An Bord Pleanála

Ref.: PL04.242495

Development : Motorway service station, to include a shop/restaurant building with a drive through and take-away facility and ancillary storage/service areas, forecourt with canopy over, fuel facilities for heavy commercial 10 vehicles with canopy over, underground fuel tanks, substation, car wash, drainage facilities, signage, landscaping, picnic & external seating areas, parking and set-down areas, new entrance and roundabout on to the R639 regional route and all ancillary development works at Junction 14 on the M8 Motorway, Gortroe and Moorpark, Fermoy, Co. Cork.

Planning Application: 20 Planning Authority: Cork County Council

Planning Authority Ref.: 13/4399

Applicant: JR Oronoco Ltd.

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Grant permission (41 no. conditions) 30

Planning Appeal

Type of Appeal: First Party and Third Party (5 no.)

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 38

Appellants: JR Oronoco (1 st ) Applegreen Service Areas Ltd. (3 rd ) David Ryan (3 rd ) James V. Walsh (3 rd ) Liam Fitzgerald (3 rd ) Sean R. McCarthy (3 rd )

Prescribed Bodies: National Roads Authority

10 Inspector Conor McGrath Date of Site Inspection: 20/11/2013

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 38

1.0 Introduction

This report relates to a number of first and third party appeals in relation to the decision of the planning authority to grant permission for the proposed development subject to 41 no. conditions. The first party appeal relates to conditions no. 2 and 41 of that decision. The Board are advised of a concurrent appeal case under ABP ref. PL04.242586 which relates to development of a similar nature at Junction 13 on the M8, at Gortnahown, Mitchelstown. 10

2.0 Site Location and Description

The appeal site is located approx. 3km north of the centre of Fermoy, at junction 14 on the M8 motorway. The site lies to the east of the interchange, on the R639 which comprises the old N8 between Fermoy and Mitchelstown. The village of Kilworth lies approx. 1.5km to the northeast. The site has a stated area of 2.8ha / 7ac and comprises the southwestern half of a field currently in use for grazing and also includes parts of the R639 to the 20 south which area affected by proposed development works. The site is bounded by a private access road to the west and north, while the M8 and Junction 14 slip roads lie to the west and southwest of the site. Lands to the north and northeast are in agricultural use and there is one residential property to the northeast. A high stone wall and mature trees along the southeastern boundary are separated from the edge of the R639 by a vegetated area. The Teagasc facility at Moorpark occupies lands to the southeast, on the opposite side of the R639. The entrance to this facility is provided with turning lanes in both directions. The lands fall to the northeast by approx. 2m across the site, while lands in the area generally fall in a northeasterly direction toward the Funshion River, a 30 tributary of the River Blackwater. The R639 crosses the river at Downings Bridge to the northeast of the site, where a local authority bored well supplies part of the Kilworth public water supply. The Blackwater Way walking route runs along the R639 past the subject site, although there are currently no pedestrian facilities in this area. The site is located within the 60kpm zone.

3.0 Description of and Proposed Development

The proposed development comprises an off-line motorway services area serving 40 the adjacent M8 motorway. The site is to be accessed from the R639 via a new

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 38

roundabout which will also serve the adjoining Teagasc facility to the south. A section of the existing stone boundary wall will be removed to facilitate access. A single-storey services building (826.5-sq.m. gfa) will provide the following facilities: • A convenience store (100-sq.m.) and café / deli (90-sq.m.) with associated stores and ancillary spaces. • Fast food offer with associated drive-thru facilities (182.4-sq.m.) and food court seating area (168-sq.m.). • Customer toilet and shower facilities. 10 The main forecourt area and canopy (6.8m high) is located to the front / east of the service building, with six pump islands. HGV refuelling facilities with 6.2m high canopy, are located to the rear / west of the services building. Parking is generally provided on the northern and eastern parts of the site, comprising 93 no. LCV spaces, with 11 no. staff parking spaces and 16 no. coach and HGV parking spaces. A car wash facility proposed as part of the original application was omitted at further information stage. Ground levels in the southwestern corner of the site are to be reduced by up to approx. 3.5m. The net site area, accommodating motorway services facilities is identified in the application as 20 1.93ha. The development includes a new rising main connection to mains sewers in Fermoy. Surface water is to be collected and attenuated, prior to discharge, via hydrocarbon interceptors, to the Funshion River approx. 400m to the north.

3.0 Relevant Planning History

PA ref. 13/4648 ABP ref. PL04.242586 This relates to a concurrent planning appeal against the decision of Cork County 30 Council to grant permission for an Off-line Motorway Service Area at Junction 13 on the M8, at Gortnahown, Mitchelstown, approx. 9km north of the subject appeal site, which includes the following elements: • An amenities building (966.6-sq.m.) comprising: o Convenience shop (c 100-sq.m.) and ancillary areas o 4 no. Eat-in / take-away café / restaurants (c.210-sq.m.); o Public toilets; o Seating/circulation area (c. 278-sq.m.)); o Internal and external play areas (c. 83-sq.m.)) • Car and HCV vehicle forecourt areas with canopies over. 40 • Parking for 71 cars, 12 HGVs, 3 coaches and 5 motorcycles.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 38

• Car wash with rainwater harvesting system. • On-site wastewater treatment system and disposal to willow plantation.

It is noted that a proposed drive-thru element was omitted from the development at further information stage. There are six appeals against the decision of the planning authority currently before the Board, and the development is referenced frequently in file correspondence.

PA ref. 12/6185 ABP ref. PL04.241495 10 Permission granted for development at the existing Amber petrol filling station site on the Dublin Road (R639) Fermoy, approx. 1.8km southeast of the subject site comprising: (1) An extension station (08/10082) restaurant / dining area, incorporating a drive-thru restaurant and take-away (148-sq.m.) and external seating / smoking area; (2) Parking for 60 cars and 17 trucks with new entrance off Pike Road and modified entrance off Dublin Road; and (3) associated works and signage.

20 The Board order noted concerns in relation to the impact of the development on Fermoy town centre and considered that they could be adequately addressed by the omission of the proposed ‘drive-thru’ component of the restaurant. Condition no. 2 of the Board decision omitted the proposed ‘drive-thru’ element, while condition no. 3 precluded hot food takeaway from the premises.

South Tipperary County Council ref. 13/4 ABP ref. PL.23.241786 Permission refused to Applegreen Service Areas Ltd. in February 2013 for the development of a motorway services area on the R639 at Cahir, Co. Tipperary, for three reasons including the failure to demonstrate a need for the facility on 30 unzoned lands, which would undermine the strategic delivery of services as required by the NRA. The site is located approx. 40km north of the subject site. This application was withdrawn following first and third party appeal.

4.0 Planning Authority Considerations and Decision

4.1 Decision In considering the subject application the planning authority sought further information and clarification of further information in relation to a number of 40 matters including the following:

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 38

• The Planning Authority advised that there might only be capacity for one off- line service area on this section of the M8, having regard to the relative proximity of the two sites currently being proposed and the requirements of the Spatial Planning and National Road Guidelines. • Omission of the “drive thru” restaurant. • Revised roads layout design details. • Surface water design and drainage details for the R639 and proposed new roundabout. • Details of the treatment of the area between the site and the R639. 10 • Provision of a footpath from the Fermoy side of the interchange. • Assessment of impacts on the Inner Protection Zone of the Kilworth borewell at Downing Bridge. • Revised surface water treatment measures. • Submission of a noise impact assessment and odour management plan. • Submission of a Habitats Directive Screening Report • Revised foul drainage details.

The planning authority subsequently decided to grant permission for the proposed development subject to 41 no. conditions, including the following: 20 2. The proposed drive-thru element of the development shall be omitted.

4. Archaeological monitoring of all topsoil removal/ground works

15. Contaminated surface water shall be discharged via hydrocarbon interceptors.

17. Noise levels emanating from the proposed development when measured at specified noise sensitive locations shall not exceed 55 dBA (30 minute Leq) between 0800 hours and 2000 hours Monday to Friday and between 0800 30 hours and 1300 hours on Saturday excluding bank and public holidays inclusive and shall not exceed 45 dBA (15 minute Leq ) at any other time.

