect the performance of the Board’s

functions may have on issues of strategic, economic or social

importance to the State and,

(c) The National Spatial Strategy and any Regional Planning Guidelines for

the time being in force.”

Subsection (c) clearly affirms National Spatial Strategy and Regional Planning

Guidelines as being of overriding consideration for An Bord Pleanála in the exercise

of its functions.

Mr. J. O’Sullivan and Professor Cooper did not base their conclusions on their own

evidence. A proffered opinions based on their own view of the evidence.

The level of information in this proposal is way over and above that which is

normally associated with development .


In relation to traffic what is proposed is a low speed environment in an already low

speed area. That low speed environment and the separation of traffic movements from

vulnerable road users was extensively discussed at the first oral hearing and has been

amplified and looked at again. In two significant ways mitigation has been carried

out. This is done by the provision of an additional access point. It will also be

considerably added to with the provision of a 30 kph speed environment.

The design manual for roads and bridges related to trunk roads. It is not correct to use

it to deal with low speed environments such as proposed.

The additional information contained two fundamental elements. The first was the

creation of a public square to establish a transition between the old and the new. This

has been wholeheartedly achieved in the revised proposal.

Beach nourishment emanating from the Codling Bank, subject to licence, is a

mitigation measure.

In the Dietcarton Limited versus An Bord Pleanála case the High Court decided,

Quirke J. on 13/10/2004 that a request for detailed additional information and a

redesign to the then proposed Balgaddy Centre, was a valid request by An Bord

Pleanála.

Approval should be granted to the proposal subject to the mitigation measures

outlined during the course of the hearing and in the written submissions.

As this concluded the evidence the hearing was formally closed.

ASSESSMENT

The submission of revised drawings and particulars to An Bord Pleanála, by the

developers, resulted from the request for further information contained in the letter of

14th August 2006 from An Bord Pleanála to Wicklow County Council.


Following the submission of further information the public was given access to this

information. The submissions objecting to and supporting the proposal amounted to in

excess of 130.

An Bord Pleanála acceded to the request from the objectors to reopen the oral hearing.

The proceedings of the reopened oral hearing, which lasted for three days, are on file

and a precise of the hearing, containing all relevant sections, constitutes part of this

report. This report also constitutes an addendum to my report of the 11th July 2006.

An Bord Pleanála request for further information:

The request for further information is contained in a letter to Wicklow County

Council amounting to approximately three pages. The letter was issued to the local

authority in accordance with Section 175(5)(a) of the Planning and Development Act

2000. 6 no. issues were referred to. These issues outline the views of An Bord

Pleanála in relation to certain aspects of the proposal. In general Items 1-6 required

the submission of further information. However there was a certain amount of

direction contained in the six points. In relation to Items 4 and 5 direction was

specifically given requiring the omission of Blocks B and C and adjacent Terrace 13.

Direction was also given requiring the redesign of Block D.

In relation to Item 6 it was stated that the redesign of the scheme may require the

relocation of the clubhouses and ancillary facilities to an alternative location on the

overall site.

Finally it was directed that the redesign undertaken shall result in a reduction in the

quantum of the overall development and associated traffic generation. It was stated

that this may require some redesign of other elements within the overall proposed

development, whilst maintaining the integrity of the overall proposal.

In order to address the issues raised in the letter of An Bord Pleanála dated 14 th

August 2006 considerable information has been submitted by the developers.


Considerable information has also been submitted by objectors to the proposal.

Support forthe proposal has also been voiced both in written form and at the reopened

oral hearing.

I consider that the further information, as well as all the other information, including

the proceedings of the reopened oral hearing, can best be dealt with using the

sequence contained in the letter of 14th August 2006, requesting further information.

My report of 11th August 2006 covered all issues relating to the development as then

formulated. Having regard to this it is proposed to comment only on the changes to

the proposal, resulting from the request for further information. I also propose to

comment upon the objectors reaction to this further information.

