An Bord Pleanala Ref. PL02.224726
An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Development Erect a new 110kV single circuit overhead electricity line from the Arva 110kV substation at Pottle to Shankill 110kV substation at Shankill. The total line length is approx. 24 km. The line is 110kV single circuit consisting of five continuous wires supported on double wood pole structures whose poles are five metres apart and of average height of 21 metres. Angle structures will consist of lattice steel towers of average height of 20 metres and an average base area of six metres spread. The average distance between structures will be approximately 170 metres.
Address: The line is proposed over or in the vicinity of the townlands of Pottle (Ed Tullyhunco), Woteraghy, Carrickclevan, Drumury, Drumroosk, Corlismore, Drumbrade, Lackan Lower, Lackan Upper, Corduff (ED Ballintemple), Pottahee, Marahill, Garrymore, Drumlion, Cormeen, Urney, Shancor, Aghaconny, Kilmainham, Mullaghkeel, Ardloughter, Ardvarny, Cornamahan, Cornaseer, Acres, Knockakishta, Pollabane, Glencorran, Lisreagh, Crumlin, Gallon Glebe, Corrawellis, Crubany, Aghalackan, Gortnakillew, Lateever, Drumhillagh, Poles, Lismullig, Drumnanarragh, Broughderg, Pottle (Ed Clonervy), Shankill Upper, Clonervy, Drumryan and Shankill Lower
Planning Application Planning Authority: Cavan County Council
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 1 Planning Authority Register Reference: 06/6651 Applicant: ESB Type of Application: Permission Planning Authority Decision: Grant
Planning Appeal
Appellant(s): Tom and Majella Galligan Tommy Cahill & Kieran Cahill
Type of Appeal: Third Party
Date of Site Inspection: 22 nd February & 17th April, 2008
Inspector: Una Crosse
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 2 1 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed development extends across approximately 24 kilometres of County Cavan from the south west of the County close to Arva running in an east and north easterly direction towards Cavan Town. The area is rural in character in a gently undulating landscape with agriculture the predominant activity. There is a widely dispersed settlement pattern with a large number of one-off houses many forming ribbons of development adjacent to the public roads. The following is a brief description of the route corridor.
Arva to Drumbrade (AM1 to AM18) The line is proposed to commence at the existing Arva 110 kV station which also accommodates the existing Arva - Shankill 110 kV line in addition to the Arva – Gortawee, Arva Carrick-on-Shannon and Arva - Navan 110kV lines. The station at Arva is located between the 70 and 80 contour line between local undulations in the landscape. The line follows the existing Flagford-Louth 220 kV line up to angle mast 9 crossing two minor public roads and the River Erne. There is a dwelling permitted to the north of the line adjacent to and east of the public road and west of proposed poleset 6. From angle mast 9 the line then veers northeastwards of the existing line where the gradient of the land drops in the vicinity of poleset 11 and 12. There is a portal tomb north of the line between polesets 12 and 13. The line crosses a laneway which accesses the holding of Mr. and Mrs Galligan. The line continues along low lying ground crossing the River Erne in two locations on a meandering bend in the River north of which anglemast 18 facilitates a change in direction.
Drumbrade to Drumlion (AM18 – AM43) The line continues in a more southeasterly direction between two undulations rising slightly in gradient and continuing generally parallel with a laneway located to the north and towards and crossing a public road south of Scoil Mhuire in Lacken Upper The line continues at a low lying gradient across the N55 through a small area of forestry. From angle mast 29 located to the southeast of the N55 the line takes a northeasterly direction parallel to the N55 for a short distance and crossing a county road on what is low lying land from anglemast 31 up to angle mast 35. From this point the land rises gently to the south east and the line crosses two public roads between poleset 34 and 40 continuing in a northeasterly direction crossing regional road R154. There is a ringfort north of the proposed polesets 37 and 38. Crossing the R154 the line is proposed to continue in a northeasterly direction increasing in elevation towards anglemast 43 which is northeast of the R154.
Drumlion to Acres (AM43 – AM70).
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 3 The line continues in an easterly direction from anglemast 43 across the southern slope of an undulation broadly parallel to the county road to the south towards anglemast 50 where the line takes a more northeasterly direction. The land in this area is more elevated crossing a county road south of Kilmainham Bridge through Mr. Cahill’s landholding, and north of recently constructed dwellings, located at a slight fall in the gradient of the lands in the vicinity. The line continues towards anglemast 56 across a county road in the vicinity of Aghaconney Bridge and a cluster of buildings which include an old Mill. The land is more elevated between angle mast 50 and 56 with the line located on a similar gradient through this area. From angle mast 56 to 60 the line follows a more northerly direction crossing a laneway at two locations in an area predominately agricultural and more sparsely populated than the surrounding area to the southwest. From anglemast 60 the line travels due north through an area with little rural housing. This area to the east and west of the route creates a slight valley within which the route is proposed. Angle mast 70 is located to the south of and in close proximity to the existing Arva – Shankill 110 kV line.
Acres to Aghalacken (AM70 – AM96) From anglemast 70 the line changes direction traveling due east towards anglemast 81 across quite elevated terrain along the northern slope of an undulation crossing a county road and running north of an existing quarry. The land in the vicinity is predominately agricultural and is undulating in nature. Anglemast 81 is located between two county roads and on the northern slope of a relatively steep undulation. The line continues through lower lying agricultural land to the west of Slieve Glah, which dominates the local terrain, and to the west of a county road with a high density of one-off housing. The line changes direction slightly at anglemast 90 aligning more closely with a 38 kV line running in a northerly direction. The line crosses two county roads close to where they meet and traverses the 38kV line adjacent to anglemast 96 which is located north of the junction. The area in the vicinity is characterized by a large amount of ribbon development.
Aghalacken to Shankill (AM96-AM140) From anglemast 96 the line takes a northwesterly direction through quite elevated terrain in agricultural use towards anglemast 101 where the direction becomes more northerly and the line is located within a valley between higher ground to the east and west towards anglemast 107. From here the line travels east increasing in elevation and crossing a county road to the east of which anglemast 112 changes the direction of the line to the north east. The gradient at which the line is located falls as it travels towards anglemast 117 with the line also crossing the existing 38kV
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 4 line. The line takes a northerly direction from here with the land falling in elevation to the north. The line crosses the N3 at poleset 124 which is located between two undulations to the north and south. The line continues north and the elevation of the land rises to the north up to the proposed location of anglemast 131 where the line changes direction to travel due west on land which rises to the west up to poleset 137 from where the land falls slightly in elevation towards the Shankill 110kV station. There is substantial ribbon development on the county road south of the proposed route at Pottle.
2 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The proposal provides for the erection of 24 kilometres of 110kV electricity transmission line from the Arva 110kV substation to the 110kV substation at Shankill. The line itself comprises three conductors including one circuit supported by the channel and two earthwires supported at the top of the poles. The polesets comprise two wooden poles which are approximately 5 metres apart from eachother and which range in height from 14 to 21 metres. There are 118 sets of wooden polesets on the route. In addition to the wooden polesets, 22 no. anglemasts are proposed along the route. The anglemast comprises a dull grey galvanized lattice steel structure with an average height of 19 metres with a footprint at ground level of 6 sq.m. In response to further information, a section of the line was realigned to the south from a location at poleset 31 to anglemast 43. This involved the replacement of an anglemast with a poleset and the relocation to the south of the anglemast previously numbered 35 and now 34. It is the proposal as revised in the further information response which I propose to assess.