23. All trees and hedgerows, except those whose removal is authorised in writing by the Planning Authority, shall be protected.

24. The proposed works on the R639 shall be carried out in advance of any other works on site and shall have prior approval of the NRA/ Cork County Council. Existing road drainage shall not be obstructed. The public road and footpath from the northern roundabout to the proposed entrance and internalised 40 walkways shall be suitably lit.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 38

28. A method statement for the management of the construction phase shall be submitted to and agreed in writing to the Planning Authority.

30-31 Details and design of the connection to the public sewer network shall be agreed.

35. The Pumping Station shall be operated and maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 10 37. The Applicant shall address any septicity issues arising from the development to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and shall put any additional measures in place, as deemed necessary, at their own expense.

39. A Construction Management Plan incorporating the water protection measures outlined in the Planning application shall be agreed prior to the commencement of any construction works.

40. Development Contributions of €48,941.86 in accordance with the Council's 20 Development Contributions Scheme.

41. A special contribution of €180,000 in respect of the provision of an extension of the Fermoy Water Main from Pikes Boreen to the existing water main at Downings Bridge.

4.2 Internal / Technical Reports Co. Archaeologist (Mary Sleeman): No objection subject to condition regarding archaeological monitoring. 30 Wastewater Networks (Jacqueline Twomey): No objection subject to conditions

National Roads Office (Kieran McKeone): No objection. The views of the NRA should be sought. FI response addressed all of the issues raised.

Area engineer (Brendan O’Gorman): Following receipt of FI, reports note that only one site will be selected from the two proposed at Junctions 13 and 14. This site is somewhat better screened. Both sites are regarded as exceptional development. A planned approach cannot be used here and each application 40 must be assessed on its own merits. The potential risk to public water

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 38

infrastructure at Mitchelstown is the primary reason for recommending refusal for that application. The subject site is better in terms of protecting water sources. The economic reasoning behind a facility at junction 14 is not a planning consideration. Omission of the drive-thru and limiting commercial activity will address impacts on the town. Conditions recommended.

Environment (Maureen Cherry): Following receipt of further information, there was no objection subject to conditions.

10 Water Production (Pat Walsh): The site is located within the inner source protection zone, over karsified limestone. The bored well is vulnerable to any leakage or accident. The development poses an unacceptable risk to the Downings Bridge source and should not proceed at this location. Conditions otherwise identified.

Director of Water Services (R. O’Farrell): The risk to the water supply source is of particular concern. Design, construction, operation and maintenance must be to a standard commensurate with the risk. An independent consultant must certify drainage and bund construction to required standards. Water supply 20 should be from public mains and bored wells should not be permitted due to the additional risk to aquifer. Increased water demand will not impinge on the quality of water supply to others. Permission recommended subject to conditions.

Heritage Unit (John Redmond): The AA screening statement provides sufficient information on surface water, storm and wastewater systems to screen out potential impacts on the SAC. Having consulted with the Water Production Dept. there is limited or no interaction between surface and ground water. While there may be a risk to groundwater, these do not translate to risks to surface water. Significant effects on the Blackwater SAC can be screened out. No objection 30 subject to conditions.

Wastewater Operations (Billy O’Sullivan): Initial reports noted that a pumped connection to Fermoy Sewerage Scheme is acceptable in principle. Following clarification of FI, the report notes that the rising main is exceptionally long, giving rise to potential issues of septicity and odour and a risk of blockages. These issues will have to be addressed by the developers if they arise. No objection subject to conditions.

County Engineer (David Keane): With regard to the protection of the Downings 40 Bridge Well, it is recommended that the applicant be conditioned to extend the

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 38

Fermoy Water Scheme to connect up with the existing watermain from Downings Bridge.

Senior Executive Planner (John Ronayne): An EIS is not required. It appears that the NRA have no objection and it is reasonable to assume that the proposal is not incompatible with NRA strategy. As the NRA on-line facility at Kilworth will not progress in the medium-term, an off-line facility has to be considered to be a viable alternative. Suitable sites exist at Junctions 13 and 14. The rationale for permitting two facilities is questionable. This section of Motorway can only 10 sustain one such development. The Amber Oil site is located within the built-up area of the town, significantly removed from the M8. It is not likely to be attractive to users of the M8 and would not be in direct competition with the current proposal. The nearest service area is at Cashel and a strong case can be made for one new off-line service area in this area, with a reasonable café restaurant element and some convenience retail. The drive-thru could facilitate the development becoming a destination in its own right and can be omitted by condition. All suitable service area sites are located within greenbelt areas. Such development can be considered strategic and exceptional under objective RCI 8-10 and is not 20 a material contravention of the greenbelt objective. The R639 is designated as a scenic route. There is little or no residential development in the area and impacts are unlikely. The development is compatible with NRA guidance and will not be unduly visually intrusive. The recommendation to refuse permission on the basis of the source protection zone is noted, however, the Director of Water Services regards the development as acceptable in principle. The development will not constitute an unacceptable threat to the Kilworth water supply. There is no engineering objection. The Applegreen site at Junction 13 is located at a more central location between Cashel and Dunkettle. There is a permitted service area at Cahir, which if 30 constructed, would remove the perceived locational advantage of the Applegreen site. Permission recommended.

Senior Planner (Kevin Lynch): The assessment is complicated by the concurrent application at Junction 13. Both sites are within greenbelt areas and in the absence of a specific policy, would fall to be considered under Objective 8- 10 as strategic and exceptional developments. Each application must be considered on its own merits. There are marginal differences between the two sites in terms of suitability. The subject site has marginal advantages over the Junction 13 Applegreen, including reduced visual impact, and provision of a 40 footpath. The development of the truck rest area at Cahir would provide some

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 38

marginal locational advantage. The site is well located in visual terms and the design is acceptable. There is no prospect of an on-line facility being provided and it is reasonable to consider an off-line proposal as strategic and exceptional, and acceptable in principle. Neither AA nor EIA are required. Subject to omission of the drive-thru element, impacts on the town centre or other villages are not considered likely. The proposal is related to motorway use and of such scale and separation from settlements that it is acceptable. Regard is had to the decision of the Board in relation to omission of a drive-thru facility at the Amber Oil facility. The 10 Applegreen proposal at Junction 13 has omitted such a facility.

4.3 Prescribed Bodies NRA : The development should be undertaken in accordance with the Transport Assessment and road safety audit undertaken. A stage 3 road safety audit shall be undertaken. The proposed sign on the western boundary shall not be permitted and no signage visible from the M8 shall be provided. Lighting should avoid impact on the national road. The authority neither endorses nor opposes such facilities but will assess 20 proposals on the basis of impacts on national roads and compliance with guidelines. There are a number of similar developments before the council. Regard should be had to the Spatial Planning and National Road Guidelines, which identify a requirement for a forward planning approach to the provision of such facilities. Such an approach has not been undertaken and the PA are expected to have full regard to official policy and guidance in the first instance. Published NRA guidance 70/13 “Location and Layout of On-Line Service Areas” refers to on-line facilities only. The proposal is not an NRA on-line service area. A restriction on the provision of drive-thru facilities in such guidelines has been omitted. 30 Dept. of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht / Development Applications Unit: This large development is close to a recorded monument and two archaeological excavation sites. In-situ human remains may be discovered during groundworks at the site. Archaeological monitoring conditions recommended as a condition.

An Taisce : The site has poor provision for perimeter landscaping. Impacts on existing businesses and the town centre should be considered. The development will encourage car borne traffic, present road safety concerns and contribute to obesity. A Health Impact Assessment should be requested. The 40 development will give rise to air and noise pollution, nuisance, litter and other

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 38

amenity impacts. The proposed uses will increase traffic in the area and is contrary to national transport policy. Cumulative impacts with PL04.241494 should be considered.

