The Secretary, the Planning Authority, Cork County Council, County Hall, Cork City

Home , Eyeries

Kicatherine, Eyeries, County Cork, Ireland http//www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org The Secretary, The Planning Authority, Cork County Council, County Hall, Cork City

Complaint Re: Administrative failure in the Quarry Registration process.

06 July 2009

Dear Sir/Madam;

FIE wish to lodge a formal complaint in relation to the administration of Quarry Registration under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (Commencement) (No. 3) Order, 2001 (Planning Acts 2001).We contend that there is inadequate assessment of registration applications resulting in instances of:

• Non-compliance with section 261 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 • Non-compliance with the Quarries and Ancillary Activities Guidelines for Planning Authorities (April 2004 of the Department of the Environment • Significant factual inaccuracies in the application, Environmental Management System, and associated documentation.

The operator failed to provide accurate information and the administrative body failed to verify registration information.

In addition we submit that as this quarry is in non-compliance with their registration conditions it is an unauthorised development and appropriate actions should be taken.

We use a report prepared by FIE entitled ‘The Quarry Registration process – a Case Study’ (Annex 1) to demonstrate in detail the grounds of our complaint.

Respectfully yours,

Caroline Lewis

Failure of the operator to provide accurate registration information Failure of the administrative body to verify registration information

Status in relation to section 261 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (Commencement) (No. 3) Order, 2001. S.I. No. 599/2001 — Planning and Development Act, 2000 (Commencement) (No. 3) Order, 2001

Failure of the operator to provide accurate information Failure of the administrative body to verify registration information Failure and/or neglecting to comply with statutory duties on Registration of Quarries pursuant to Section 261

Section 261 defines the quarry registration process. Under this pre-1964 quarries and those with planning permission granted under Part IV of the Act of 1963 did not have to obtain planning permission while conditions can be imposed by the County Council. Quarries which have been abandoned will not be able to recommence operations without seeking planning permission. It is not possible to register an abandoned quarry in order to recommence its use. [Page 33, Quarry Guidelines]

This quarry appears to have been registered as being a pre-1964 quarry. On page 16 of the file NRGE claim that the company Michael Harrington Plant Hire (Beara) Ltd has been in operation on the site for the ‘last four decades’.

To clarify this accuracy of this claim a Company search was carried out with the Companies Registration Office (CRO). CRO records show that the Company was first registered fifteen years ago on 13th June 1994 with Harold and June Poole from England as Directors. Two days later a B10 was filed and the Directorship transferred to Michael and Julie Harrington.

Further evidence that contradicts the applicants claim are provided by Arial maps. Map 2 shows an OSI aerial map of the cleared area pre-2001. There is no indication that four decades of quarrying had occurred. Map 3 shows the site five years later.

Local information is that a small quarry which had operated near and contiguous with the present site had ceased operation in 1971/1972 (it was a County Council site) and that (a) there had been NO Quarrying Operations whatsoever carried out on the Section 261 registered Site prior to 2001 with (b) an absolute cessation of activity on the small quarry which ceased operations in 1972 (at latest).

Prior to 2001/2002, the lands upon which extraction now takes place were virgin lands. We have been informed that there was NO activity whatsoever on site for a period of at least 30 years between 1971/1972 and 2001/2002.

Thus, we seek replies to the following questions:

• What evidence was submitted to support the Plant Hire Beara Ltd’s claim that it has been in operation on this site for the last four decades? • What is Michael Harrington Plant Hire (Beara) Ltd’s interest in the land and when did this interest commence? • How is the information submitted to County Council’s by the quarry operators/owners validated?

The information provided to the local authority was inaccurate and permitted Registration under Section 261, thus avoiding the development consent procedure and assessments that should have been required.