The Planning Application was accompanied by a document entitled, ‘Cultural Heritage, Ecology and Landscape Reports’ prepared by Environmental Impact Services Limited. This document notes the following: Cultural Heritage: Poleset 38 is within c.50 metres of a rath/ringfort (CV031- 039) and the proximity should be considered when finalizing the route. Monitoring of ground disturbance by a qualified archaeologist is recommended and machinery associated with construction should avoid all known recorded monuments. Flora and Fauna: The line has been routed to avoid areas of conservation interest. Construction in the vicinity of riparian habitats along the river banks should be carried out to minimize impacts on the riparian zone. Minimum tree felling is recommended in order to protect bat movement paths.
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 5 Landscape: The route selection has minimised adverse visual impacts by avoiding sensitive landscapes and use of wood pole sets reduces visual impact considerably. ESB Policy Statement : It is projected that the electric magnetic field strength from the proposed line would not exceed 1.729kV/m at a distance of 0-5 metres from the centre of the line and below the levels recommended by ICNIRP. The minimum conductor design height above ground for 110kV lines is 7 metres. Justification Statement : With recent high levels of growth and projected increase in demand network inadequate at peak summer loading to cater for maintenance outage of one of existing lines feeding into the area and the simultaneous loss of a second line with an unacceptable overload on the remaining line. This leads to a problem of a seriously decreased standard of supply to the Cavan/Monaghan area. The alternative transmission and generation options considered are set out. Code of Practice: This sets out ESB policy towards Landowners for overhead lines.
3 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Cavan County Development Plan 2003 Notes that the population of the County increased by 6.6% from 1996 – 2002 with the plan predicting a stabilization of the County’s population to 60,000 – 65,000 and in the long term to anticipate modest but sustained growth. Page 47 includes polices in relation to masts and antennae. Figure 7 sets out special heritage areas which include Bruise Hill (No. 17) which is located to the north west of the site. This is also a natural heritage area (NH3) as outline in Figure 1. Scenic View 6 (SV6) as outlined on Figure 5 is at Ballinagh to the north of the site and relates to Belville Tower at Flemings Folly where there is a 360 degree panoramic view.
3.2 National Development Plan 2007-2013 An investment of €7 billion is proposed in the electricity and gas networks. Analysis is noted to be underway to assess the potential for various forms of distributed electricity generation and the implications for the electricity transmission and distribution networks.
3.3 National Spatial Strategy Cavan is a designated hub supporting the gateway of Dundalk located in the central/eastern part of the Border Region occupying a strategic location on the N3 leading onto Enniskillen with the town itself supporting an extensive hinterland. The 2020 target population for Cavan town and environs is 16,000.
3.4 Regional Planning Guidelines
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 6 One of the regionally significant issues for the area is the physical infrastructure required to underpin economic development including requirements in relation to further expansion and re-structuring of the regional economy. Chapter 6 deals with energy and refers to the NSS’s identification of a reliable and effective energy system to power industry and services as key pre-requisites for effective regional development. The priorities are the improvement in reliability of supply to the north-west border and north east part of the country and strategic strengthening of the electricity grid serving particular clusters of employment related demand in peripheral areas. An objective is to highlight energy deficits within the Region.
4 PLANNING HISTORY Related to Application Site Ref. 04/1814 – Permission granted for alterations to existing 110kV line bay, comprising of cable sealing end, line earth disconnect, current transformers, voltage transformers, circuit breaker and busbar disconnect, busbar extension and associated steel supports, site development works including foundations at Shankill Upper. Ref. 06/1581 - Permission granted to alter existing 110kV electrical transformer station to include the addition of a new 100kV line bay comprising cable sealing ends, line/earth disconnect, instrument transformers, circuit breaker, busbar disconnect and associated steel supports, site development works consisting of foundations at Pottle, Arva. Ref. 06/1582 - Permission granted to alter existing 110kV electrical transformer station to include the addition of a new 100kV line bay comprising cable sealing ends, line/earth disconnect, instrument transformers, circuit breaker, busbar disconnect and associated steel supports, site development works consisting of foundations and palisade fencing at Shankill Upper. Adjoining/Proximate to Original and Realigned Application Site Wayleave No. 6 Ref. 04/2587 – Permission granted for a dormer house for Peter McDonald Ref. 08/122 – Permission granted for change of house type granted under Ref. 04/2587 for Sean Shanaghy Wayleave No. 15 Ref. 04/1815 – Permission granted for a 2-storey house for Tom & Majella Galligan Ref. 06/310 – Permission granted for a dormer dwelling for Brian Galligan Ref. 07/242 – Permission granted for a dormer dwelling for Rachael Galligan Wayleave No. 26 Ref. 06/695 – Permission granted for a dormer dwelling for Sean Finnegan Wayleave No. 41
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 7 Ref. 06/264 – Permission granted for a dormer dwelling for Padraig Keogh Wayleave No. 42 Ref. 02/1518 – Permission granted for 3 two-storey houses for Charlie Donohue Wayleave No. 67 Ref. 06/279 – Permission granted for a two-storey house for Kieran Cahill.
5 PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION Cavan County Council decided to grant permission subject to 8 conditions which include the following: • Security bond of €100,000; • Developer responsible for maintaining the public road system; • Evidence of consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service regarding requirements to mitigate bird collision; • No cresoted polsets to be located where risk of skin contact; • Ground disturbance to be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; • Machinery to avoid all known recorded archeological monuments; • Construction practice to adhere to Code of Practice in relation to archeological heritage; Technical Reports The Planner’s Report notes that at a preplanning meeting it was stated that an EIS was not required. The justification statement sets out the alternatives considered. Policy statement on EMF and environmental reports noted. Requirements of Department relating to movement of poles to avoid a recorded monument can be requested at further information. The further information request detailed adherence to guidelines for limits to exposure to EMF; plans showing location of all residences within 50 metres of the proposed powerline; ecological impact in reference to bird collision; sections of the line where it crosses the public roads; construction and haulage details; polesets 37 & 38 to be moved to a minimum of 100 metres from recorded monument CV031-039. Applicant was advised to ascertain from the road design section if the route was affected by roads proposals. In response to the receipt of the further information response the planner refers to the Senior Executive Chemist’s report and to the need to concerns still outstanding from Roads in relation to affect on the public road network and considers that the chosen routes can be agreed with the Area Roads Office. It notes that the proposal is a major infrastructural development to facilitate the Cavan/Monaghan area to be carried out buy a statutory organisation and any outstanding third party issues could be resolved between the landowner and the applicant. The report concluded that having regard to the regional infrastructural importance of the proposal that permission should be granted.
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 8 An Engineers report dated 5/12/07 recommends that the proposal is referred to Road Design for comment in relation to road proposals and requests information on roads to be used in construction with concerns relating to impact on the public road network. The Cootehill Area Engineer noted that polesets 125-140 would not appear to impact on the roads and that the height is sufficient for road crossings. Two reports were received from the Senior Executive Chemist , one requesting further information as noted above and the second noting no objection on environmental grounds. The matter of bird collision was outlined in relation to the flight paths of migratory swans using surface water in the area. Conditions are outlined including request for evidence of consultation with the NPWS. A note to the planner outlines the location of a permission 23 metres from the line.