HSE : No objection subject to conditions.

4.2 Observations: Observations on the application received by the planning authority generally reflect the content of the third party appeals. 10

5.0 First Party Grounds of Appeal

The first party have appealed under S.139 against conditions no. 2 and 41 of the planning authority decision to grant permission.

Condition no. 2: • Concerns regarding impacts on the retail area of Fermoy are not justified and are contrary to NRA policy and planning policy for such development. 20 • The Board decision in relation to the Amber Oil facility is not relevant as that site was located within the urban areas and is not a motorway service area. • The retail planning guidelines do not apply to motorway service areas. • The provision of off-line service areas should be informed by up-to-date NRA advice and similar existing or planned private service facilities within existing towns/settlements and in the environs of the road corridor. • The NRA have confirmed (Nov. 2011) that the development of an on-line facility at Kilworth will not be progressed. • The NRA view the drive-thru as ancillary to the overall food offering and not a stand-alone service. 30 • A previous restriction on such uses has been omitted from NRA guidance and the planning authority did not have regard to this change. • NRA concerns about the potential for service areas to become destinations in themselves relate to retail uses rather than restaurant uses. • The Board have permitted a drive-thru facility on the M11 in Wicklow (PL27.241347), where the retail element was restricted to 100-sq.m. • That proposal is similar to the subject appeal development, however, the food element is greater than currently proposed. • The existing Cashel services area includes a larger drive-thru facility. • The modest scale and extent of restaurant facilities proposed will not 40 comprise a destination in its own right and will not impact on the town centre.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 38

• There is no planning policy supporting this condition.

Condition no. 41: • The special contribution is unnecessary. The works can be more economically done by the developer in tandem with the laying of the new foul sewer under condition no. 31. • The planning authority are agreeable to the developer undertaking these works in lieu of the special contribution (correspondence attached). • The condition should be revised to require the developer to provide the 10 watermain extension in accordance with details to be agreed.

6.0 Third Party Grounds of Appeal

6.1 Sean R. McCarthy • The development will create a traffic hazard adjacent to existing roundabouts. • The development will negatively impact on permitted development in the area and on retail activities in the town centre. 20 • Town centre retail activity has seriously declined in recent years.

6.2 Liam Fitzgerald: • A grant of permission would ignore the provisions of the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, which advocate a plan led approach. • The application was invalid by reason of the lack of consent of affected landowners at time of application. • The proposal materially contravenes development plan policy for the greenbelt, not being strategic and exceptional development. • It remains an objective of the NRA (2012) to provide an ‘on-line’ facility in the 30 area and this project has not been shelved. • The Board should promote a plan led approach, which would provide for equal treatment and consideration of competing planning applications. • The basis for favouring this location over that at junction 13 is unjustified. • The development is unnecessary as the area is already well served given the Amber filing station in Fermoy (PL04/241494) and NRA plans. • The facility will act as a destination in itself and draw business from Fermoy which is already subject to significant vacancy levels. • An on-line service facility would have less impacts on the town. • The omission of a drive-thru restaurant does not preclude the sale of hot food 40 take-away from the premises

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 12 of 38

• Drive-thru facilities were previously omitted from the Amber Fuel site on the basis of impacts on the town centre (PL04.241494). • The development is contrary to the policies contained in the current draft county development plan with regard to retail use in the town centre. • The extent of retail use should be limited and delineated from other uses. • The original EIS for the M8 highlighted the opportunity for the town to recover its commercial centre, which will be undermined by this proposal. This proposal is a significant change and warrants an EIA. • The development is contrary to NRA guidance on The location and Layout of 10 Service Areas (TGD 07/08). • The proposal could create a precedent for similar facilities meeting local rather than inter urban needs.

6.3 James V. Walsh • The location is inappropriate. • The decision is flawed and undermined by the grant of permission for similar development at Junction 13 (13/4648). • Granting both developments is contrary to the plan led approach advocated in the Spatial Planning and National Road Guidelines. 20 • A similar facility already exists in Fermoy at the Amber service station while the NRA propose a further on-line facility at Kilworth. • The Board are being asked to determine something which is more properly a development plan policy decision. • The most suitable sites available in the wider area should be selected as part of a development plan process.

6.4 David Ryan • Appellant operates the Amber Oil Service Station, with 55 no. employees. • A proposed drive-thru restaurant at the recently granted extension to this 30 facility (PL04.241494) was omitted by condition. • The proposal would be visually intrusive is located and contrary to development plan policies for the Fermoy Greenbelt. • This proposal is neither strategic nor exceptional and is not plan-led development as advocated by the NRA. It could be located on zoned lands. • The development will undermine the role of the town centre. • The proposal presents an environmental risk to the area and its amenities. • The reason for refusal recommended in the case of 03/4648 is equally applicable to both of the developments at Junction 13 and 14.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 13 of 38

• The Fermoy LAP identifies the R639 approach to the town as unsuitable for development due to impacts on the setting of the town and the greenbelt. • The proposal is contrary to Objective 3-7 in support of NRA policy on Motorway service areas, which identifies Kilworth as the preferred location in this regard. • The NRA preference is for on-line facilities which do not directly compete with existing fuel and other retail facilities. • The NRA advise that regard should be had to the location of NRA service areas and existing facilities in towns in applications for off-line service areas. 10 • NRA policy Statement on Motorway Service Areas (Dec 2012) indicates the intention to resume work on the service area programme as finances permit. • The NRA have purchased a site at Kilworth in this regard. • NRA guidance document “EIA of National Road Schemes” indicates that Motorway Service Areas require EIA. Proper EIA screening is required. • The Board should have regard to issues raised in the Issues Papers for the review of the county development plan. • Notwithstanding the omission of the proposed drive-thru, this proposal should be considered in its entirety. • In the absence of a specific development plan policy for such development, 20 the precautionary principle should apply and this development is not justified. • It is not clear why this proposal was regarded as strategic and exceptional while that at junction 13 was not. • It is an objective of the development plan, and a monitoring indicator for SEA, that use of brownfield lands be maximised. • The NRA do not expressly support such proposals.

6.5 Applegreen Services Ltd • This is an off-line service area and is not subject to NRA policy statements or 30 nominal separation distances. • Such facilities are not the same as, and do not replace, on-line facilities. • While it is reasonable to avoid over provision of facilities, individual service areas at suitable interchanges and intervals, does not comprise proliferation. • NRA on-line facilities at Kilworth and Cashel are not being progressed. • Existing and permitted off-line facilities at Cashel and Cahir suggest that the NRA spacing is not applicable to off-line facilities. • The comparison of suitable sites in this application lacked adequate detail. • Current UK Guidelines recommend a maximum separation between service areas of 28 miles (

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 14 of 38

• They recommend that after on-line facilities, the next most appropriate facilities are those sharing a boundary with the road at a junction. This is not the case in this development. • The development plan does not identify specific locations for the provision of off-line service areas, as provided in the Spatial Planning Guidelines. • Adequate consideration was not given to the role of other existing / planned service areas, including the Amber Oil facility, 1.5km from Junction 14. • The appeal under PL04.241494 noted that some motorway traffic does use that facility. This is not acknowledged in the planning reports on this case. 10 • The combination of these two facilities, accessed from the same junction, would comprise a “proliferation”, with impacts on the national route. • The TIA for this facility does not consider the additional traffic impacts of the Amber Oil facility. • This off-line facility would encourage further traffic off the M8 to avoid tolls. • The site is located within the Fermoy Greenbelt, which is identified in CASP as a Rural Conservation Zone. It is therefore more sensitive than the site at Junction 13 and impacts on the Greenbelt have been underestimated. • In combination with the Teagasc campus, this represents significant over- development of the greenbelt, creating a new urban area. 20 • The Teagasc facility already represents an exceptional development at this location and a second exception is not warranted. • The site is less accessible for northbound traffic than the site at Junction 13 and would primarily serve southbound drivers toward the end of their journey. • The Amber Oil facility cannot be considered to comprise a suitable alternative to a properly designed and located off-line service area. • The marginal advantages over the site at Junction 13 identified in Planning reports are refuted. The permitted truck stop at Cahir is not relevant. • The proposed drive-thru should be omitted in order to protect the interchange from locally generated traffic. 30 • The appellants were previously offered the subject site but rejected it on the basis of their operational experience. Junction 13 is the preferred option.