2 Annex 1. The Quarry Registration process – a Case Study. This study raises the question as to the administration of the quarry registration decision making/screening process and the accuracy of information submitted at the registration stage for this quarry particularly in relation to: • the size of the development • the date the activity commenced; • Environmental considerations • landscape consideration;

Background. The Case Study involved a quarry, Registration Index QR063. on lands at Faunkill and the Woods, Eyeries, County Cork, which forms one of 53 in County Cork where the owner / operator has been notified (in writing) of the Planning Authority’s decision in accordance with Section 261(6), i.e.: - to impose conditions on the operation of the quarry or - to modify and add to conditions previously imposed under relevant planning permission(s). Detailed further information was received for all these applications’.(May 2007) [source http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/web/Cork%20County%20Council/Departments/ Planning/Quarry%20Registration. Accessed 13 June 2009]

For the quarry QR063 conditions were imposed on its operation.

On the 23 February 2009 FIE wrote to Cork County Council Planning Department requesting Access to Information on the Environment for QR063.

The Planning Department forwarded our Access to Information on the Environment request to the Environment and Emergency Services Directorate. This Directorate refused access to the requested information referring to sections 4.(1) and 4.(2) of the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations, 2007, advising that the information requested was on public file in the Planning Department.

3 The Directorate did however kindly forward, as a courtesy, 56 pages from, and relating to, an Environmental Management Statement (EMS) prepared by Nutrient Recovery to Generate Electricity (NRGE), and advised that if we required further information to contact the Planning Department.

A ‘site specific Environmental Management System’ (EMS), required under Condition 55 to be put in place by 24th October 2007,was submitted on the 17th December 2008 to the Planning Department. Amendments were requested and the final EMS was received on the 12th February 2009 and accepted by the Planning Department on the 26th February 2009.

A study of the file raised a number of serious concerns in relation to the administrative process and the failure to adequately assess the impact on the environment.

For ease of reference page numbers are according to the hand written numbering on the file sent to FIE.

The Environmental Management System. The environmental management system (EMS) is intended to be a ‘site specific Environmental Management System’. However this EMS appears to be a very general management system for the Company and could equally apply to any quarry it may operate. It gives a general outline of legal obligations or aspirations and does not appear to be at all site specific. In particular it does not mention the • sensitivity of the landscape. • the watercourses that run through and adjacent to the site • negative impact on infrastructure and tourism

Water Watercourses flow both through and around this quarry. The excavation has gone some distance below the road level and stream and drainage water runs through this area. Significant amounts of sediment along with any other pollutants are transported off site through a large pipe into a stream that leads directly into a cSAC.

Figure 1 Water flows across the entire quarry, down the quarry face and joins the now modified natural stream as it exits the site.

Further concerns in relation to water discharges are raised by Section 5.3.3 (page 14 of 20) Dust and Air Quality it states that on site Dust Minimisation Measures includes: • water spaying of conveyors, stockpiles, roads; • Wheel wash for road traffic.

In addition there are to be oil interceptors and sediment traps. However in section 3.3.4. Water Management it states that there are no water discharges for this quarry.

The response to Condition 39 (page 7) was to state that: ‘No substance shall be discharged in contravention of water regulations from any activity on site. There is no pumping from the site. There is no pumping from the site as quarrying operations are above the water table level.’

This information is contradictory and warrants urgent further information. You cannot have wheel, washing, spraying, oil interceptors and sediment traps without there being polluted water to deal with. Discharges do not necessarily require pumping. And just as a car park has surface runoff that should be treated so does a quarry.

5 Where does the onsite water including spray water, wheel wash water, come from and where does it go?

Fuel/Chemicals Storage In Section 5.3.5 Fuel/Chemicals Storage is states that ‘There are no fuels or chemicals stored on site.‘ In fact there are fuel and oil containers stored on site on the bare ground with no bunding adjacent to a drain.(Figure 2)

Figure 2 This image shows several oil drums and a fuel bowser which are stored unbunded next to the site entrance. A shallow drain runs in-between the bowser and the stone piles exiting the site under the concrete slab.