Batching Plant/Casting Yard and Borrow Pit:

Batching Plant:

Considerable detail had been submitted in relation to the batching plant, in the

original proposal. The batching plant is similar to batching plants provided throughout

the country on construction sites. It is also similar to such plants provided in mainly

gravel pits, to utilise the raw material at source and to provide readymix concrete for

transport to construction sites. In this regard I consider that the batching plant

constitutes a standard piece of construction equipment. The installation, and

operation, including servicing, by raw material, has been fully clarified in the

submitted information. The plant itself is located a considerable distance from the

nearest residences. Its presence on site and its operation, will not give rise to any

injury to residential amenity. As such I consider that it is a fully acceptable standard

piece of industrial equipment necessitated by the construction proposals on the site.

Casting Yard:

The casting yard was also outlined in considerable detail in the original submission.

Further information has been submitted in relation to the casting plant. I consider that


the casting plant is necessary in order, literally, to provide the building blocks for the

breakwater particularly and other parts of the development. It adjoins the batching

plant. Its presence on site obviates the need to cast large concrete structures

elsewhere and transport them to the site. I consider that the batching plant in both

design and operation, would not result in any injury to the residential amenities of

property in the vicinity. Like the batching plant it is located a reasonable distance

from the nearest residential accommodation. The location is visually cut off from

residential accommodation by the railway embankment. This acts not only as a visual

barrier but also a noise attenuator.

Noise and Air Impacts:

Both of these issues have been dealt with in some detail in the original Environmental

Impact Statement and in the additional information. Reference has also been made to

them during the course of the reopened oral hearing.

Noise:

As indicated in my report of July 2006 the highest levels of noise generation would be

during the construction phase. Noise generation will not constitute an issue of

concern once the construction works have been completed. The length of the

construction period, at five years in the original proposal, has been slightly reduced by

the reduction in the amount of development proposed.

Marine engineering works would, in the initial period, constitute the greatest noise

generation with the construction of the harbour. Works such as dredging, piling and

fabrication of the very large concrete blocks and their transport on site would

constitute sources of the greatest noise generation. Heavy truck movements would

also generate considerable noise.

Hours of operation are critical in relation to noise.


The details submitted by the developers has indicated that no element of works

resulting from the development will cause an increase of greater than 3 dB and that

the maximum noise generation would not in any event be greater than 70 dB.

In relation to noise generation I consider that what is proposed is acceptable.

In relation to noise generally I consider that that hours of operation are critical. In this

regard Condition 10 of my original report was as follows:

“Demolition and construction works shall be confined between the hours of

08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 16.30 on Saturdays.

Construction shall not take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties in the vicinity

during the course of the works.

Air Impacts:

Both the batching plant and the casting yard operations, have been outlined, as noted

above, in some detail in the original EIS and in the details submitted as a result of the

request for further information.

I do not consider that either plant would result in an impact upon air quality or give

rise to dust. In this regard mitigation measures have been outlined in considerable

detail particularly in relation to the batching plant and to the transport of raw material

to the plant.

Light Impacts:

This constituted a point referred to in Item 1 of the letter of 14 th August, 2006 from

An Bord Pleanála. Detail in relation to lighting of the site has been provided in both

written and oral form. I am satisfied that measures proposed in relation to lighting the

construction site will mitigate any potential disamenity to residences in the area.


In relation to traffic disturbance, also referred to in Item No. 1, it is of note, that the

provision of a batching plant and casting yard on the site constitutes a major

mitigation/reduction of heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from the site as both

uses are on site. I consider that the traffic disturbance resulting from the proposed

development has been proposed to be sufficiently mitigated by the developer.

It is their intention that construction activities on the site will give rise to as little

traffic generation as possible. While there will be an element of traffic disturbance

resulting from development, I am satisfied that the measures proposed by the

developers, at the construction phase, constitute the best practicable means by which

traffic disturbance can be mitigated.

It should be noted that the location proposed for the batching plant and the casting

yard have been moved southwards by 10 metres. This follows the advice given by

Dr. N. Brady, Archaeologist for the developers, following the archaeological

investigations carried out in D'Arcy's Field, subsequent to my report of July 2006.

These investigations noted a number of anomalies. Reference has been made in the

objectors detailed submission, by Dr. Clinton, to the necessity to provide a widened

area of 25 metres between the southernmost anomaly as opposed to the 10 metre

cordon sanitaire, as proposed by Dr. Brady. The objectors furthermore consider that

until such time as resolution has been fully implemented in archaeological terms, in

all of D'Arcy's Field, the development should be considered to be premature.