7.0 First Party Response to Third Party Grounds of Appeal

• The development has been the subject of extensive pre-planning discussions with statutory and non-statutory bodies. • Significant issues arise in relation to the appellants proposals at Junction 13. • The proposal will address a current deficiency and form part of a national 40 service area network.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 15 of 38

• The development will provide infrastructure improvements including new a watermain, footpath and improved access to the Teagasc facility. • While the retail planning guidelines do not apply to such development, the retail component has been limited to 100-sq.m. and a food court of 168-sq.m. • The development is not designed to attract business from the surrounding area and the drive-thru will not impact on the surrounding area or towns. • The transport assessment and safety audit found that the development would not have a significant negative impact on existing road users and that junction capacity will be sufficient to accommodate the proposal. 10 • The Amber service station is not a motorway service area as argued by the applicants under PL04.241494 and is not suitable to serve motorway traffic. • While sites at junction 13 and 14 are all within greenbelt areas, the strategic provision of a service area accords with NRA and Development Plan policy. • The proposed on-line facility at Kilworth will not be progressed and revised NRA policy now supports off-line private sector proposals. • The NRA have previously indicated that it is not the intention to compete with in-situ privately developed service areas where they are acceptable, or to spend public monies on a competing MSA. • A site assessment identified this as the most suitable site in this area. 20 • The site has advantages over that at Junction 13, including site area, topography, visual amenity, access and flooding. • The visual impact assessment demonstrates that the development will not be unduly intrusive and is acceptable in terms of visual amenity. • Screening has concluded that an EIS was not required in this case either under schedule 5 or 7. • Screening for AA concluded that no significant effects on the Natura network were likely. • No development will occur on third party lands. The roundabout will be constructed on Co. Co. lands with their consent. 30 • Although not directly affected, Teagasc have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposed development.

8.0 Planning Authority Response to Grounds of Appeal

The planning authority make the following comments in response to the first and third party appeals: • It is NRA policy to provide on- and/or off-line motorway service areas. • Development plan policy INF 3-7 seeks to implement NRA policy and does 40 not differentiate between on and off-line facilities.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 16 of 38

• The development is located close to the on-line facility originally proposed by the NRA at Kilworth and the facilities and services are similar to other existing and permitted service areas throughout the country. • The majority of business is likely to be diverted from the M8 and the planning authority is satisfied that the development will not have a significant negative impact on retail activity in the town centre. • Omission of the drive-thru element will minimise the likelihood impacts on trade in Fermoy. • The drive-thru is not essential to the commercial viability of the development. 10 • There is a recognised need for a facility in this area, approx. half-way between Cork City and the existing service area at Cashel. • An NRA facility is unlikely in the medium-term, such that a private off-line facility is the only option available. • There are suitable sites at junctions 13 and 14. It was concluded that the subject site at Junction 14 was a suitable location. • The Amber Oil facility is not a substitute for an off-line facility in this area and the developments will not be in competition.. • The development is not incompatible with Greenbelt policies and can be considered to be a strategic or exceptional development. 20 • The development will not be an unduly prominent feature. • The Director of Water has agreed that that the applicant could lay the required watermain extension along the line of the proposed sewer, details to be agreed prior to the commencement of development. • A Road Safety Audit was submitted in relation to the junction with the R639.

9.0 Third Party Comments on Other Appeal Submissions

9.1 Liam Fitzgerald: 30 • The planning authority is entitled to request a special contribution and are best placed to carry out works to the public watermain. • NRA policy guidance does not justify the provision of a drive-thu facility. • The development is premature pending a plan led approach as advocated by the NRA and the Spatial Planning and National Road Guidelines. • NRA plans at Kilworth have not been abandoned, only postponed until finances permit its progression. • The retail floor area exceeds the 100-sq.m. cap set in the retail planning guidelines. Regard should be had to the deli, coffee area and food court.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 17 of 38

• Comparison with the previous decision at Ashford (PL27.241347) is unreasonable, given its proximity to lower order retail centres than Fermoy and location on a brownfield site with an extensive planning history. • It is unreasonable to permit a drive-thru in a greenbelt area in proximity to the town centre, the existing Amber site and other zoned lands. • Comparison with the existing facility at Cashel, junction 8, is not relevant. • The comments of Applegreen indicate that the appeal site is located on the wrong side of the interchange to be attractive. • A poorly trading facility may operate pricing policies which would have 10 greater impacts on existing commercial outlets.

10.0 Further Submissions The appeal responses of the first party and of the planning authority were circulated for further comment. The following submissions were received:

10.1 First party: JR Oronoco Ltd. • Confirmation that the developer may lay the watermain extension in lieu of a special contribution, is welcomed. 20 • The development was subject to a road safety audit. • While acknowledging the proposal is similar to other off-line facilities and will primarily serve motorway traffic, the planning authority still maintain that the drive-thru will impact on the town centre. • Existing facilities on the M8 at Cashel, and the permitted facilities on the N11 at Ashford, include extensive services, including drive-thru restaurant. • The modest scale of services is designed to meet the needs of motorway users. • The omission of the drive-thru fails to have regard to changes to NRA policy TA70-13, the ancillary nature of the use and the modest scale of 30 development. The decision is not supported in national planning guidelines.

The response also refers to submissions made in relation to the concurrent planning appeal at Junction 13 under ABP ref. PL04.242685.

10.2 Third Parties 10.2.1 Sean McCarthy: • Submissions do not address issues of traffic hazard or impacts on retail activity in the town. 40

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 18 of 38

10.2.2 James Walsh: • Submissions do not address the issues raised. • A grant of permission will render the site owned by the NRA useless, wasting public money. • If the NRA are not to develop their more suitable site, it should be sold and developed by someone else.

10.2.3 David Ryan: • Submissions do not address the issues raised and earlier grounds of appeal 10 are restated.

10.2.4 Liam Fitzgerald: • The application was invalid due the lack of evidence of landowner consent and should now be refused by the Board. • Supporting correspondence from the AA should be dismissed. • The Spatial Planning and National Road Guidelines note that development should be plan-led and consistent with the Retail Planning Guidelines. • An off-line service area is not a strategic development. • The 90-sq.m. deli / cafe area effectively constitutes retail space. 20 • The convenient location of the site will result in trade draw from the town. • There is no requirement for a drive-thru in such facilities. • Referenced correspondence from the NRA (2011) regarding the suspension of the Kilworth project has been superseded by more recent policy guidance. • Planning authority assumptions regarding on-line facilities at Kilworth do not have regard to the stated intention of the NRA resume works on these facilities when finance improve. • The proposed development required EIA under S.9 of the 2007 Roads Act. • The site selection process has not demonstrated that the appeal site is better than the NRA site. 30 • The decision was premature given the on-going development plan review. • While the drive-thru element was refused, the food sales and ancillary services areas will have similar impacts on the town centre. • The development will create a precedent for similar facilities, designed to meet local rather than inter-urban demand.