Statutory Bodies The following bodies made comments in relation to the proposal: Development Applications Unit, DOEHLG No objection on archaeological grounds subject to polesets and anglemasts avoiding recorded monuments and the relocation of polesets 37 & 38 a minimum of 100 metres from the centre of monument CV031- 039 and monitoring of all ground disturbance by an archaeologist. Northern Regional Fisheries Board Proposal located within the catchment of the River Erne where there is an ongoing problem of enrichment and eutrophication. Concerns that any development would adversely affect the River from surface waters from paved areas. Further report notes that a number of watercourses will be crossed with careful regard required to minimizing potential damage. Recommended that ‘Requirements for the protection of Fisheries Habitats during construction and development works at river sites’ is complied with. Streams are to be protected.
6 GROUNDS OF APPEAL The two third party grounds of appeal may be summarised as follows: • No relevant or comparable history but comparable development in other areas where an EIS was submitted; • Mandatory to submit EIS if application submitted under new Regulations; • Written consent of landowners would have been required under new Regulations; • Sufficient legal interest required by Regulations in place at time not demonstrated; • ESB/IFA Code of Practice out of date, obscure and inaccurate; • Wayleave is a right to maintain, an easement is required to erect a line;
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 9 • Less than 50% of landowners consented to entry to lands and survey; • Code of practice could not be followed and EIS could not be undertaken; • Reference in EIS not specific to lands; • ESB have repeated inadequacies in previous applications; • No assessment of electromagnetic fields; • Proposal would negatively affect landholding sterilizing large sections of lands; • Planning Act should make provision for compensation and is not compatible with European Convention on Human Rights; • Not appropriate that ESB act as judge and self regulate in compensation matters; • Appellants land cut in half sterilising it from further use or intended development; • Applicant does not own land and no consultation undertaken by ESB; • Visual impact through this scenic and unspoiled area breaking the skyline; • Undergrounding of lines not considered; • Diminution of land value; • Full EIS should be undertaken; • Evidence to suggest deleterious health effects on humans and animals; • Applicant to disclose research and expertise in this area especially exposure to EMF; • Independent expert opinion should be provided; • Map showing 100 metre buffer zone with no information provided and appellants lands sterilized by buffer and no evidence of adverse health effects within buffer; • Line would run within 50 metres of site of historical interest (Mill) and area to the south abundant with wildlife; • Affect on enjoyment of house granted under Ref. 06/279 and diminution of lands;
7 PLANNING AUTHORITY RESPONSE No further comment.
8 APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY APPEALS The first party's response to the submitted appeals may be summarised as follows: • Application must be determined in accordance with relevant legislation and no EIS required; • Applicants prepared environmental reports in accordance with good practice; • Demonstrated that with mitigation measures no significant impact;
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 10 • Grounds of appeal relating to 2006 Regulations not relevant; • Applicants statutory powers facilitate placing of lines and provides sufficient legal interest; • Statutory wayleave process served following planning permission which is necessary prior to entering lands; • Easement arises where line and a private development conflict; Easement compensates owner for loss of development and a 46 metre strip is sterilized; • Entitlement to arbitrator; Landowner retains ownership of the land; • References to flaws in Planning Act outside scope of this application; • Route selection ensures clearance of 50 metres to inhabited dwellings; • New lines routes as afar from dwellings as constraints allow; • Permission sought adjacent to proposed line may be allowed within 23 metres; • Buffer zone of 100 metres shows houses exceeded 50 metres of line; • Clause 7 of ESB policy towards landowners for overhead lines – loss of development land applies; • Visual impact considered in visual assessment at route selection and final selection; • Design ensures minimum number of anglemasts and polesets; • Route selection seeks to minimize number of road crossings; • Survey notice map informed landowners of route corridor with some landowners deciding not to engage in process; • Diversions considered and put in place where possible; • Mill site not designated or recorded; • ESB comply with legal requirements on EMF; research monitored and supported; • Independent authoritative review bodies show no effects shown on human health; • Values substantially below those recommended by ICNIRP; • Overhead system provides more secure and faster and easier to maintain; • Underground lines more vulnerable to outside construction activities; means of connecting overhead to underground visually intrusive; road closures required and road widening not possible; 4/5 times more expensive;
9 THIRD PARTY RESPONSE TO FIRST PARTY RESPONSE The first third party response to the first party response is summarised as follows: • If EIS not required why was one produced; EIS not adequate and not detailed; • Applicant confuses legal distinction between wayleave and easement;
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 11 • Wayleave requirement not sufficient to meet Frascati criteria; criteria in Boland case v An Bord Pleanala more important; • Flaw in 2000 Planning Act cited in Thomand Park case; • Without EIS application documentation not sufficient and if not sufficient EIS required; • Appeal grounds relating to submitted EIS not contradicted; • Appeal hinges on sufficiency or otherwise of the EIS.
10 ASSESSMENT Following a review of the documentation on file, site visits and the conducting of an oral hearing I intend to assess the proposal having regard to the issues raised in the appeal and hearing under the following headings: • Principle of the Proposal • Need • Route selection and Clearances • EIS and Alternatives • Impact on the Use of Land • Impact on Health and Safety • Visual Impact • Consultation • Archaeology • Ecology
Note: I have used the Angle Mast and Poleset numbers as depicted on the Constraints and Final Route Map (Drawing PE687-D091-013-001-000) submitted at the Oral Hearing as identification markers for locations on the proposed route corridor – e.g. AM 70 refers to Angle Mast 70 which is located in the vicinity of Acres.
Principle of the Proposal While I acknowledge that there is no specific objective in the County Development Plan relating to the provision of electricity transmission lines in the County I would note that the Development Plan aims to facilitate the sustainable economic development of the county. In this regard I consider that where a Plan promotes sustainable economic development, the means by which such development can be achieved, is an inherent component of this objective. This would, in my opinion, include the provision and maintenance of a secure supply of electricity to the county to maintain existing and encourage future economic development.
Furthermore, other policy objectives of importance to the principle of the proposal are contained in the national spatial strategy and the regional
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 12 planning policy guidelines whereby the National Spatial Strategy has a 2020 target population for Cavan town and environs of 16,000 persons. Furthermore, the NSS identifies a reliable and effective energy system to power industry and services as a pre-requisite for effective regional development. In addition to this proposed growth I note that one of the regionally significant issues for the area, as set out in the RPG, is the physical infrastructure required to underpin economic development. Priorities include the improvement in reliability of supply to the area and strategic strengthening of the electricity grid. In this regard I is my opinion that national, regional and local planning policy would support the principle of the proposal to improve the electricity transmission network feeding the area.
Need One of the key considerations, in my opinion, is the actual need for a second Arva to Shankill 110 kV line given the existence of a line connecting the two stations at present. This was a central tenet in the questions sent to the applicant prior to the hearing and addressed at the hearing by Mr. Louis Fisher. The rationale for the proposal relates to the high growth in electricity demand in recent years and the inability of the existing network to support future demands thereby requiring reinforcement. I note from the submissions made at the hearing that the 2006 forecast growth of 4-4.5% in electricity demand has been projected downwards to 3% over the course of the application process. In addition 10MW of electricity demand has been transferred out of the area in question. Short term measures to deal with voltage problems have also been employed since the submission of the application in 2006. The 2008 review of the need for the proposal, having regard to the matters just outlined, provide that the network is just within standards and will remain within standards until 2013. Therefore, by 2014 the network would be outside standards without the proposed transmission line and the reinforcement required must be in place by 2013 at the latest. One of the critical considerations put forward by the applicant in terms of justifying the need for the proposal is the requirement for reinforcement in the event of a line tripping while one of the others is out for maintenance leaving just one line feeding the network in the area the power flowing through which would exceed the safe rating of the line. In addition, it was explained that the demand and the loading on the line would bring the voltage to a point of instability and collapse. Overloading also has the potential to sag the transmission line reducing safe clearance to the ground. While no evidence was provided to suggest the likelihood of two of the lines being simultaneously out of operation it is clear that the scenario could materialise and if it were to happen it would seriously decrease the standard of supply and undermine the availability of a
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 13 secure supply to the area. The three alternative reinforcement proposals considered originally were revisited and while uprating the existing 3 lines feeding the area would allow them to carry more power the matter of voltage stability issue would not be addressed.