I am in agreement with the position adopted by Dr. Clinton that a strip of land, 25

metres in length for the full width of the site, in this section of D'Arcy's Field, should

remain undisturbed, as opposed to the 10 metre band proposed by Dr. Brady. Over

the remainder of D'Arcy's Field it is of considerable importance, in my opinion, that

archaeological testing be implemented prior to the commencement of any

development on this part of the site. In particular I do not consider that a batching

plant or casting yard should be established until such time as sufficient knowledge is

obtained in relation to the archaeology of D'Arcy's Field. I furthermore consider that

it would be seriously ill advised to permit the removal of material as proposed in the


borrow pit, until such time as the area covered by the proposed pit has been fully

resolved archaeologically.

It is of some note that the northern part of D'Arcy's Field, the subject of research by

Dr. Brady, has revealed the presence of what appear to be important anomalies. The

possibility of other finds is stated, by the objectors, to be likely having regard to the

history of finds in the area further north. I fully accept this position. I also consider

that the position adopted by the objectors in relation to what is proposed in the borrow

pit is the correct one and requires support. Their basic position on the borrow pit is

that it is a temporary proposal involving the removal of material, from a site of

considerable archaeological potential. This removed material would be replaced by

dredged material. The removed material would be used as fill, as it would be more

suitable for that purpose than parts of the dredged material.

In relation to D'Arcy's Field therefore I consider that no disturbance by way of

development of any plant on the site should occur north of a line running east/west, 25

metres to the south of the recognised archaeological features in the northern section of

the field, the discovery of which resulted from the geophysical survey carried out on

the part of the developers.

I consider that the evidence submitted by Dr. Clinton in relation to topsoil stripping is

of considerable relevance having regard to the possibility that archaeological features

or finds would be more than likely close to the surface.

The25 metre cordon sanitaire, is required therefore to the south of Feature C, as

outlined in the geophysical survey. I furthermore consider that preservation in situ

should be the first option to be considered, being preferable to preservation by record.

Preservation by record is normally implemented in order to allow development to

proceed. However in this case as the development proposal is basically the removal

of material, such removal, is not a necessary part of permittin the overall

development to proceed. It is not a vital element in relation to the implementation of

the proposed development.

Condition No. 9 of my original report was as follows:


“The establishment of the batching plant and the casting yard shall be

monitored by a suitably qualified archaeologist. Both plans should be located

as far south as possible in D'Arcy's Field. A report on the monitoring shall be

submitted to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government and a copy shall be made available for inspection in the offices of

the local authority.

Reason: To protect the archaeological and cultural heritage of the area.”

I consider that Condition No. 9 above requires to be amended in order to provide for a

25 metre cordon sanitaire and also to provide for the adequate archaeological

investigation of D'Arcy's Field.

THE OLD DUMP

Item 2 contained in the letter of 14th August 2006 dealt specifically with the old dump.

The developers were requested to consider an alternative option showing the complete

removal of landfill material from the site, preferably by sea, to ensure that any long-

term environmental impact is avoided.

The developers were also requested, in their response to outline the position regarding

any necessary waste licenses required.

Item 2 has resulted in the submission of a considerable amount of material both in

written form and at the oral hearing. The objectors introduced a new witness, Mr.

O’Sullivan and provided details that had not been referred to by them in their original

submission.

The developers position would appear to be as follows. There is no particular need to

deviate from the developers original proposal to move 9,000 cubic metres of material

from one end of the site, southern section, to another, the northern section, in spite of

the fact that the Board, in Item No. 2 referred to the fact that it might not be satisfied


with the overall approach in dealing with the old dump by redeposition, and capping,

having regard to potential environmental impacts resulting from such works.

The developers proposal is to implement the original removal of approximately 9,000

cubic metres from the southern sector of the dump and to position it to the north of the

existing dump area. This results from the fact that it is intended to construct houses on

the southern part of the existing landfill.

The evidence produced at the reopened oral hearing by the objectors is to the effect

that the old dump should either remain undisturbed or should be entirely removed

from the site, by sea.