10.2.5 Applegreen Service Areas Ltd. • The site at Junction 13 Mitchelstown is more suitable and the wastewater treatment proposals for that site were acceptable to the planning authority.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 19 of 38

• The subject site is more sensitive in terms of groundwater sensitivity, being within the Kilworth Inner Source Protection zone, of extreme vulnerability. • Internal reports raise issues regarding the connection to Fermoy WWTP and planning authority conditions suggest that the design remains unsatisfactory. • Discharge to a public WWTP is less sustainable than on-site disposal. • Concerns remain regarding contamination of the Funshion River and the SAC, and the adequacy of the AA screening report. • Internal reports highlighted potential contamination of the Downings Bridge well. The proposed watermain extension will not reduce this risk. 10 • The special contribution toward the extension of the watermain is contrary to national and EU groundwater protection legislation, which require that permission should be refused if there is a risk of groundwater contamination. • A S.48(2)(c) special contribution is not appropriate as the works will not benefit the development, which already has a water supply connection. • While the Amber filling station is not an off-line facility, regard should be had to the impacts of the development on that facility and on Junction 14. • The development remains contrary to Section 2.8 of the Spatial Planning Guidelines. • The suggested infrastructural “benefits” of the development are required only 20 to serve this proposal. • There is no long-distance walking route which will be served by the footpath. • The planning authority failed to adequately assess the erosion of the Fermoy Greenbelt, particularly in conjunction with the Teagasc campus. • The Teagasc facility represents the greenbelt exception in terms of at this location.

11.0 Prescribed Bodies: NRA

30 In response to a S.131 request, the NRA make the following comments: • The Authority seek to uphold policy and guidance outlined in the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines. • Section 2.8 of the Guidelines identifies the requirement for a forward planning approach to the provision of such facilities. • The Authority is currently updating its Service Area Policy, with due regard to the EU Trans European Road Network (TEN-T) Regulations. • Until such policy is complete, confirmation regarding the on-line facility at Kilworth cannot be provided. • EU reg.’s require secure rest and parking facilities on the TEN-T network.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 20 of 38

• Kilworth lies on one of the identified priority routes and it is the Authority’s preference to use land already in state ownership, thereby avoiding CPO. • On-line service areas are developed to improve safety, provide a public service and comply with statutory requirements. Commercial issues are a secondary issue. • There will be no objection to private development on the basis of competition with NRA facilities. • On-line service areas will be developed by the NRA in the most appropriate locations notwithstanding any potential competition with private sector 10 developments. • Delays in developing previously approved service areas have been due to funding issues rather than a lack of commitment.

12.0 Planning Policy Context

12.1 Cork County Development Plan 2009 Objective INF 3-6:- National Roads – Protection of Interchanges It is an objective of this Plan to protect the capacity of the interchanges in the 20 County from locally generated traffic.

Service and Rest Areas 6.3.10. The National Roads Authority has prepared a policy statement on the provision of service and rest areas. They have identified the need for one service area between Fermoy and Mitchelstown. The Council will support the NRA in the provision of this important facility for road users. Regard must be given to the National Roads Authority’s guidance document, ‘Policy for the Provision of Service Areas on Motorways and High Quality Dual Carriageway’, when identifying an appropriate site for a serviced rest area. ( emphasis added ) 30 Objective INF 3-7:- National Roads – Service and Rest Areas It is an objective to implement the NRA’s policy document on the Provision of Service Areas and Rest Areas on Motorways and High Quality Dual Carriageways.

Greenbelts Around Other Towns 4.8.9. Within these Greenbelts, the Local Area Plans will generally reserve land for agriculture, open space or recreation uses. Exceptions to this will only be allowed …………..in the circumstances referred to in paragraphs 4.8.5 and 4.8.6 40 of this plan.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 21 of 38

Paragraph 4.8.5. refers to long-established commercial or institutional uses while paragraph 4.8.6. refers to development of a strategic and exceptional nature, that would not be suitably located within zoned lands, and which may be accommodated successfully in certain Greenbelt locations. This would only be appropriate where the impact of the development on the specific function and open character of the Greenbelt can be minimised (objective RCI 8-10).

Objective RCI 8-11 Greenbelts Around Settlements (a) It is an objective to retain the identity of towns, to prevent sprawl, and to 10 ensure a distinction in character between built up areas and the open countryside by maintaining a Greenbelt around all individual towns. (b) It is an objective to reserve generally for use as agriculture, open space or recreation uses those lands that lie in the immediate surroundings of towns. Where Natura 2000 sites occur within greenbelts, these shall be reserved for uses compatible with their nature conservation designation. (c) It is an objective in particular to prevent linear roadside frontage development on the roads leading out of towns and villages. (d) The local area plans will define the extent of individual Greenbelts around the ring and county towns and any of the larger villages where this approach is 20 considered appropriate. They will also establish appropriate objectives for the Greenbelts generally reserving land for agriculture, open space or recreation uses.

Objective RCI 8-10:- Strategic and Exceptional Development:- It is an objective to recognise that there may be development of a strategic and exceptional nature that may not be suitably located within zoned lands and that such development may be accommodated successfully in Greenbelt locations. In such circumstances, the impact on the specific functions and open character of the Greenbelt should be minimized. 30 The R639 is designated as scenic route S3: N8 National Primary Route between Moorepark and Mitchelstown, Views of the Galtee, Nagle, Kilworth & Knockmealdown Mountain Ranges.

Objective ENV 2-11:- It is a particular objective to preserve the character of those views and prospects obtainable from scenic routes identified in this plan.

12.2 Fermoy Electoral Area LAP 2011 40 1.9 Green Belts Around Towns

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 22 of 38

The LAP reiterates the provisions of the County Development Plan 2009 with regard to these Greenbelts, with reference to paragraphs 4.8.5 (long established uses) and 4.8.6 (development of a strategic and exceptional nature) of the County Plan.

Objective GB 1-1 Green Belts Around the Ring and County towns This policy generally reiterates objective RCI 8-11 of the County Development Plan 2009.

10 With regard to the Green Belt around Fermoy, paragraph 1.9.12. notes that an important and attractive characteristic of the town is the complex topography and landscape character of its setting. The plan seeks to protect this through the retention of the Greenbelt around the town. 1.9.14. To the north and south, on exiting the M8 Motorway, the town is approached via the R639 which is also deemed unsuitable for development, as it would have a negative impact on the visual setting of the town.

12.3 Spatial Planning and National Roads, Guidelines for Planning 20 Authorities (Jan 2012) Section 2.8 deals with service areas. These are noted to come in the following formats: On-line Motorway Service Areas. NRA on-line motorway service areas incorporate extensive parking and also facilities that cater specifically for the refuelling, refreshment and toilet needs of drivers and passengers. No provision is made for hotel or other accommodation facilities, nor extensive retail outlets. The Authority’s service areas are designed to discourage infrastructure from becoming destinations in their own right.

30 Off-line Motorway Service Areas at National Road Junctions Policies in this regard may be included in local authority development plans with reference to NRA requirements and advice, and similar type existing or planned privately promoted service facilities within existing towns/settlements and located in the general environs of the relevant road corridor. A proliferation of private off-line service area facilities at national road junctions should be avoided. It is therefore important that a coordinated approach between planning authorities should be undertaken in consultation with the NRA as part of the drafting of development plans.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 23 of 38

Facilities proposed for inclusion in service areas should be of a type that avoids the attraction of short, local trips, a class of traffic that is inconsistent with the primary intended role for motorways and other national roads and associated junctions. Furthermore, to permit a service area to become a destination for local customers would be contrary to Government planning policy on retail and town centres. The consequence of this would be to threaten the viability of businesses in cities, towns or other local centres.

10 12.4 Retail Planning Guidelines (2012) Section 4.11.10 notes that on-line and off-line service areas are not considered in the guidelines and refers to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities which apply to these facilities. The guidelines otherwise note that convenience shops are part of the normal ancillary services provided within motor fuel stations. They should only be permitted where they would not seriously undermine the approach to retail development in the development plan. The floorspace of the shop should not exceed 100m2 net.

20 12.5 Motorway Service Areas Statement (NRA October 2013) This statement outlines the current position regarding the Authority’s motorway service areas programme. The statement notes the Motorway Service Areas which have been completed to date and those currently being progressed.

With regard to other planned motorway service areas, the statement notes that the provision of on-line service areas is a requirement of the TEN-T (Trans European Transport Network) Regulations. The National Road Safety Strategy is also noted to require the development of additional on-line service areas. It is stated that the Authority will develop a Service Area Policy in 2014 in response to 30 these requirements.