In my opinion, the applicant is obliged to ensure the provision and maintenance of a safe, secure and reliable electricity transmission system. Deficiencies in the network have been identified and the extent of demand growth forecasted has been revisited over the course of the application period. Furthermore, a definitive ‘required by’ date has been provided within realistic forecast parameters within which the existing deficiencies with the network can be resolved. I consider that the justification provided for the proposal is reasonable and has been considered in terms of alternatives available.
Route Selection and Clearances One of the considerations in the assessment of the proposal is the location of the proposed line vis a vis the existing transmission line between Arva and Shankill and the reason for the divergence in route from Drumlion to Acres, where it comes close to the route of the existing line and again from Acres to Shankill where the line diverges substantially from the existing line. The critical considerations put forward in the selection of the route and most particularly the rationale for not aligning the proposed line to the existing line at key locations was provided at the oral hearing. The principle reasons relate to the avoidance of higher terrain, avoidance of housing and the availability of road crossing points. I have examined the route and consider that the reasons provided for the route corridor proposed are reasonable. I would particularly have regard to the high density of one-off houses located on the public roads along the route of the line which, given there sporadic settlement pattern, make the achievement of clearances challenging.
The matter of clearance between the proposed line and existing and permitted dwellings is one which was considered at some length at the hearing. The matter of future development plans which landowners may have and potential impact on same, is considered below. In terms of the distance of the line from existing dwellings, the applicant stated in written submissions and at the hearing that a 50 metre clearance from dwellings is the target employed but that clearance of less may be acceptable in most rural areas provided that any structure does not come within 50 metres of a dwelling. The applicant submitted a map in response to further information identifying the dwellings and permissions within 100 metres of the centre of the line which notes that all existing dwellings exceed the 50 metre target. I note from the submission at the hearing that
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 14 two existing dwellings located in Mullaghkeel were not included on this map and the appellant’s adviser has provided a map showing the nearest house to the line to be 45.5 metres. While I acknowledge that it does not exceed the 50 metre target I consider it is sufficient given the ability to have less than 50 metre clearances in rural areas. I would also note that the dwelling is more than 50 metres from poleset 54 which would accord with the stated company requirement of 50 metres between dwellings and structures.
In terms of distance between the proposed line and extant permissions for dwelling houses, it has been stated by the applicant that a house may proceed within 23 metres of a transmission line subject to notification on construction. From the information provided the dwellings permitted in the vicinity of the line since early 2006 meet or exceed the 23 metre requirement. I consider that this is adequate. I would note from my site visits that a dwelling permitted at Woteraghy and for which permission was granted (Ref. 04/2587) to amend the permitted plans (Ref. 08/122) is located in close proximity to the route of the line as it crosses the public road in the vicinity of poleset 6. I would consider that the exact location of this permitted site and its distance from the proposed line should be submitted to the planning authority for clarity. This can be addressed satisfactorily by condition.
EIS and Alternatives The basis of the argument relating to the need for an EIS relates principally to the timing of the application and its lodgement prior to the coming into force of the requirements brought about by the 2006 Planning Act and Planning Regulations. The new requirements provide under Section 182A(1) that applications for the purposes of electricity transmission, where the voltage is 110kilovolts or more (Section 182A(9)(a)), shall be made under Section 182B to the Board. Section 182A(2) states that where such a proposal belongs to a class of development identified for the purposes of section 176 (Prescribed classes of development requiring assessment) that an EIS shall be prepared. Article 93 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended, state that the prescribed classes of development requiring assessment are set out in Schedule 5 of the Regulations where in Part 1 (20) that an EIS is required for the construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kilovolts or more and a length of more than 15 kilometers. I would note in this regard that the proposal would not comprise development to which Part 1(20) of Schedule 5 applies either prior to or following the coming into force of the 2006 Regulations. In this regard the grounds relating to the requirement for an EIS are not considered relevant.
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 15 In relation to the Cultural Heritage, Ecology and Landscape Reports submitted with the application, I would note that this document is not purported to comprise an Environmental Impact Statement. The format of the report and its presentation is the same, however, as would be presented in an EIS document. This is, in my opinion, acceptable as it provides a clear and concise means of considering likely impacts and mitigation measures proposed. I do not consider that the preparation of a number of reports in an EIS format would, for this reason, require that they are considered under Schedule 6 of the Regulations (Information to be contained in an EIS). In this regard, the applicant is not and was not obliged for the purposes of the application to prepare and EIS to be considered as part of an environmental impact assessment process. Neither were they required to consider alternatives as set out in 1(d) of Schedule 6. Furthermore, there is not a requirement, in my opinion, to follow without divergence guidelines intended to facilitate the preparation of an EIS. In terms of under grounding as an alternative to overhead transmission lines, evidence was presented by the applicant in relation to a comparative analysis of under grounding and overground transmission. I do not consider that the evidence presented was proposing undergrounding as an alternative in this specific instance but was rather providing a means of comparing the issues arising in both means of transmission.
Impact on Use of Land One of the grounds of appeal put forward by the third parties is the impact the proposal would have on the use of the landholdings principally for further housing development. A map submitted to the hearing on behalf of Mr. Cahill denotes 5 possible future development sites all of which are within 100 metres of the line. It is also stated by Mr. Brendan McGovern who prepared the map that it is his opinion that no planning for residential, commercial or agricultural development would be granted within this area. I do not wish to consider the merits of possible future applications on this or the other appellant’s holdings but I would note in relation to the impact of the proposal that neither holdings are zoned for development nor is either holding serviced.
The development plan refers in its policy statement, at page 21, to the matter of development in the countryside by stating that “ While the planning authority will always consider housing in the countryside for local needs, it is not considered sustainable to allow for schemes of houses which in terms of numbers, layout and design are essentially urban housing estates or are typically a ‘street’ of ribbon development along an undeveloped roadside frontage or represent a serious extension of established roadside housing of a ribbon development type”. In this
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 16 regard it is my opinion that the Development Plan would not support the principle that the holdings comprise development land for speculative housing or other development in this regard. Therefore, I do not consider that the potential impact on future residential or commercial development on land in the rural countryside, which is intended by the landowner, and which may or may not be permitted, is a relevant consideration. The relevant consideration is the likely effect of the proposal on existing and permitted development within the vicinity of the subject site. Furthermore, the basis of the argument in relation to the 100 metre buffer within which no permission would be granted was not substantiated with any planning related basis and it is my opinion that should permission be sought for development within either of the appellants holdings that it would be considered on its merits.
