Inspector S Report

+An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

PL27.EF2016

PL27.CF2002

Wicklow County Council.

Nature of Application:Approval under Section 175 and Compulsory Purchase Order.

Location of Development:GreystonesHarbour and NorthBeach, 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

INTRODUCTION

An application for approval under Section 175 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 for a public/private partnership project, at GreystonesHarbour 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.