During a morning site visit on the 17th June 2009 it was observed that drainage water exiting the site from this area was polluted with hydrocarbons and the drainage water was contaminated with a film of oil with thicker patches. Oil was still present in the drainage water despite the preceding several hours of heavy rain This indicates that a significant amount of hydrocarbons are polluting the environment. The drainage channel/stream was also heavily contaminated with silt.

6 Figure 3. Drainage channel near fuel bowser

From here it flows under the R571 and into a semi-native woodland. The discharge area was thick with deposited sediments. The water surface was covered with a film of oil interspersed with thicker globules (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Oil on drainage water.

The site was revisited on the 21st June and offsite oil deposits were clearly visible. (Figure 5)

7 Figure 5. Offsite oil deposits.

Reinstatement and After-Use In a letter dated 17th Nov 2008 from NRGE to Cork County Council it states under point 10 that :’To begin the restoration process a planning application will have to be made and a waste permit obtained to import inert fill to reinstate the used quarry for agricultural purposes. The quarry is located in a remote area and agriculture would seem to be the most suitable after use option.’

Yet in the landscaping proposal (page 10) we are told that ‘The excavated areas will be allowed to naturally re-colonise. This will be achieved by reducing the slope of the quarry faces to an angle of 1:3 which will stabilise the faces. Crevices in the rock will allow dust and seeds can coagulate. These will form the starter points for natural regeneration’

How do the operators propose land filling a quarry that according to its planning conditions must not be quarried below the level of the public road? Or is the inert fill to be mounded against the 1:3 quarry face that we are told in the landscaping proposal will be naturally regenerating?

The EMS was accepted in February 2009, some three months after the clear indication of the proposed after use as an inert land fill is given to the County Council in response to condition 10. (page 6). Yet the EMS gives no indication of the plans for reinstatement and after use even though this report is supposed to be site specific.

Noise. Condition 43 clearly states that the ‘noise levels a the site boundaries shall not exceed 55dB(A)’ and ‘at no time shall the noise generated on site result in an increase in noise level of more than 10dB(A) above background level at the boundaries of the adjoining properties’.

It should be noted that as noise is measured on a logarithmic scale a 10dB increase represents a doubling in noise.

On page 2 (page numbers hand marked) of the AIE file there is a map showing the location of the on site noise monitoring station (N2) and of the nearest noise sensitive locations.

We are told on page 53 (p6 of the Noise Monitoring Report dated September 2008) that 2 excavators, 1 loading shovel, 1 primary crusher, 1 secondary crusher and a small number of trucks were all operating during the noise monitoring.

However this is difficult to understand as the highest noise level recorded was 63.3 dB(A).

To put this in context • An average quiet living room is about 40dB(A) • Normal conversation at 1m is 65dB(A); • A domestic vacuum cleaner at 3m is 70dB(A); • Busy road traffic generates about 80dB(A); • One heavy diesel lorry at 7m is 90dB(A).

In section 7.0 Conclusion of the Noise Monitoring Reports June 2008 (page 46 written; page 6 of report) and September 2008(page 54 written; page 6 of report) it states:

‘Condition 43 states that ‘the site noise shall not result in an increase of more than 10dB above background. ‘While the background noise level at N2 is above

9 the 10dB margin this results from a combination of local traffic and on-site works. This monitoring location is approximately 10m from the active quarry area’.

Aside from the discrepancy in the distance of N2 from the active quarry face 10m or 30m are we really to understand that the levels recorded at onsite monitoring station N2 was that of a normal conversation when at least 7 large pieces of machinery were in operation within 10 – 30 m including crushers and loading shovels? Even allowed for sound attenuation of 6dB(A) with doubling of distance form source this seems most unlikely.

In addition this quarry lies above the tree line of semi-natural native woodland (see Figure 6). The noise is amplified by the quarried rock face at the rear of the quarry carrying across an otherwise tranquil environment, particularly the impact noise.

Figure 6. Position of quarry in landscape with a crusher clearly visible. The rock face and land form give the noise impact directionality amplifying its effect.