Proposals for service area type facilities at off-line locations close to the national roads network may be pursued by private sector development interests. Guidance is provided in Section 2.8 of the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities.

Proposals for service area type developments in the environs of national roads which incorporate significant commercial, retail, hotel and other accommodation elements could constitute destinations in their own right. The use of national 40 roads to accommodate short, local, trips to such developments would conflict

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 24 of 38

with their intended primary role in catering for strategic inter-urban and inter- regional traffic. Such proposals may also be inconsistent with the Retail Planning Guidelines (2012).

The Authority is willing to facilitate advance notification signage close to interchange exits that give access to privately developed service areas with facilities limited to those catering for road user needs.

Note : This statement supersedes earlier policy statements from the NRA. Those 10 earlier statements noted that as a result of exchequer funding issues, the process of site selection and planning for on-line service areas, including that at Kilworth, was suspended. It was the stated intention to resume work as finances permit so as to cater for the needs of road users.

12.6 The Location and Layout of On-line Service Areas NRA TA 70/13 (June 2013) This Advice Note provides the general principles to be followed for the siting and layout of on-line service areas on Motorways and Type 1 Dual Carriageways. 20 The Advice Note supersedes NRA TA 70/08. Guidance relating to service areas at other locations on national roads, including at Motorway or Type 1 Dual Carriageway junctions is provided in the document “Spatial Planning and National Roads – Guidelines for Planning Authorities”, published by the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government.

Definitions • On-line Service Area:- A service area with direct access to the mainline of a Motorway or Type 1 Dual Carriageway, and located other than at or adjacent to a junction. 30 • Type 1 Service Area:- A small scale service area providing parking, picnic and toilet facilities, but without a main amenity building or fuel facilities, only intended for use where particular need is identified and agreed with the NRA. • Type 2 Service Area:- A large scale service area providing an amenity building (including a convenience shop, restaurant, washrooms and tourist information), fuel facilities, parking and picnic area, intended to be the normal provision on Motorways and Type 1 Dual Carriageways.

Service areas provide convenient places for drivers to stop for short periods of time. This is particularly important on motorways. Convenience shops should 40 typically be between 150 – 250-sq.m. In general, on-line Type 2 Service Areas

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 25 of 38

should be provided at nominal 50-60 kilometre intervals on Motorways and Type 1 Dual Carriageways, although evolving guidance from the European Commission suggests that a larger spacing may be appropriate.

Note : The following documents are referenced in the NRA Motorway Service Area Statement of October 2013.

12.7 Regulation On Union Guidelines For The Development Of The Trans- 10 European Transport Network Agreement was reached in 2013 on the establishment of a unified core European transport network. The new core TEN-T network will be supported by a comprehensive network of routes, feeding into the core network at regional and national level. The main objective of these new Guidelines is to establish a complete and integrated trans-European transport network, covering all Member States and regions. Article 44 Identification of the core network 1. The core network shall consist of those parts of the comprehensive network which are of the highest strategic importance for achieving the objectives of 20 the trans-European transport network policy.

The M8 is identified as part of the core network.

Article 45 Requirements 2. The infrastructure of the core network shall meet all the requirements set out in Chapter II without exception. In addition, the following requirements shall also be met by the infrastructure of the core network: (c) for road transport infrastructure: – the development of rest areas approximately every 50 kilometres on 30 motorways in order inter alia to provide sufficient parking space for commercial road users with an appropriate level of safety and security.

12.8 National Road Safety Strategy (RSA) 2013-2020 With regard to engineering measures, the strategy notes that the completion of the Major Inter-urban Route network has improved the safety of the National Route system. Further motorway service areas are planned to protect against driver fatigue. Key actions under the heading of Engineering include the following:

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 26 of 38

56. The provision of at least 5 new service areas on or immediately adjacent to the motorway network by 2020. The lead agency for this action is identified as the NRA.

13.0 Assessment

It is proposed to consider the appeal under the following broad headings: • Land use and development principle. 10 • Impacts on the town centre and other commercial outlets. • Road and Traffic Safety. • Water Supply and Drainage. • Visual Impacts • First party appeal against conditions. • Appropriate Assessment. • Other Matters Arising.

13.1 Land use and development principle 20 The proposed development comprises an off-line Service Area intended to primarily serve motorway traffic. The requirement for such facilities along the motorway network is acknowledged in local and national policy documents and by parties to the appeal. The NRA have produced a number of policy statements since 2006 in this regard and the previously stated preference is that such facilities be provided as on-line service areas. The general approach to the development of the motorway service area programme has been to have service areas at intervals of approx. 50-60km. The NRA Status Update from December 2012 indicated that due to continuing financial constraints the development of on- line service areas was not being progressed, however, it remained the intention 30 to resume work on such facilities, including that at Kilworth, as finances permitted. The latest update published in October 2013, subsequent to the lodgement of the appeals, reiterates the intention to pursue the authority’s Service Area Programme and indicates that a Service Area Policy will be developed in 2014.

The development of an on-line motorway service area north of Fermoy, at Kilworth was identified as part of the initial Service Area Programme in 2007 although this facility has not been progressed to date. Internal planning authority reports indicate that the NRA have already acquired a site at Kilworth. 40 Confirmation in this regard is not readily available, however, I note that the

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 27 of 38

Comptroller and Auditor General accounts for the Defence Forces for 2012 (extract attached) indicate that 26.42ac of lands at Kilworth Camp have been vested in the Minister of Finance for the “provision of road services to the NRA”. I note also reference in NRA correspondence to the development of land that is already in state ownership.

It would appear that the subject development and that at Junction 13, have arisen from the lack of progress in relation to the on-line facility at Kilworth. While I note e-mail correspondence on the file from the NRA from 2011 which indicated that 10 the facility at Kilworth was not being pursued, these have been superceded by subsequent policy statements. I consider that the scenario which currently arises, whereby there are two concurrent applications for similar off-line developments at Junctions 13 and 14, along with outstanding NRA proposals for an on-line facility, within an approx. 9km stretch of the M8, is that which the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines seek to avoid. The Guidelines place the emphasis on the development plan as the mechanism for the identification and siting of off-line service areas, with appropriate consultation with the NRA. This is necessary to avoid a proliferation of such facilities at national road junctions. Submissions from the NRA have not raised specific 20 objections to this, or other concurrent applications, however, they have drawn particular attention to Section 2.8 of the Guidelines. I note the NRA comments that they will develop on-line facilities in the appropriate locations notwithstanding any potential competition with private facilities. It is also the case that a Service Area Policy is to be developed by the NRA for 2014 having regard to the changing policy environment. Pending the development of such policy from the Agency and the lack of direction in the development plan it is considered that the proposed development would be premature and would be at risk of giving rise to an ad hoc approach to such development. The review of the County Development Plan has commenced and this would appear to be an opportune 30 time to develop a policy for motorway service areas in line with the provisions of the Guidelines.

With regard to the identified NRA standard separation distance of 50-60km, I note that this relates primarily to the provision of on-line facilities. Off-line service areas are restricted to the availability of suitable sites accessible from existing motorway junctions. The two current off-line service area proposals are approx. 9km apart which equates to only a few minutes of motorway driving. In the context of the overall motorway network, I do not consider that this is the critical factor in the consideration of these proposals. 40

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 28 of 38

It is the case that both of the current proposals before the Board at junctions 13 and 14 are sited within Greenbelt areas. While development in such areas would generally be discouraged, these proposals are linked to the presence of motorway interchanges and the lack of progress in relation to the development on-line NRA facilities. Having regard to their acknowledged role within the national road network and national policy in this regard, the provision of Motorway service areas could be regarded as a strategic and exceptional category of development in principle and would be acceptable within greenbelt areas. 10 I do not consider, however, that the assessment of these two concurrent applications solely on their own merits is an appropriate planning response. The two applications cannot be viewed in isolation and require to be considered under the greenbelt policies of the County Development Plan and the LAP, relying on the “exceptional and strategic” provisions of those plans. Clearly, two similar developments, serving the same need, with relative proximity cannot both be regarded as exceptional and strategic in this context.