While the developers have carried out testing of the landfill, I find myself in

agreement with the objectors that, having regard to the variety of materials, which

was deposited in old landfills, both legally and illegally, removing part of the landfill

for deposition elsewhere on the site, does not constitute an acceptable solution. It

should be noted that the developers do not consider that a waste licence is required for

this activity. On the other hand the objectors consider that if legislation currently in

the pipeline is implemented such activity would be licensable.

Condition 14 of my report of July 2006 was as follows:

“The proposed development shall provide for the complete removal of landfill

material from the site. The material shall be removed prior to the occupation

of any dwellings. Material shall be trucked to the berth at the northern

breakwater, being provided in compliance with Condition No. 6 above, for

shipment off the site. Details relating to this requirement shall be submitted to

the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. These

details shall comply with the requirements of the authority in relation to

method of removal, shipment and location of final disposal.

Reason: In order to ensure that landfill material on-site is dealt with in

accordance with the best modern practice and to ensure that any long-term

adverse environmental impact is avoided.”


If the landfill remains undisturbed, it would result in a loss of a number of houses, at

the northern part of the residential development.

I do not consider that removal of material for deposition on another part of the site,

constitutes an acceptable approach. I furthermore do not consider that the examples

given by the developers, at Fairview, Pottery Road /Johnstown Road and the N11 at

Bromley, are in any way comparable to what is proposed on the subject site. In none

of those cases was it proposed to build on land which had been stripped of landfill.

None of the sites immediately adjoin residential accommodation. The Fairview site is

located some distance from residential accommodation. The Pottery Road site is an

industrial development and does not relate to residential accommodation in any way.

The Bromley site is located on the eastern side of the N11 and again does not relate in

any way to residential accommodation. It is removal of landfill for the provision of a

road interchange.

I consider that the landfill requires removal from the site in full. This can best be

achieved by seaborne transport. It could be done in the immediate period following

the provision of the harbour and a berth development which would have the dual

usage of not only providing for the removal of the landfill by sea but also, if required,

the importation of beach nourishment material. This is referred to below.

I do not consider that the arguments put forward by the developers in relation to the

landfill are in any way convincing. While it would be possible to retain the landfill on

site I consider its removal would be far preferable having regard to the fact that

residential accommodation would be constructed immediately adjoining it. It is also

of some importance that any danger of erosion of the landfill, by the sea, is obviated.

Removal is, in my opinion, required. I know of no other site where it has been

proposed to retain a landfill, reposition part of it and build residential accommodation

on an original part of the landfill which has been removed to another position on the

same site. The proposed development provides an ideal opportunity to

comprehensively deal with a landfill, the contents of which are largely unknown and

which is located immediately on a coastline.


The developers statement that if the landfill was removed a similar amount of material

would be required to provide the existing land shape/contours that exist as a result of

the landfill, is not in my opinion, a requirement. Removal of the landfill will result

in reversion to the original contours. It would also result in the possibility of

archaeological investigation of this part of the site, which would otherwise remain

under the landfill.

In relation to the position regarding any necessary waste licenses, I consider that this

has been correctly outlined by the developers as not being required in relation to the

repositioning of 9,000 cubic metres from one part of the site to another. The

Environmental Protection Agency has been requested to comment to various aspects

by both the developers and by the objectors. I do not consider that the position

adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency lends any weight to the developers

argument for repositioning of waste material on site.

BEACH NOURISHMENT

Turning to Point No. 3 of the additional information request, An Bord Pleanála noted

the already restricted access to the site. An Bord Pleanála also expressed itself not

satisfied on the basis of submissions made that the required beach nourishment could

not be brought in by sea in order to mitigate any potential negative traffic impacts

resulting from transport by road.

Considerable detail was provided in written form and at the reopened oral hearing.

In relation to Point No. 3, Condition No. 6 of my report of 11th July 2006 was as

follows:

“Material required for beach nourishment shall be shipped to the harbour. For

this purpose a berth shall be provided adjoining the north breakwater, to

permit the discharge of nourishment material, for transport to the required

beach locations. Details of the berth and the haul route shall be submitted to

the Planning Authority for compliance with their requirements.


Reason: In order to reduce the impact of heavy goods vehicles in their annual

beach nourishment campaign.”