Crusher

In Table 3, page 5 of the noise monitoring report major noise sources for N-2 and N-3 are given as ‘Distant road traffic on the N25 and intermittent local traffic’. The N25 is a national primary road, forming the route from Cork to Waterford City and Rosslare Europort. Therefore it is remarkable indeed that the N25 is considered a ‘major noise source’ at this quarry.

There do not appear to be background noise levels taken at the nearest noise sensitive locations. Instead predicted levels are given.

The predicted noise level at the boundaries of the adjoining properties NSL 1 & 2 are extremely quiet – less than 35dB(A). The predicted Noise level at NSL 3 is exceptionally low at below 30dB(A). This is despite its close proximity to the R571 a main west cork coastal tourist route. We suggest that as per EC Directive (2002/49/EC) Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise this exceptionally quiet area is mapped and offered adequate protection from noise pollution.

The EMS states that: ‘Traffic from quarries, pits and ready-mix plants is also a source of noise which often has to be considered and may involve specific remedies.’

But no assessment is given and no remedy offered.

How exactly were the noise levels derived including the predicted noise levels at the nearest sensitive locations and what allowance was made for impact noises?

Screening. The proposed screening is through the construction of a burm comprising a mound of overburden 4 m wide by 2 m high with 1.5 m high holly, alder or hazel on top. Although this may screen the quarry to some extent from scenic route S115 (R571) it will not screen the quarry which is particularly visible from scenic route S116. In addition it is not representative of traditional field/roadside boundaries found in this landscape. At present quarried stone is piled adjacent so close to the to the R571, that stone spills through the boundary fence onto the public road. The stone heaps have destroyed a

11 significant section of the native hedgerow species. NRGE refer to these heaps as screening. These are ineffective screens as they are not permanent and machinery can be clearly seen, and heard. (Figure 7)

Figure 7 View from the R571of stone piles and machinery.

Landscape Impact Assessment A landscape proposal was prepared in order to fulfil Condition 4 of the Quarry Registration conditions. However the landscape proposal appears to be for a different site. On page 9 (page 2 typed) of the landscape report it gives a list of species for the un-stripped deposit and the roadside burm. The list is almost entirely incorrect. Of significant concern is that the list does not mention the presence of orchids which are present in the small un-stripped area on the far side of the stream along the northern boundary, nor in the roadside burm. On the hillside to the east of the site (eastern boundary) orchids are widespread. It is likely that they were present throughout the site.

In addition numerous common and easily identified species have been omitted and species are listed that are not normally present in this habitat type. The un-stripped deposit is dominated by Molinia caerulea and Pteridium aquilinum, interspersed with

12 species such as Erica tetralix, Dactylorhiza maculata, Potentilla erecta, Gallium palustre agg. . None of the species listed, other than Calluna vulgaris, were, or are likely to be present in any ‘abundance’ on this habitat type.

The roadside burm is vegetated with Quercus petraea, Corylus avellana, Betula pubescans, Sorbus aucuparia, and Ilex aquifolium . There are none of the non native species listed. Eg Fagus sylvatica, Acer psuedoplatanus. The undergrowth species list is also inaccurate and neglects to mention even common species such as Pteridium aquilinum, Asplenium scolopendrium, Digitalis purpurea, Sedum anglicum, Vaccinium myrtillus, Calluna vulgaris etc.

The Government publication Quarries and Ancillary Activities Guidelines for Planning Authorities (April 2004) (page 8) states that:

Mandatory objectives (section 10) [of Development plans] of most relevance to quarries include:

• The conservation and protection of the environment including, in particular, the archaeological and natural heritage and the conservation and protection of European sites and any other sites (such as Natural Heritage Areas - NHAs) which may be prescribed; • The preservation of the character of the landscape where and to the extent that, in the opinion of the planning authority, the proper planning and sustainable development of the area requires it, including the preservation of views and prospects and the amenities of places and features of natural beauty or interest.