Impact on Health and Safety The International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are the World Health Organisation (WHO) advisors on non-ionising radiation matters and issued guidelines for exposure limits from 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields in 1998. These guidelines provide a recommended electric field strength limit of 10 kV/m for occupational exposure over a whole working date and a magnetic flux limit of 0.5 millitesla (mT). The predicated strength of the electric field of the proposed line at a distance of 0 – 5 metres from the centre of the line is 1.729 kV/M and a magnetic flux of 0.00579 mT. The predicated strength and flux falls considerably with distance from the centre of the line. In respect of the adequacy of the information presented to the Planning Authority, Mr. William Bailey, expert witness for the applicant, stated that the information presented was sufficient to identify EMF as an issue and that any exposure to nearby landowners or animals would not be significant. Furthermore, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) published a report in March 2007 entitled Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields which was compiled by an international expert group. The report states that the ICNIRP guidelines provide adequate protection for the public from any EMF sources. The report also recommends a more proactive role in providing health advice in relation to EMF and the management of the issue and that a single agency should be established.
It is clear that the applicant cannot nor should not establish its own guidelines in respect of exposure limits and in this regard the requirement is to comply with the International guidelines recommended by ICNIRP. The applicant provided the predicated strength from the proposed line at distances from the centre of the line all of which are below the limits included in the ICNIRP guidelines. In this regard I am satisfied that the
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 17 proposal would not adversely affect the public health and safety of those proximate to the line.
Visual Impact The matter of visual impact is one which is, in my opinion, more prevalent in a number of specific locations rather than being an issue which affects the entire route. The landscape in the area is characterised by undulating terrain with drumlin mounds of varying elevation but with few features of definitive prominence. In relation to the visual impact of the proposal as a whole, I would note that the area in the vicinity of the proposed corridor for almost its entire length accommodates a high number of one-off detached dwellings located principally in a ribbon format adjoining public roads. This settlement pattern has created a landscape which is arguably less sensitive and more robust to the accommodation of infrastructure and to the addition of similar structures. The visual impact likely to arise is stated by the appellant as being limited and localised with intermittent visibility against the skyline from short lengths of the public road such as at AM 43. This particular structure would be visible from the public road approaching Bellanagh along the R154. I would note that the existing Arva to Shankill line is located further north and in my opinion the landscape at this location is sufficiently robust to absorb the additional line and structures. In terms of the cumulative impact of the proposed line and existing lines proximate to the proposed route I would consider that the most relevant locations are in the vicinity of both 110kV stations, the area in the vicinity of Drumbrade and the crossing of the N55.
In relation to the areas in the vicinity of the 110kV stations, the Arva station is well sited from any ranging views and does not impact to any perceptible extent on the local landscape. The line follows the existing 220kV line for some distance across a gently undulation with little visual impact. AM9 is well screened from public roads both by its distance and also by the area of forestry to the south. The line and AM18 will be visible from the minor roads in the vicinity of Drumbrade looking north where the existing 220kV line is also visible. While there would be views of the existing and proposed lines the context is such that the views are not wide ranging and coupled with the existing transmission line and a high number of sporadically located dwellings the views and the visual amenity of the area would not, in my opinion, be seriously diminished. The N55 crossing is currently traversed by the existing 220kV line to the south of the location for the proposed crossing. While AM29 will be visible, the local landscape incorporates some existing forestry which assists in screening the overhead lines. While I acknowledge that there will be a degree of visual impact, in the context of the existing environment and the infrastructure it currently accommodates, I do not consider that the additional line proposed
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 18 herein would be such as would create a deleterious effect on the visual context of the area.
In my opinion, there are no other proposed road crossings where the line would have a detrimental visual impact including the crossing of the N3 which I consider would have a negligible effect on the landscape. The area in the vicinity of the Shankill station includes a myriad of transmission lines and a number of anglemasts and other associated structures. While there would be an additional impact on what is quite a cluttered landscape context given the extent of lines and structures, the landscape is robust in visual terms and the additional line and structures would not be detrimental visually. In terms of any impact on views from Bruse Hill, I would agree with the applicant that the general context of the landscape would not be significantly changed by the addition of the proposed line having regard to the existing transmission lines which traverse the landscape and also the high density of sporadic rural housing. In conclusion, I do not consider that the proposed line would affect any designated views or landscape features of importance.
Consultation One of the key arguments put forward by the second third party appellants was the absence of adequate consultation by the applicant prior to the lodgment of the planning application. This was refuted in the written submission and at the hearing with evidence provided of a meeting held with the second named appellant. Notwithstanding, I do not consider that the manner in which the consultation was conducted or the process of same is a relevant planning consideration in respect of the assessment of the proposal herein.
Archaeology In relation to archaeology I would note that the report submitted with the application recommended some alteration to the line in the vicinity of proposed poleset 38 which was originally proposed within c.50 metres of a rath/ringfort (CV031-039) and considered that the proximity should be considered when finalizing the route. The amendment to the route made at further information provided that the line was moved to provide a satisfactory clearance in excess of 100 metres between the monument and the proposed transmission line. In relation to the mill located on Mr. Cahill’s land, I am satisfied that the applicant’s desk study provides sufficient consideration of the importance of this structure. Furthermore, no evidence was provided by the appellant to refute the contention that this structure is not of any discernable archaeological importance. Further mitigation measures including archeological monitoring of ground
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 19 disturbance are proposed in the environmental report and should be conditioned.
Ecology The ecology report notes that the line has been routed to avoid areas of conservation interest and I note that the line is not proximate to any designated conservation areas. In relation to the crossing of rivers and the construction of polesets and anglemasts on river banks it is recommended by the report that such construction be carried out to minimize impacts on the riparian zone. I would also note that a report from the Northern Regional Fisheries Board notes that a number of watercourses will be crossed with careful regard required to minimise potential damage. The Fisheries Board the document entitled ‘Requirements for the protection of Fisheries Habitats during construction and development works at river sites’ is complied with and this can be conditioned. It is also recommended that minimum tree felling is recommended in order to protect bat movement paths. This is a reasonable request which can be conditioned.
11 CONCLUSION In my opinion the applicant has justified the need for the proposed new transmission line such that the security of supply to the area requires reinforcement the only reasonable means of which is the provision of the proposed transmission line. I consider that national, regional and local planning policy support the improvement of critical infrastructure and economic development thus requiring the nature of development proposed herein. The visual impact of the proposal is in my opinion of a slight to moderate impact but would not negate the provision of necessary infrastructure. I would note that the high density of one-off rural houses sporadically located in ribbons along public roads have assisted in creating a less sensitive and more robust landscape to absorb development of the type proposed.
12 RECOMMENDATION Having regard to the strategic importance of the proposed development in terms of providing improved power transmission in the Cavan and Monaghan areas and the route selection which has been based on criteria which have regard to designations and objectives in the county development plan I consider the proposed development to be reasonably justified. I recommend that the mitigation measures specified in the environmental report should be incorporated into the conditions of permission where practicable. I recommend permission be granted subject to conditions as outlined below.
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 20 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to the need to upgrade the electricity transmission infrastructure supplying the Cavan/Monaghan area and having regard to the provisions of national, regional and local planning policy, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity and would be acceptable in terms of visual amenity and heritage protection. The proposed development would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
CONDITIONS
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the application as amended by the further plans and particulars received by the planning authority on the 6th day of June, 2008, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions.
Reason: In the interest of clarity.
2. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit a map of the area of the site in the vicinity of poleset 6 showing the location of any permitted dwelling unit and its distance from the proposed transmission line.
Reason: In the interest of orderly development and clarity.
3. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for the proposed development for the written agreement of the Planning Authority which shall include details relating to the construction of the line across public roads.
Reason: In the interest of orderly development.