The option preferred by the developers is the nourishment of the beach by the

pumping of material, from barges, directly onto the beach, as occurred with the beach

nourishment already carried out to Bray Beach. The material for that nourishment at

Bray was obtained from the Codling Bank. A similar proposal has been put forward

by the developers. If such a method of beach nourishment was possible, I consider it

to be the ideal nourishment method. It does not require road transport. It does not

require transportation over extended distances and it has the distinct advantage of

constituting the same type of material, or very similar material as exists on Greystones

Beach at present. In this regard a suggested condition by the developer is, in my

opinion, reasonable, provided the requisite licence is obtainable.

In the event that a licence is not forthcoming from the Department of the Marine,

Communications and Natural Resources, I consider that beach nourishment should be

carried out with the importation of material by sea. Having considered all of the

detail submitted this, in my opinion, is the only satisfactory method of preventing the

continual incursion of heavy goods vehicles, on an annual basis, for a period of

several weeks, through a residential area, leading to a large area of public open space

and a public beach. The importation by sea and the transportation from a harbour

berth to the site, would, apart from the Codling Bank option, constitute the most

acceptable form of beach nourishment. The sourcing of material would appear to

have resulted in the developers considering that Ballyhorsey was the preferred option.

Having regard to the details submitted I consider that this constitutes a reasonable

proposition however the trucking of material through Greystones and through the site

itself to nourish the beach, would be highly undesirable.

While I consider the evidence of Professor Cooper to be of importance, that evidence

was based, in the main, on the development not being implemented. It pointed more

to the objectors opposition to the development rather than to the optimum mitigation

possible assuming the development was carried out.


The provision of a suitable berth and vessels to transport beach nourishment material,

does not, in my opinion, constitute an insurmountable problem. On the contrary I

consider that the use of seaborne transport, in the implementation of beach

nourishment, constitutes the only realistic nourishment method, obviously discounting

the Codling Bank alternative.

POINTS 4, 5 AND 6

Point 4.

This section of the letter of 14th August 2006, relates to Courtyard 1 and in particular

Blocks B and C and adjacent Terrace 13. The letter states that:

“The proposed development in this location would result in significant traffic

generation and a congested form of overdevelopment in this area of the site.

This 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 harbour side setting and existing built fabric,

including residential properties.”

Point 5.

This also refers to Blocks B and C of adjacent Terrace 13 which:

“By reason of its design, scale and bulk fails to create an acceptable form of

urban/architectural treatment of this transitional area located between the

proposed new development and its receiving environment of generally smaller

scale Victorian seafront buildings, which include residential properties.”

The letter continued that:

“In relation to the issues raised at 4 and 5 it is considered that Blocks B and C

and adjacent Terrace 13 should be omitted from the proposed development.

The resultant free area should form a meaningful and open aspect of


harbourside public space. Block D should consequently be redesigned to

address both the enlarged public space and Basin 1, with commercial activity

on the ground floor facing the public space. Proposed underground car

parking at this location may be retained.”

The developers have responded to Points 4 and 5 and the requirement that Block B

and C and Terrace 13 be omitted from the proposed development by firstly omitting

these blocks and terrace and secondly by redesigning Block D. Finally the very much

enlarged public space has been redesigned.

Two vehicular access points onto the site are now proposed instead of the one

originally proposed. The eastern access point provides access to the eastern section of

the harbour including off-street car parking, the clubhouse compounds and the

clubhouses themselves.

The western access provides vehicular access to the remainder of the site.

In relation to the access points I consider that the splitting of vehicular access onto the

site is a considerable improvement over the provision of a single access point. It

responds positively to significant traffic generation and a congested form of

development, made in the letter of 14th August, at Point 4.

I do not consider that there would be any difficulty in relation to visibility from either

of the access points. It is, in my opinion, a splitting of traffic and as such a

segregation of traffic away from the large area of public open space resulting from the

omission of Blocks B and C and Terrace 13.

I consider that Block D has been successfully redesigned. It reasonably addresses the

enlarged public area and also Basin 1.

The large area of public open space created by the omission of development has

provided the opportunity for the effective splitting up of this area of open space into

distinct visual units with a coherence provided by a variety of devices such as

planting, mounding, street furniture and surface varation.