The quarry is located in a highly scenic and sensitive landscape. Yet the landscape section report gives no reference to the landscapes sensitivity as referred to in the Bantry Local Area Plan (LAP) This Plan indicates areas of high landscape quality, together with proposed geological Natural Heritage Areas, where quarrying will not normally be permitted. (Page 24 LAP).

The LAP also states clearly in section 4.1.9 that:

13 The area’s landscape and scenery is a key economic asset, not just for the tourist industry, but also in attracting footloose businesses. The importance of this can be highlighted by considering how many tourists or incoming investors the area would have in the absence of this asset. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some people view the location and design of much recent development as degrading the scenic quality of rural Ireland. If such a view of the Bantry area becomes widespread it could have severe impact on the local economy. At present the general view seems to be that West Cork is not yet so badly affected as some other tourist areas in the West of Ireland. This means that there is the opportunity to gain a competitive advantage for the area by protecting and promoting this environment.

The quarry also has a significant negative impact on two scenic routes listed the Cork County Development Plan (See Map 4), these being the:

• S115 (previously the A133) R571 Regional Road between Castletownbere, Eyeries & Ardgroom to County Bounds Views of Slieve Miskish, Maulin & Tooreennamna Mountains, Coulagh Bay, Kenmare River & Ardgroom Harbour. Type 4 • S116 (previously the A132) Local Road between Eyeries, Kilcatherine & Ardgroom Views of Coulagh Bay & Islands, Derryvegal Lough, Kenmare River, Cleanderry & Ardgroom Harbour & surrounding hills Type 4

Page 137 of the current County Development Plan states these scenic routes run through a landscape with very high sensitivity, through a rugged mountainous landscape with a feeling of remoteness.

Page 29 of the Cork County Landscape Strategy gives this area the following classifications: • Landscape Value: Very High • Landscape Sensitivity: Very High • Landscape Importance: National [Source: http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/739813513.pdf accessed 14 June 2009]

14 The quarry has a very negative and highly visible impact on the landscape (photos) and upon the R571 a very popular scenic tourist route.

In the Bantry Local Area Plan in section 4.7.4. ‘...indicates areas of high landscape quality...where quarrying will not normally be permitted’. [Source Bantry Local Area Plan http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/359155507.pdf accessed 14 June 2009]

Therefore it appears that it is contrary both to Section 10 of the Planning Acts 2001 and to the Cork County Development Plan to allow such activities in this area.

Size Before this quarrying activity commenced there was a very small area that had been excavated/cleared (Map 2). According to locals there were two attempts to straighten out a particularly bad bend in the road. However local legend tells us that the ‘fairies kept putting the rocks back’ and attempts were ended. Locals state that no quarrying as such has taken place on this land.

From discussions with local people FIE suggest that quarrying began on this site in approximately 2004. There is now (2009) a significant extraction area some 100m by 500m (estimated from the site plan) across a rocky hillside in an otherwise unspoiled and scenic landscape. Basic mathematics tells us that 100m by 500m = 50 000m2 which is equivalent to 5 ha, the limit under law requiring a full environmental impact assessment and completion of the development consent process.

Yet this quarry was not required to obtain proper planning permission or undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Buffer Zone Condition 2 clearly defines a buffer zone around the perimeter of the quarry:

‘Rock extraction and stripping of topsoil will be confined to the current area and future areas of extraction as shown on the site plan attached. No extraction will

15 take place within 20m of the adjoining road, within 50m of the south-western boundary of within 10m of any other site boundary.’

Figure 8 Extraction is so close to the boundary fence the posts are coming out of the ground.

Figure 9 Length of stock proof fence within 1 meter of the extraction area with a dead goat hanging from it.

During the site visit it was clearly evident that these restrictions are being blatantly disregarded

Road infrastructure: This R571 is a narrow winding mountain and coast road very popular with tourists and listed as part of the ‘Ring of Beara’. This road is totally unsuitable for the level and type of traffic generated by this quarry. This type of traffic results in damage to traditional road boundaries and subsidence. No impact assessment has been made either for road infrastructure suitability nor nuisance caused by the significant number of heavy lorries. Tourists in particular are put off visiting the area by this type and volume of traffic.