4. Any trees and hedges, the removal of which are necessitated by the proposed development, shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the planning authority within three months of the completion of the development.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 21 5. The recommendations contained in Section 4.7 and 5.7 of the Cultural Heritage, Ecology and Landscape/Visual Reports received by the planning authority on the 8th day of December, 2006 shall be implemented in full.
Reason: In the interest of natural heritage protection.
6. The developer shall facilitate the planning authority in preserving, recording or otherwise protecting archaeological materials or features that may exist within the site. In this regard, the developer shall -
(a) notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any site operation (including hydrological and geotechnical investigations) relating to the proposed development,
(b) employ a suitably-qualified archaeologist who shall monitor all site investigations and other excavation works, and
(c) provide satisfactory arrangements for the recording and removal of any archaeological material which may be considered appropriate to remove.
Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation of any remains which may exist within the site.
7. The applicant shall adhere to the “ Requirements for the Protection of Fisheries Habitats during construction and development works at river sites” during the construction of the proposed development.
Reason: In order to conserve the integrity of river banks.
______Una Crosse Date July 2008 Senior Planning Inspector
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 22
APPENDIX 1 - OUTLINE REPORT OF THE ORAL HEARING Appeal Ref.: PL 02.224726 Development Proposal: Venue: Cavan Crystal Hotel, Dublin Road, Cavan Dates: 29-30 April, 2008 In Attendance: FIRST PARTY Mel Christle, Senior Counsel Michael Conlon, Barrister Louise Cushin, Solicitor Eoin Langford, Eirgrid Legal Adviser Aidan Corcoran, Eirgrid Paul Crosbie, ESBI William Mongey, ESBI Louis Fisher, Eirgrid Brendan Allen, AOS Planning Miriam Carroll, Tober Archaeological Services Conor Skeehan, AOS Planning William Bailey, Exponent Claire Duffy, ESBI Mark Winfield, PB Power
PLANNING AUTHORITY Cavan County Council George V Maloney Paddy Connaughton Sinead Gibbs, Acting/Executive Planner Seamus McLoughlin
THIRD PARTIES First Third Party Appellant Liam Madden, Vitruveus Hibernicus Ltd. on behalf of Tom and Majella Galligan; Second Third Party Appellant Mairead Smith, Barrister on behalf of Tommy Cahill and Kieran Cahill; Andrew Freeman, Solicitor on behalf of Tommy Cahill and Kieran Cahill; Tommy Cahill, Second Third Party Appellant Brendan McGovern, Johnsbrook Surveys Limited
NOTE 1: All of the proceedings of the Oral Hearing are recorded and are on the discs attached to my report. What follows below is a brief outline of the proceedings and is not intended to be a written account of the entire
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 23 proceedings. The outline is proposed to function as an aid in following the recording. NOTE 2: The assessment in my main report makes reference to details submitted in evidence at the Oral Hearing. NOTE 3: For a list of prepared texts and other submissions given to the Inspector at the Hearing see the end of this appendix. These submissions have been numbered and references to same in the outline below directly relate. Where powerpoint presentations accompanied evidence they are attached to the relevant evidence. NOTE 4: The submission on behalf of Tommy Cahill and Kieran Cahill was submitted to the Board on 26 th April 2008 in advance of the hearing but was circulated by the appellant at the hearing.
ISSUES RAISED BY THE INSPECTOR PRIOR TO THE HEARING In the notice sent to parties informing of the arrangements for the hearing I requested that parties be informed of matters considered by the Inspector to be relevant to the consideration of the appeal which had not been raised in the third party appeals. The matters raised were as follows: 1. Consideration of the proposal in the context of any strategic transmission network plan for the area; 2. Details of the 110 kV line in regard to its function and operation: e.g. will the line function as part of a looped network or as an independent stand alone facility and what area(s) will it service? 3. Detailed rationale for the proposed route of the 110 kV line; in particular the developer has failed to clarify why it is not more closely aligned with the existing 110 kV route alignment between Kilmainham Bridge and Shankill, given that the line runs parallel with the existing 110 kV line and in close proximity to it at a number of locations. 4. Details of the life expectancy of the proposed development and why a 110 kV line and not a 220 kV line is considered necessary. 5. Cumulative visual impact within the land corridor bounded by Arva substation to the west and the R154 to the east and the visual impact likely to arise from the angle masts particularly adjacent to the N55 and R154;
OPENING OF THE HEARING At the outset of the hearing I set out the Order of Proceedings for the hearing.
THE PROCEEDINGS Applicant's Description of Proposal Mr. Chrystle on behalf of the applicant set out a brief description of the electricity transmission network, the proposed development and the need
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 24 for the proposal. He referred to the need for the proposal in terms of growth and the need for a safe, reliable and affordable power supply which adheres to International standards and guidelines. Amendments were made to the alignment at further information with a number of meetings held with the Planning Authority and a positive response from landowners.
SUBMISSIONS Third Party Submissions First Third Party Submission Mr. Liam Madden for the first third party stated that a judicial review may be sought that the Planning and Development Act 2000 was defective in respect of damages and that the Planning Authority decision was now void. Reference was made to the points raised by An Bord Pleanala in the letter notifying of hearing of which point 3 requiring a detailed rationale is very important and which has not been addressed. Mr. Madden referred to a loss in terms of development proposals but noted that it was not a matter for the hearing. Applicant’s reference to cost as a major concern is not a planning matter. Mr. Madden then referred to the difference between a wayleave and an easement and stated that the ESB do not have powers and that references in material provided is out of date. It was stated that the EIS was wholly inadequate with fields not inspected and absence of evidence. Mr. Madden then referred to a report referred to in a newspaper publication in relation to proposals in respect of pylons in Co. Meath.
Second Third Party Submission Ms. Mairead Smith on behalf of the second third party appellant summarized the written evidence submitted which refers to consideration of the proposal in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area most particularly in respect of the route selection, the failed justification for the lines, and the availability of alternatives, including a pre-existing line, which were considered loosely and which were not considered in terms of cost. The line comes within 20- 23 metres of appellants permission which breaches policy which requires 50 metres. Not appropriate for applicant to justify interference with development rights by reference to compensation. Merit of proposal considered under Section 34. Cavan County Development Plan does not refer to this means of transmission of electricity. No adequate consultation by applicant with appellant and lands not examined. There was insufficient notification of the application and route. There will be loss of amenity and depreciation in the value of the property. Proximity of the line to the Old Mill was outlined as was impact on the visual amenity and correlation with EPA guidelines. Applicant’s prepared reports in
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 25 accordance with guidelines and entitled to address compliance with guidelines. Outdated information provided on EMF which is a relevant consideration.