Removal of Blocks B and C and Terrace 13 has, in my opinion, permitted an adequate

separation of the proposed development from the receiving environment with

particular reference to the smaller scale Victorian seafront buildings, referred to at

Point 5 of the letter of August 2006. I think this aspect of the proposal has had the

most beneficial impact relative to the overall scheme fitting in to the receiving

environment.

Point 6.

This relates to the proposed clubhouses. It refers to their design, scale, height and

location in close proximity to the site boundary and existing residential property.

Reference is made to the clubhouses resulting in individually obtrusive forms of

development at the location. Reference is also made to a form of development that

might seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and residential amenities of

property in the vicinity.

In relation to the clubhouses generally it should be noted that they have been

redesigned and moved eastwards from the originally proposed position. They have

not been relocated on site. They are still located in close proximity to the site

boundary. This however is somewhat mitigated by the difference in level between the

site and the adjoining public road. The redesign of the buildings has largely obviated

any visual obtrusion at the location. As such the form of development would not, in

my opinion, seriously injure the visual amenities of the area.. Furthermore I do not

consider that the clubhouses as presently proposed would seriously injure the

residential amenities of property in the vicinity.

The letter of 14th August 2006 referred to the clubhouses as follows:

“The redesign of the scheme should also address the issues raised at 6 above,

which may require the relocation of the clubhouses and ancillary facilities to

an alternative location on the overall site.”


No proposal was put forward to relocate the clubhouses to an alternative location on

the site.

In my report of 11th July 2006 the following, in relation to the clubhouse development

is of relevance:

“Removing the clubhouses and associated boat yards from this section of the

site opens up the public domain to provide something akin to what exists at the

harbour at present, a reasonably large area of public open space addressing the

harbour and separating it from the protected structures on the southern side of

Beach Road/Cliff Road. This preserves the existing spatial relationship

between protected buildings and the harbour and the water. It also preserves

an extremely important element of public open space which would be lost if

the clubhouses and open storage areas were provided as proposed.

There is an ample amount of space available by the omission of Block 1, for

the erection of two-storey clubhouses, with a combined floor space of the

order of 1,200 square metres, and attendant open storage of boats. This

constitutes a desirable land use in replacement of Block 1. It has the benefits

of protecting the character and spatial arrangement of the harbour with

protected structures. It removes the development from too close proximity to

the protected structures. It provides the element of public open space referred

to earlier. It also provides a development which is acceptable relative to the

four dwellings on the western side of North Beach Road, which would

otherwise have been severely impacted by the erection of Block 1.”

It should be noted that, with the exception of the Greystones Sailing Club, all of the

other clubs which it is proposed to accommodate at the harbour, are satisfied with the

revised arrangements.

The sailing club have considerable concern in relation to the location of what is

proposed as their clubhouse. They are concerned with wave overtopping primarily.

They are also concerned that the main sailing areas will not be overseen from the

clubhouse.


In relation to wave overtopping this could, in my opinion, constitute a problem

however the developers have indicated that the design of the structure has taken this

into account. The issue of overseeing the sailing areas is not one which is amenable

to resolution. In this regard the existing situation is that the sailing club has

unrestricted visibility of the sailing areas. This will not obtain from the proposed

position within the harbour however it would not obtain from any position within the

harbour other than locating the sailing club directly on or adjoining the northern

breakwater. This is quite clearly not proposed.

In general I consider that the clubhouse proposal is acceptable, with the exception of

the sailing club. However as the sailing club constitutes part of the harbour users it is,

in layout terms, far preferable to have the clubhouse located with the remainder of the

clubhouses, having regard to the direct harbour side position, the availability of an

adjoining slipway and boat storage areas and off-street car parking. Therefore while I

considered that the omission of Block 1 in its entirety, would have provided an ideal

opportunity to relocate the clubhouses and attendant storage areas to that position, this

was not accepted in the letter of 14th August 2006 in which it was required that Block

D be retained and redesigned. Bearing this in mind I consider that the location of the

clubhouses is acceptable.

The final element of the letter of the 14th August 2006 relating to the redesign stated:

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

the quantum of the 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.”

I consider that the integrity of the overall proposal has been fully maintained. The

quantum of development has been reduced. The reduction has not been great. While

Blocks B and C and adjacent Terrace 13 have been omitted, the reduction in the

number of residential units is approximately 9% of the total originally proposed.