A grant of permission for both developments would result in a proliferation of 20 such facilities, beyond the identified needs of the motorway network. It would also result in the unnecessary development and erosion of these greenbelt areas. A co-ordinated policy response to the acknowledged need for a motorway service facility within this wider area should be developed and the appropriate mechanism for the identification and development of such strategic facilities is the development plan, as advocated by the Strategic Planning and National Roads Guidelines. In the absence of policy in this regard, it is considered that such development would be premature and contrary to the provisions of guidelines.

30 13.2 Impacts on town centre and other commercial facilities. The appeal site is located approx. 3km north of Fermoy town centre. Significant commercial outlets between the appeal site and the main street include the Amber Oil petrol filling station and a discount foodstore. The proposed development includes the following components: • A convenience store (100-sq.m.) and café / deli (90-sq.m.) with associated stores and ancillary spaces. • Fast food offer with associated drive-thru facilities and food court seating area (168-sq.m.). 40 • Fuel retailing facilities.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 29 of 38

The scale of development proposed is generally in line with existing and proposed facilities elsewhere on the motorway network. It is not the role of the planning system to inhibit competition, however, the system is concerned with the vitality and vibrancy of town centres. The Strategic Planning and National Road Guidelines also note that in formulating development plan policy in this regard, consideration should be given to similar type existing or planned privately promoted service facilities within existing towns/settlements and located in the general environs of the relevant road corridor. Policy guidance is clear that off- 10 line facilities which would generate local trips inconsistent with the role of the motorway network, or that would become a destination in their own right, are inappropriate.

With regard to the need for another facility in this area, I note that the existing Amber filling station is sited approx. 1.7km from Junction 14, such as to make it less attractive for motorway traffic who will not wish to divert so far off-route. I note that in the previous appeal case, PL04.241495, the developers argued that that facility was not a motorway service area although it is used by motorway traffic. The proposed extension was not intended to attract additional traffic but 20 cater for existing demand. In this regard, it is considered that there remains a requirement for an appropriately located facility, catering primarily for motorway traffic, within this area. These two facilities should not therefore be in direct competition.

As previously noted, the proposed facility is primarily intended to serve motorway traffic and such developments are not considered in the Retail Planning Guidelines. The scale of retail and commercial provision on the site is regarded as limited and appropriate to this junction, and having regard to its separation from the town centre, is not considered likely to give rise to impacts thereon. I do 30 not consider that the deli or food court areas can be considered part of the convenience retail element in this case.

The planning authority have omitted the proposed drive-thru element of the development in order to ensure that the development does not undermine the town centre retail area. I note that the drive-thru element of the extension to the Amber Service Station and the sale of hot food take-away was restricted by the previous decision of the Board under PL04.241495 for similar reasons. That site was located within approx. 1.5km of the town centre, however, with a closer residential population. 40

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 30 of 38

The first party refer to changes to NRA policy in this regard. I note, however, that that policy relates to on-line service areas and the previous restriction on drive- thru use was not related to impacts on the town centre. Such on-line service areas are not generally accessible from the local road network and would not therefore generate local trips. Having regard to the location of the subject site, I do not consider that the development is directly comparable with that permitted on the M11 at Ashford, Co. Wicklow PL21.241347 in terms of potential retail or town centre impacts.

10 Drive-thru facilities are not considered to be necessary for motorway traffic or the strategic function of the service area. I do not consider it unreasonable to conclude that such use would be more likely to attract short, local trips and to become a destination for local customers. This could have potential impacts on the viability of businesses in cities, towns or other local centres. Planning authority conditions do not restrict the proposed restaurant and take-away uses, however. I note that such uses are a common feature in other motorway service areas constructed to date and do not consider that it would be reasonable to restrict the take-away facility from the development having regard to its proposed function and catchment. 20

13.3 Water Supply and Drainage The proposed development is located within the Inner Source Protection Area of the Downings Bridge bored well. This comprises one of two public water supply sources currently serving the village of Kilworth. The Fermoy Electoral Area LAP 2011 notes that this supply has no reservoir and operates on a pressure pumping system. The plan notes that the provision of a new water supply scheme is being identified that will serve Glanworth, Kilworth and Glenahulla. It notes that remedying infrastructural deficiencies needs to be given a higher priority. 30 At further information stage a hydrological assessment of the development was undertaken. The report notes that groundwater in the vicinity of the site is likely to have been lowered by the large cutting for the adjacent M8. Previous drilling in the surrounding area encountered groundwater at depths of between 51m and 141m. It is concluded that no significant dewatering will be required for excavations on the site and that impacts on ground water levels are not likely.

The Risk Assessment for use of the site as a petrol filling station describes it as a class A site based on the severity of the possible impact and the low likelihood of 40 a leak occurring. It is proposed that fuel will be stored in double walled

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 31 of 38

underground tanks with Class 1 leak detection and containment system. Subject to best practice in design, construction and operation, the report concludes that the development will not give rise to a danger to people or the environment.

Notwithstanding this report, internal PA reports (Water Production) identified the risks to the public water supply source from the proposed development and recommended that permission be refused. In response, the planning authority have required that the developers fund / undertake to provide a new water main connection from the Fermoy side of the M8 to the existing watermain at 10 Downings Bridge. It would appear that this measure would result in the redundancy of the Downings Bridge borehole as a source of public water supply for Kilworth. Having regard to the provisions of the LAP in this regard, such measures as well as the design measures otherwise identified would appear to address the groundwater issues arising.

It is proposed that the development will connect to the Fermoy public sewerage scheme by means of a new rising main. There is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the proposed development and while issues in the design of the proposed connection were identified during the course of the 20 application, engineering reports have expressed satisfaction with the development, subject to conditions.

Surface water run-off from within the site and from the public road at the proposed roundabout, will be collected and directed to an attenuation area, sized for a 100-year event. Outflows will be restricted to greenfield rates and will pass through a hydrocarbon interceptor. Forecourt areas and areas at higher risk of spillage are provided with full-retention interceptors, upstream of the attenuation area. Clean waters will then be discharged via an open swale to the Funshion River, approx. 400m north of the appeal site. Subject to the appropriate 30 installation, operation and maintenance of the system, impacts on water quality appear unlikely and the development would be acceptable in this regard.

13.4 Road and Traffic Safety The application was accompanied by a Transport Impact Assessment and a Road Safety Audit. Analysis of the two roundabouts at Junction 14 indicates that they currently operate well within design capacity. The proposed roundabout at the site entrance is provided with adequate forward visibility and capacity to cater for the proposed development. The design was amended to take account of the 40 findings of the Road Safety Audit.

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 32 of 38

The TIA indicates that the development will not give rise to any new trips on the national road network, but will give rise to movements on and off the M8 as well as additional traffic from Fermoy to Kilworth via the R639. The assessment estimates that a conservative turn-in / turn-out rate of 15% of mainline M8 and R639 traffic would arise, based on surveys of existing on and off-line service areas. Junction analysis for the network with the development in place up to 2029, indicates that there will continue to be adequate capacity.

The level of parking provision on the site is considered to be adequate and 10 appears to reflect the provisions of NRA advice note 70/08, which relates to larger on-line motorway service areas.

I note that the road and transportation departments of the planning authority had no objection to the proposed development following receipt of further information. It is not considered that the development would negatively impact on the safety or convenience of road users and is regarded as acceptable in principle. A stage 3 safety audit prior to the commencement of any operations on the site would be appropriate, as recommended by the NRA.

20 There is a signed walking route along the R639 to the front of the site, the Blackwater Way. While there are no footpaths along this section of road, the road width, alignment and visibility are generally good at this location. There are narrow footpaths on the motorway overbridge and at further information stage proposals were submitted for the provision of a new footpath from the western side of the interchange to connect with a woodland path along the site frontage. On the western side of the interchange that footpath would start / end at the point where the walking route turns north off the R639 along a local road. Given that this is an existing walking route there would be some wider benefits to these works, although these benefits would not of such significance as to alter a 30 decision on this application.