FIRST PARTY SUBMISSIONS Nine first party submissions were presented to the hearing. Parts of one submission were read in the absence of its author, Dr. Catherine Farrell, where the reader substantiated the evidence. They are summarized as follows: 1. Mr. Louis Fisher provided an assessment of the need for the proposal and a response to queries 1, 2 & 4 raised by the Inspector prior to the hearing. Details of the transmission planning and testing were outlined as was the existing transmission network which comprises three existing 110 kV lines feeding the combined electrical load of Lisdrum and Shankill 110kV stations. Mr. Fisher referred to downward changes in forecast growth and other measures undertaken since the submission of planning. A review of need for the proposal was undertaken in light of the changes showing that the network will remain within standards for a number of years but will be outside standards by 2014. Problems arise if any one of the three lines trip while another is out for maintenance. The remaining line would overload as power flowing to supply the demand would exceed the safe rating of the line also bringing the voltage to a point of instability and collapse. A margin of safety is required which would be encroached by 2014. Thermal overload would reduce the clearance of the line due to sagging becoming unsafe and voltage collapse would create a loss of supply with an impact on the reliability and quality of supply. The alternatives considered were as per the 2006 assessment. The generation option was noted as not being viable to meet the immediate needs. In response to the matters raised by the Inspector, Mr. Fisher responded as follows. Issue 1) – Different levels of problems in the network from local to wide- spread. The proposal would deal with a local problem in this area with other complementary network development is being progressed to deal with wide-spread problems in the north east such as the installation of reactive support devices and the construction of a 400kV circuit from Woodland to Kingscourt. The proposal is needed in addition to these and is an integral part of the transmission network. Issue 2) – Proposal is part of transmission network serving Lisdrum and Shankill 110kV stations. The network is meshed and proposal will serve as part of a more secure and reliable network. Issue 4) – Proposal will meet the long term demands of the local network until c. 2030 based on a forecast demand of 3% per annum. A 220kV line was not considered suitable because it is not needed for the foreseeable
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 26 future and would require more infrastructure, would be more costly and take a greater length of time to put in place than the preferred solution. 2. Mr. William Mongey provided an assessment of route selection issues and noted that employees responsible for route selection were no longer working with ESBI. A constraints map was produced and 3 route options were identified. A landscape architect, ecologist and archaeologist carried out assessments on the route options with concerns raised on options 1 & 2. Landscape concerns were raised on the initially preferred route (3). A combination of the preferred route 3 and route 1 west of Bellanagh was advised. Pre-planning consultations were held and the preferred route was selected incorporating consideration of the views of landowners. The route is substantially aligned with the existing Arva – Shankill 110kV approximately 40m at one point and furthest is 2.4km. For the first 7km the line within less than 1km of the existing line. Proximity at some points riles out for technical and environmental reasons. The route is closely aligned in parts to numerous 38kV lines in the area. In response to Issue 3) raised by the Inspector Mr. Mongey stated: Reasons relating to substantial number of houses prevent closer alignment to existing line. Proposed route follows lower lying terrain and while diverting from the existing 110kV line is aligned to other overhead lines of varying voltages. Impacts on landowners also considered. Route selected in accordance with approved ESBI procedures and international best practice. Proposed route is optimum from technical, environmental and planning perspectives. 3. Mr. William Bailey outlined the status of EMF research and policy which deals with the properties of EMF, typical EMF levels and sources and the calculated EMF levels associated with ESB transmission lines from distances between 0 & 99 metres. Research on EMF is outlined as well as the methods for health risk assessment. The submission also refers to reviews by national and International Scientific and Health Agencies including the report released by the Irish Government in March 2007. It is stated that the conclusions of the research has been consistent and does not indicate that EMF causes any adverse health effect. Further well designed research studies and monitoring is recommended. It is noted that the WHO recommends that the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines on exposure limits are adopted. 4. Ms. Claire Duffy of ESBI provided a written statement on EMF on behalf of EirGrid stating their commitment to the protection of the health, safety and welfare of its staff and the general public and to the design and operation of the transmission of the system in accordance with the most up-to-date recommendations and guidelines. The Irish network is in full compliance with the most up-to-date guidelines and
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 27 recommendations. A copy of the March 2007 report was attached as was the Summary and Recommendations for further study. 5. Ms. Miriam Carroll provided an assessment of relevant archaeological issues and noted that one previously unrecorded potential archaeological monument was detected c. 100 metres from the line with no likely impact. The location of the line within constraint zones of two recorded monuments was not considered to give rise to any direct visual or archaeological impacts due to the distance. Archaeological monitoring of ground disturbance with construction is recommended as is avoidance of all recorded monuments by polesets, pylons and machinery. CROSS QUESTIONING of Ms Carroll Ms. Carroll was questioned following her evidence and the following points were noted: Ms. Carroll stated she could not state for definite if the appellant’s lands were inspected. Ms. Carroll stated that lands were inspected where possible. While Mill House was not inspected it is not a recorded monument or a mill of note and not worthy of inspection. 6. Mr. Paul Crosbie of ESBI outlined the history of the pre-planning assessment on route options, consultation with landowners and constraints, some occurring during the process. Details submitted to the Planning Authority and An Bord Pleanala are also set out including details of the realignment to the route proposed in response to further information. 7. Mr. Brendan Allen provided an assessment of relevant environmental and planning issues outlining the methodology for the preparation of the environmental reports on the three routes and the conclusions arising in the reports after which a final report was prepared for the final route. The proposal, it is stated, complies with the National Development Plan 2007-2013; National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020; Regional Planning Guidelines for the Border Region; Cavan County Development Plan 2003-2009. 8. Mr. Mark Winfield provided a comparison of overhead and underground options noting that no site investigation on undergrounding has been carried out. Noted that trench digging across roads causes disruption. This included addressing system performance where it is stated that while the fault rate for overhead lines is greater that a 24km underground cabling would be out of service for on average 25 days per year with an equivalent 35 minutes for an overhead line offering greater security of supply. 9. Mr. Conor Skeehan referred to the preparation of the report on landscape and visual assessment and notes that the route does not pass through or near any designated landscape resources or amenities. Combination of glacial landforms and predominance of small fields and tall hedges means that the area has a high capacity to absorb
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 28 visual impacts. Visual impacts will be limited and localized with some parts intermittently visible against the skyline. Response to Issue 5) of the Inspectors queries – noted, in relation to cumulative impact, that most of the line is 1km from the existing line and visually isolated due to the intervening topography. Impact on views from Bruse Hill will not appear as a major change due to the existing power lines and substation in place. Localised visibility and prominence from the R154 looking northwards (Structure. 43) with crossing of the N55 (Structure. 29) taking place at a right angle and whilst visible a block of forestry will screen the structures. 10. Mr. Conor Skeehan on behalf of Dr. Catherine Farrell stated he was proficient to comment on elements of the report which concludes that based on field and desk studies it is predicted that the impact would be of minor or negligible ecological significance for reasons including the low ecological value of the dominant habitats along the site. CROSS QUESTIONING Third Party Questioning of First Party by both Third Parties Mr. Conor Skeehan The following matters were discussed: • Access to lands and survey of appellants lands; • Visual impact likely from undergrounding; • The draft reports prepared initially on the route options; • Compliance with the Regini Guidelines and the need for a full EIS; • Mitigation not considered necessary; • No additional visual impacts from proposal; • Elements of line visually prominent locally but visibility is short duration and limited extent; • Project description should be considered in terms of determining the assessment; The questioning by both appellants of the first party is summarized as follows: Mr. Mark Winfield • Was retained prior to the hearing and no consultation during application process; • Not aware if undergrounding was investigated, may be technically possible; no survey undertaken; • Retained to look at the comparison between under grounding and overhead; • Overhead has more significant visual impact but more secure supply than undergrounding which is generally more expensive by 3 to 5 times; Mr. Brendan Allen • Has worked with ESB on other proposals but not those specifically mentioned;