There has also been a reduction in the amount of commercial floor space proposed.


As a result of the reduction in the quantum of the overall development there would be

an associated reduction in traffic generation. I consider that this is generally in line

with what was contained in Points 1 – 6 of the letter of 14th August 2006.

Therefore while the objectors consider that the overall reduction is not sufficient to

reduce traffic generation, nevertheless I consider that the scheme has been

considerably revised and that the quantum of both residential and commercial

development while not being greatly reduced, results in the integrity of the overall

proposal being maintained, as required by An Bord Pleanála.

While the reopened oral hearing dealt largely with issues raised in the additional

information requirement of An Bord Pleanála, there was reference to many aspects of

the development which had already been, in my opinion, sufficiently aired in the

initial hearing in 2006. In this regard I consider that reference to these issues is not

required as they have been sufficiently dealt with in the previous hearing and in

particular in my report of 11th July 2006.

CONCLUSION

I have already assessed the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order. My previous

assessment of the overall development, the subject of approval had been a

recommendation, to An Bord Pleanála, to approve the overall development under

Section 175 of the 2000 Act.

Having regard to the further information submitted, to the written submissions and to

the reopened oral hearing, I consider that the approval sought under Section 175 of

the Planning and Development Act 2000 should be granted subject to a number of

conditions.

The amended scheme does not conflict with the statutory planning documents

prepared by the Local Authority in relation to the development proposal. The proposal

as amended does not conflict with the proper planning and sustainable development of

the area or detrimentally affect the local environment, subject to appropriate

conditions.


Having regard to the requirements of An Bord Pleanála contained in the letter of 14 th

August 2006 the following reasons, considerations and conditions are considered

appropriate.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to:

(a) The existing condition of Greystones Harbour,

(b) the central location of the site relative to the town of Greystones and its

rail line,

(c) the existing pattern and character of development in the vicinity,

(d) the provisions of the current Wicklow County Development Plan,

including the variation of that Plan and the provisions of the variation relating

to the site,

(e) the provisions of the Greystones/Delgany Local Area Plan,

it is considered that subject to compliance with conditions set out hereunder, the

proposed development;

(1) would not have significant adverse effects on the environment,

(2) constitutes an appropriate development proposal in terms of land

use, scale and visual amenity,

and would therefore be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable

development of the area.


CONDITIONS

1. Points of access to the site from the adjoining public road, Beach Road/Cliff

Road, shall be redesigned in accordance with the requirements of the planning

authority. In this regard prior to the commencement of development, a traffic

calming scheme shall have been implemented by the planning authority. The

scheme shall operate within the confines of the site, and on the surrounding

road network, within a 200 metre radius of Victoria Road/Beach Road. The

scheme shall commence on the R761, immediately to the west of the junction

of Victoria Road, New Road, Church Road. It shall provide for adequate

vehicular speed reduction and cyclist and pedestrian safety measures,

including adequate road signage and road and footpath surface design.

Reason: In the interest of pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular safety.

2. Prior to the commencement of development, Wicklow County Council shall

make an application for a Foreshore Licence to the Department of the Marine,

Communications and Natural Resources, to provide the necessary beach

nourishment material from the Codling Bank. Beach nourishment, from this

source, if available, shall be pumped from ship to shore, in accordance with

the requirements of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of the sustainment of the beach in a satisfactory

condition.

3. In the event that a Foreshore Licence, to provide for beach nourishment, as

required by Condition No. 2 above, is not capable of implementation, material

required for beach nourishment shall be shipped to the harbour. For this

purpose a berth shall be provided adjoining the north breakwater, to permit the

discharge of nourishment material, for transport to the required beach


locations. Details of the berth and the haul route shall be submitted to the

planning authority for compliance with their requirements.

Reason: In order to reduce the impact of heavy goods vehicles during their

annual beach nourishment campaign.

4. Boat maintenance and/or storage shall not be undertaken on either breakwater.

Reason:I n order to maintain the breakwaters for public use.

5. All excavations for the purposes of the construction of the development, shall

be monitored by a suitably qualified archaeologist. A monitoring report shall

be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority. A

copy of the report shall be submitted to the Department of the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government and to the Department of Marine,

Communications and Natural Resources. A copy shall also be made available

for inspection at the offices of the Local Authority.