13.5 Visual Impacts The appeal site is bounded on its southwestern side by a high stone wall and mature trees, which provide screening from the R639. There are views into the site from the over-bridge at the interchange, however, these views are relatively limited. The site falls to the northeast and it is proposed that ground levels at the southern and south-western end of the site would be reduced. These measures will reduce the potential visibility of the site from the surrounding area. 40

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 33 of 38

To the west of the site, the M8 lies in a deep cutting, which generally restricts views as the road rises from the crossing of the River Funshion toward junction 14. There will be longer views from the northern side of the River, however, having regard to the increased separation distance the impact on such views is not considered to be negative. The development will not break the skyline and will be seen against the backdrop of mature trees. In low light or at night, there will be additional impacts from external lighting at the facility.

The application was accompanied by a visual impact assessment, which 10 concludes that the greatest visibility is limited to receptors to the north and adjacent to the proposed site entrance. Impacts are identified as slight negative for views south from the M8, while they are otherwise identified as neutral or imperceptible. I would generally concur with the findings. While the development will alter the character of this site, I do not consider that the landscape and visual impacts arising are significant or unacceptable. The development will not significantly impact on the character of the R639 as a scenic route. As noted earlier, however, the cumulative effect of a number of similar developments along the route of the M8 in this area would have a negative impact on the character of the rural area and the perception thereof. 20 I note the provisions of the NRA on signage visible from the motorway. Conditions regarding the nature of external lighting would be appropriate in any decision to grant permission in this case.

13.6 First Party Appeal Against Conditions The first party have appealed against conditions no. 2 and no. 41 of the planning authority decision to grant permission in this case:

Condition no. 2: I have already discussed the omission of the drive-thru 30 element in section 11.2 above and conclude that this condition is reasonable and appropriate and should be included in any decision to grant permission in this case.

Condition no. 41: In their response to the appeal, the planning authority have indicated their agreement to the first party proposal to lay the required water main in conjunction with foul sewerage infrastructure. This would appear to obviate the requirement for the special contribution and revised conditions in this regard are recommended in the event of any decision to grant permission in this case.

40

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 34 of 38

13.7 Appropriate Assessment The appeal site is not located within or immediately adjacent to any Natura site. The closest site to the appeal site is the Blackwater River (Cork / Waterford) SAC, approx. 1.6km south east of the site at its closest point. The development proposes discharge of surface waters to the Funshion River, a tributary of the River Blackwater, at a point approx. 400m north of the appeal site. The development proposes that surface-water run-off will be captured, settled and attenuated prior to discharge via hydrocarbon interceptor, to an open swale draining to the Funshion River. The discharge point is approx. 3km upstream of 10 the SAC boundary and a further 700m from the Blackwater River itself. An Appropriate Assessment Screening Statement was submitted to the planning authority at further information stage, which identifies the conservation objectives of the SAC and assesses likely impacts of the development thereon. A copy of the site synopsis and conservation objectives for the SAC are appended to this statement. I note also the detailed Conservation Objectives for this site published in July 2012.

The statement indicates that there will be no direct habitat loss or deterioration arising from the proposed development. Indirect impacts could arise due to run- 20 off or discharge to the aquatic environment. The surface water management system and proposed fuel storage arrangements provided as part of the design of the development are such that impacts on water quality or on the SAC are unlikely. Separation from the site will ensure that disturbance or displacement impacts do not arise. The statement therefore concludes that there are no elements of the project likely to impact on the SAC. The screening statement does not identify any plans or projects likely to have cumulative or in-combination effects on the SAC. The main pressures on the SAC are identified as agricultural activity and public and private wastewater treatment plants and septic tanks. A Finding of No Significant Effect statement is included. 30 The report of the PA Heritage Officer reviewed the statement and expressed satisfaction with the findings thereof. The planning application was referred to the Development Applications Unit, however, no comments in regard to ecological impacts were submitted. Having regard to the foregoing, I conclude that the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect on any Natura site and that there is therefore no requirement for stage 2 Appropriate Assessment.

40 13.8 Other Matters Arising

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 35 of 38

The extent of residential development in the vicinity of the site is very limited. Having regard to the surrounding pattern of development and the separation distances arising, I do not consider that significant impacts on residential amenity are likely.

I note the submission of the Development Applications Unit with regard to archaeological impacts. There are no recorded features on the appeal site. Archaeological investigations were undertaken within the corridor of the M8 and one site, a limekiln, was identified just west of the site. I note the report of the 10 County Archaeologist and the submission of the DAU in this regard. In the event of any decision to grant permission in this case, appropriate monitoring conditions would be appropriate.

I note that the planning application was accepted and processed by the planning authority and that a decision in relation to the application was made on 28/08/2013. The appeal before the Board relates to that decision and it is not the role of the Board to review the procedures of the planning authority. Notwithstanding this, I note the submissions on the file regarding the extent of works proposed within the public road and submissions from adjacent 20 landowners in this regard.

The development is below the threshold for submission of a mandatory EIS, as set out in Schedule 6 of the planning and development regulations. I note the criteria set out in Schedule 7 in respect of sub-threshold development. Having reviewed the development and those criteria, I do not consider that the submission of an EIS is required in respect of the proposed development. Reference is made in third party appeals to a requirement under the Roads Act for preparation of an EIS in respect of the proposed development, however, the requirements in this regard (S.10 of the 2007 Roads Act amending S.50 of the 30 1993 Act), relate to development proposed by the Roads Authority or the NRA. The proposed development does not comprise such a category of development.

14.0 Conclusion:

It can be determined that there is a requirement for the development of a service area to serve the M8 motorway within this area and the appeal site can be regarded as being generally suitable for the development of an off-line facility. There are water and wastewater services available and the development does 40 not give rise to particular issues of traffic safety. The proposal to extend the

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 36 of 38

Fermoy watermain to connect to the existing main at Downings Bridge would appear to address potential impacts on the source protection zone. I concur with the planning authority regarding the omission of the drive-thru element of the development in order to ensure that it does not serve as a local destination and in order to protect the role of the town centre. It is not considered that the development will give rise to particular issues in terms of landscape or visual impacts.

Notwithstanding the above, the acceptability of the development in principle is 10 subject to its strategic function on the motorway network. In accordance with development plan policy for greenbelt development, only development regarded as strategic and exceptional would be acceptable within this area. A grant of permission for similar developments at Junctions 13 and 14 would result in a proliferation of such facilities, beyond the identified needs of the motorway network. It would also result in the unnecessary development and erosion of these greenbelt areas and a co-ordinated policy response to the obvious need for a motorway service area within this wider area should be developed. The appropriate mechanism for the identification and development of such strategic facilities is the development plan as promoted by the Strategic 20 Planning and National Roads Guidelines. In the absence of policy in this regard, it is considered that such development would be premature and contrary to the provisions of guidelines in this regard.

15.0 Recommendation

Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend that the decision of the Planning Authority be overturned in this instance and that permission be refused for the proposed development for the reasons and considerations set out below: 30

Reasons and Considerations:

The proposed development is located within the Fermoy Greenbelt Area, wherein it is the policy of the County Development Plan and the Fermoy Electoral Area Local Area Plan that such development will only be allowed where it is of a strategic and exceptional nature. The Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines advocate a coordinated approach to the provision of off-line motorway service areas as part of the development plan process and indicate that a

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 37 of 38

proliferation of private off-line service area facilities at national road junctions shall be avoided. Having regard to the foregoing and other concurrent proposals for similar development along the M8 motorway, and notwithstanding the acknowledged requirement for such a facility in this area, it is considered that the pending the formulation of an appropriate planning policy approach in this regard, the proposed development would be premature and contrary to the policies of the development plan with regard to development within the Greenbelt and the provisions of the guidelines. The proposed development would therefore be 10 contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Conor McGrath Inspectorate

PL04.242495 An Bord Pleanala Page 38 of 38