The Quarries and Ancillary Activities Guidelines for Planning Authorities (April 2004) state:

• The planning authority may, as a matter of policy, attach planning conditions requiring the developer to lodge a financial bond to ensure satisfactory reinstatement of the site following the completion of extraction, or to pay a contribution towards the cost of upgrading or repairing the local road network; • Heavy traffic should not be permitted on unsuitable roads and/or other specified roads, unless suitable upgrading or other improvements agreed with the planning authority are carried out.

It is likely that the estimated cost for road maintenance and improvements caused by this quarry will be significant as is already evident. However the quarry owner has not paid his contribution to the County Council for road maintenance and improvement, nor the bond to ensure proper site restoration. . This is in non-compliance with an operating conditions imposed by the county council as per the Government guidelines.

17 in 1991, and produces quartzitic sandstone used principally in construction of road surfaces. It has a quarry licence. In 2002 production was approx. 600,000 tonnes. This quarry is close to the upgraded R572, a road more suited to heavy quarry traffic.

It is difficult to see what need there was for an additional quarry in this remote and rural location, particularly when due consideration is given to landscape, environmental and infrastructure issues.

Road infrastructure: This R571 is a narrow winding mountain and coast road very popular with tourists and listed as part of the ‘Ring of Beara’. This road is totally unsuitable for the level and type of traffic generated by this quarry. The road is too narrow and winding and is of insufficient quality for such large lorries. This type of traffic results in damage to traditional road boundaries and subsidence. No impact assessment has been made either for road infrastructure suitability nor nuisance caused by the significant number of heavy lorries. Tourists in particular are put off visiting the area by this type and volume of traffic.

The Quarries and Ancillary Activities Guidelines for Planning Authorities (April 2004) state: • The planning authority may, as a matter of policy, attach planning conditions requiring the developer to lodge a financial bond to ensure satisfactory reinstatement of the site following the completion of extraction, or to pay a contribution towards the cost of upgrading or repairing the local road network;

• Heavy traffic should not be permitted on unsuitable roads and/or other specified roads, unless suitable upgrading or other improvements agreed with the planning authority are carried out.

18 bond to ensure proper site restoration. . This is in non-compliance with an operating conditions imposed by the county council as per the Government guidelines.

Need for development One of the largest quarries in Ireland is located on the north side of Bantry Bay at Leahill, close to Adrigole,. This coastal quarry, which is now operated by Tarmac Fleming, has estimated mineral reserves of up to 120 million tonnes. It began operations in 1991, and produces quartzitic sandstone used principally in construction of road surfaces. It has a quarry licence. In 2002 production was approx. 600,000 tonnes. This quarry is close to the upgraded R572, a road more suited to heavy quarry traffic.

Conclusion. This case study clearly indicates that there are major flaws in the quarry registration process relating to the verification of information provided by the quarry operator/owner.

The significant and numerous inaccuracies in the information accepted by the County Council demonstrate that the information has not been adequately examined. It is remarkable that the Local Authority accept such inaccurate and misleading information for an industry that has such negative economic, environmental and social impacts.

Map 1: Quarry location and its proximity to the Beara Way a number of archaeological features and the coast.

Quarry location

Map 2: The extent of the cleared area pre-2001. It is hardly larger than the property site shown and there are no signs of ‘four decades of quarrying’

21 Area cleared pre 2001

This property puts the size of the cleared area in perspective

22 Map 3: The extent of the quarry in 2005. The quarry has spread out of all proportion to the initial cleared area where a small rock outcrop was removed and now is quarrying the hill face itself. This occurred over a period of four years belying the four decade claim.

23 Map 4: The impact of this now large quarry in an otherwise unspoilt landscape. The boundary line indicates that this quarry will continue to expand. It also gives an indication of how unsuitable the road is for quarry traffic.

S115

S 116 Quarry boundary

24 Map 5: Landscape Character Type Sensitivity Map

Quarry location