Reason: To protect the archaeological and cultural heritage of the area.

6. The establishment of the batching plant and the casting plant shall be

monitored by a suitably qualified archaeologist. Both plants shall be located a

minimum of 25 metres to the south of Feature C, as denoted on the

geophysical survey of D'Arcy's Field. There shall be no removal of material

whatsoever from this part of the field. Removal of material from the

remainder of the field, with the establishment of a proposed borrow pit, shall

not occur unless and until a detailed archaeological investigation has been

carried out, the results of which are known, and made available to the

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. No work

shall be carried out by way of removal of material without a specific permit

from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, if,

the detailed archaeological survey carried out as a requirement of this

condition, results in the discovery of archaeological material.

Reason: To protect the archaeological and cultural heritage of the area.


7. Demolition and construction works shall be confined between the hours of

08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 16.30 on Saturdays.

Construction shall not take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties in the vicinity

during the course of the works.

8. Prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works, detailed

codes of practice in relation to dust suppression, shall be drawn up by suitably

qualified personnel, in accordance with the requirements of the planning

authority. Contractors employed in the demolition and construction phases of

the development shall be required, by contract, to comply with these detailed

codes of practice. Prior to demolition works commencing, a detailed

inventory shall be carried out of all demolition materials, in order to identify

materials for reuse on site in the construction works. Demolition material shall

be reused to the maximum extent possible in the construction phase of the

development. Reusable materials, not used on site, shall be recycled

elsewhere, rather than being disposed of to a landfill. Details of the codes of

practice and the inventory of demolition materials required by this condition

shall be available for public inspection at the office of the Local Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of property in the vicinity and in the interest

of sustainable development.

9. The Gap Bridge shall be removed from the site in accordance with the

requirements of the planning authority and generally in accordance with any

requirements which the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government may have. Demolition material from the bridge shall be reused

to the maximum extent possible in the construction phase of the development.

Reusable material not used on site shall be recycled elsewhere rather than

being disposed of to landfill.


Reason: In the interest of public safety, having regard to the condition of the

bridge.

10. Details of water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of

surface water, shall comply in full with the requirements of the planning

authority in the provision of such services.

Reason: In the interest of public health.

11. The proposed development shall provide for the complete removal of landfill

material from the site. The material shall be removed prior to the

commencement of the construction of dwellings. Materials shall be trucked to

a berth at the north breakwater, for shipment off the site. Details relating to

this requirement shall be submitted to the planning authority prior to the

commencement of development. These details shall comply with the

requirements of the authority in relation to method of removal, shipment and

location of final disposal.

Reason: In order to ensure that landfill material on-site is dealt with in

accordance with the best modern practice and to ensure that any long-term

adverse environmental impact is avoided.

12. The marina control building shall be reduced in height to one-storey. Details

of compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

13. Walling to the inner harbour and on the inner side of the northern and southern

breakwaters shall not be more than 0.5 metres in height. Alternatively the

proposed walling may be replaced with metal rails or chains, in accordance

with details to be submitted to the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.


14. Nautical hazard lights shall be placed in the harbour, as required by the

Department of Marine, Communications and Natural Resources.

Reason: In the interest of marine safety.

15. Measures to permit public access to the Cliff Walk, during the course of the

works, shall be implemented, in accordance with the requirements of the

planning authority.

Reason: To maintain the recreational utility of the area during the

construction period.

16. Prior to the commencement of development, the local authority shall establish

a locally based liaison committee, which shall act as a forum for disseminating

information of planning and construction work relating to the overall

development. The committee shall be represented by the local authority, their

consultants and contractors and local residential and business interests.

Reason: To facilitate and promote the involvement of the local community in

ensuring that the development is being provided in accordance with

appropriate standards.

17. Sea kale on the site shall be relocated to a position to be agreed with the

planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of maintaining the species as local to the area.

_______________________

James Carroll

Planning Inspector

May, 2007. sg


An Bord Pleanála · Web viewIt is the use of the word “should” and the line that is used in...

Documents

Transcript of An Bord Pleanála · Web viewIt is the use of the word “should” and the line that is used in...