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 29 • Undergrounding was not considered as an alternative during preparation of reports; • Three alternatives presented and proposal a combination of each one; • Contents and structure of EIS Guidelines followed; Mr. Paul Crosbie • To run it along the 220kV line would not provide the required need; • Paralleling of existing lines not feasible due to constraints encountered; • Survey interview process including process of survey notice; questioning and delivery address was outlined in detail; • Map submitted to planning authority did not show existing houses within 100 metres of line adjacent to Mr. Cahill’s holding; • 50 metres is an aim but houses can be located within 23 metres of the line; Mr. Louis Fisher • It would be possible to up rate the line which would allow greater power • Second line required for voltage stability; • Projections for proposal are best estimates on latest forecasts, line needed by 2013; • Two aspects of reinforcement are thermal overloading and voltage supply; • Exact probability of 2 lines being out not available but very severe consequences; • Line needs to be brought into Shankill or Lisdrum; • Reactive support is a short term measure up to 2013 in light of demand reduction; Mr. William Bailey • Concur with the findings of reports submitted by appellant but no specifics provided; • Applicant had addressed the matter of EMF in their documentation; • Indication of need for further research; Mr. William Mongey • No one available that made decision on route selection; • Decision made by the company and processes followed; • Corridor not available to route new line adjacent to existing; • Under grounding not considered; • Lands not entered but viewed from the road; • Not involved in consultation process but landowners views on file; Ms Claire Duffy • Advice provided to staff and general public by various means including meetings; • Department’s March 2007 report requires compliance with guidelines which is considered sufficient;
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 30 • Eirgrid do not make up standards they follow independent guidelines; Second Third Party Questioning of Planning Authority Ms Smith asked if the provision of transmission lines was an objective set out in the County Development Plan to which the Planning Authority replied that it was not specifically mentioned. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE In the course of cross questioning the Second Third Party introduced 2 witnesses Mr. Tommy Cahill , the appellant and Mr. Brendan McGovern of Johnsbrook Surveys Limited. Ms. Smith questioned Mr. Cahill in respect of the consultation process with the ESB and particularly the circumstance relating to his receipt of a notice from the ESB at an address which is not his permanent home. Mr. McGovern provided a submission accompanied by a map of the second third party appellant’s lands with the proposed line imposed and noting that two existing houses were omitted from the applicants documentation submitted in response to the Planning Authority and showing the distance of the Mill from the overhead line. It was also suggested that permission would not be forthcoming for development sites outlined on the map which are located within 100 metres of the proposed overhead line. First Party Questioning of Second Third Party Mr. Chrystle’s questioning of Mr. Cahill related to the consultation procedure and to the timing and engagement of legal advisers. The matter of the address to which correspondence was sent was addressed where it was noted that the address is an address registered in the appellant’s name. Mr. Chrystle’s questioning of Mr. McGovern established he was a cartographer and concluded that Mr. McGovern based his opinion relating to development within 100 metres of the line on previous dealings with Duchas on buffer zones, the Mill it was noted, is not inhabited but could be restored and confirmed that the appellant understood the map he was provided with. Planning Authority of Second Third Party Planning authority required confirmation from appellant that the objection to the planning authority did not include any reference to consultation with applicant. Questions from Inspector • The second third party appellant did not seek archaeological advice on the Mill; • Lisdrum – Shankill 110kV line does not feed into the subject area. Reference to non-compliance with planning standards refers to the three lines feeding into the area to which the proposal relates; • Replacement of existing line with a higher voltage such a 220kV line is possible but for security a second line is required; New 220kV stations would be required;
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 31 • Construction period of approximately one year is estimated it could take longer depending on wayleave difficulties. • Line was realigned at further information to deal with ring fort and planning applications. SUMMATIONS First Third Party Mr. Madden made the following closing points: • Planning and Development Act 2000 is defective; • Undergrounding should have been considered; • EMF issues addressed by undergrounding; • Reports defective as undergrounding not considered as an option or alternative; • Other lines and alternatives available to the area; • Access to lands not included in any of the evidence therefore studies defective and incomplete. First Party Mr. Chrystle’s closing is summarized as follows: • Reference to Convention of Human Rights and Constitutionality of 2000 Act not relevant; • No basis for arguments on undergrounding alternative or consideration of EMF; • Review of projections commendable, based on best available information at time; • Proposal is the best available option given constraints; • Line is not within 20 metres of the appellants permission; • Proper planning and sustainable development of the area taken into account; • No evidence tendered to show that proposal will adversely affect the environment but proven that the proposal would not adversely effect the area; • Need for new line has been set out; • 23 metre buffer relates to building which have yet to be built; • Applicant has provided the hearing with all available planning, technical and environmental information; • No evidence of alternative routes being demonstrably better, without substantive evidence other alternatives cannot be properly considered; • Clear that there was consultation prior to the application notwithstanding outcome; • Notification was made and wayleave is a post-planning consideration; • None of the amenity areas mentioned are designated or protected; • EIS now accepted as not being required but all experts were made available; • Information provided to the Council sufficient to facilitate decision;
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 32 Second Third Party Ms. Smith’s closing is summarized as follows: • Up to applicant to call experts and justify the application; • Undergrounding not adequately considered and Board can have regard, under s.34, to Government reports; • Those responsible for route selection not now available; • Independent witnesses only brought on board retrospectively to justify the decision; • Justification for the line now weaker than when submitted originally; • Alternatives not really alternatives and not adequately addressed; • Environmental reports did not follow EPA guidelines as alternatives not considered; • No evidence of visit to appellant’s property; • Old Mill important to the applicant; • Archaeological finds could not be found on basis of field study; • March 2007 report most relevant and only given to An Bord Pleanala at the hearing; • No real evidence of consultation; • No objective in County Development Plan to cover the proposal; • Clearance from the line to the site is 52 metres but does not include outer extent of polesets but other existing houses not shown;
CLOSING OF THE HEARING I concluded the hearing by informing the parties that a report would be prepared and presented to the Board who would determine the appeal and that each party would be informed in writing of the decision by the Board.
SUBMISSIONS AT ORAL HEARING The following is a complete schedule of copies of prepared submissions to the Oral Hearing and other references given to the Inspector: Third Party Submissions 1. Submission on behalf of Tommy Cahill and Kieran Cahill prepared by Mairead Smith, B.L on behalf of Sean Costello and Company Solicitors; 2. Statement of Evidence of Brendan McGovern, Johnsbrook Surveys Limited including a map of the appellant’s lands at Mullaghkeel; Applicant's Submissions 1. Statement of Evidence of Louis Fisher (powerpoint included) 2. Statement of Evidence of William Mongey 3. Statement of Evidence of William Bailey 4. Statement of Evidence of Claire Duffy 5. Statement of Evidence of Miriam Carroll 6. Statement of Evidence of Brendan Allen 7. Statement of Evidence of Paul Crosbie
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 33 8. Statement of Evidence of Mark Winfield 9. Statement of Evidence of Conor Skehan 10. Statement of Evidence of Catherine Farrell – Not present. Additional Submissions from the First Party: A. One A3 and two A0 maps submitted with William Mongey statement of evidence; B. Disc with powerpoint presentation from Louis Fisher (printed copies attached); C. Disc with powerpoint presentation and maps from William Mongey (printed copies attached); D. Professional Profile of Mr. Willaim H. Bailey, Ph.D; E. Survey Notice presented to Mr Thomas Cahill by ESB; F. Correspondence between the ESB and Solicitor for Mr. Tommy Cahill; G. Report of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources on Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields; H. Summary of above mentioned report and recommendations for further study; I. Copies of Powerpoint presentation made by Mark Winfield; J. Copy of Submission/Objection made by Tommy Cahill and Kieran Cahill to Cavan County Council dated 18 January 2007.
Una Crosse Senior Planning Inspector 24 July, 2008.
An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL02.224726 34