An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Development: Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power plant at Tarbert Co. Kerry
Application under Section 37E Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended)
Local Authority : Kerry County Council
Applicant : Endesa Ireland Limited
Observers : Tarbert Development Association, Mr Thomas O’Donovan, Safety Before Shannon LNG, An Taisce
Inspector : Mairead Kenny
Dates of Site Inspections : 15 th and 16 th of February, 11 th, 12 th and 19 th April 2010
Oral Hearing Date : 20 th and 21 st April 2010
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 74 Contents
1. Introduction
2. Site Location and Description
3. Proposed Development - Overview - Alternatives - Process and Efficiency - Components - External Finishes - Aqueous Discharges - Reserve Fuel Storage - Access and Parking, Construction and Decommissioning
4. National Plans, Policies and Guidelines - National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 - National Development Plan 2007-2013 - Energy Policy Framework (Government White Paper) 2007-2020 - National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 - National Energy Efficiency Plan 2009-2020 - Generation Adequacy Report 2010-2016 - All Island Grid Study 2008 - Grid Development Strategy 2007 -2025 - Transmission Development Plan 2008-2012 - Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines - The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines - Landscape and Landscape Assessment Consultation Draft Guidelines - Appropriate Assessment Guidelines
5. Regional Plans and Guidelines - South West Regional Planning Guidelines 2004-2010 - Draft South West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 - Mid West Regional Planning Guidelines - Draft Mid West Regional Planning Guidelines - Draft River Basin Management Plan for SW RBD
6. Development Plan Provisions - Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015 - Limerick County Development Plan 2005 - Clare County Development Plan 2005 - West Clare LAP 2009-2015 - Tarbert Local Area Plan 2006-2012
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 74 7. Planning History
8. Kerry County Council Reports - County Manager’s Report - Record of County Council Meeting - Submission of Mott McDonald - Submission of Tarbert Development Association
9. Submissions from Prescribed Bodies to An Bord Pleanala - National Roads Authority - An Taisce - Tarbert Development Association - Department of Transport - Kerry County Council - Health and Safety Authority - Clare County Council - Irish Aviation Authority
10. Submissions to Applicant for EIS
11. Oral Hearing - Submissions on Behalf of Applicant - Submissions on behalf of Local Authority - Submissions by Prescribed Bodies - Submissions by Observers - Response to questions
12. Assessment - Principle of Development - Adequacy of EIS and Need for SEA - Appropriate Assessment - Other Procedural Issues - Ecology - Flooding - Safety - Emissions to Atmosphere - Soils and Geology - Surface Water - Roads and Traffic and Parking - Human Beings - Landscape and Visual Impact and Cultural Heritage - Financial Contributions - Other Issues
13. Recommendation
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 74 14. Appendices
- Photographs - Extracts from relevant plans and policy documents - Oral Hearing Proceedings - Submissions to Oral Hearing
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 74 INTRODUCTION
This is an application for a 450 MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Plant to be constructed at the site of the existing power plant at Tarbert Island in north Kerry. It is a direct application to An Bord Pleanala under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 as amended.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The facility will operate under an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Licence, and will constitute a lower tier site under the Major Accidents Regulations (Seveso II Directive of the European Union). The existing facility is currently subject to an IPPC licence.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site adjoins the southern banks of the Shannon in north county Kerry within a short distance of the Limerick county border. The site is under 2km north of the centre of the village of Tarbert. The estuary is of considerable amenity and landscape value and is also the location of a large number of major industrial facilities including the Moneypoint Power Plant approximately 3km to the north-west. At a site under 5 km to the west permission has been granted for Shannon LNG a major industrial facility at Ballylongford on the north Kerry coastline. At the time of inspection development of that facility or the associated roads improvements had not commenced.
The site comprises part of the existing Tarbert Power Plant which is positioned on Tarbert Island. The Shannon and associated bays and estuaries are European Sites. Notably the Shannon Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries Special Protection Areas (SPA) and the proposed Natural Heritage Area at Tarbert Bay are relevant conservation designations.
The triangular shaped island is connected at two locations by road / causeway to the mainland. The N67 provides the main access route from Tarbert village to the power plant and to the Tarbert to Killimer ferry terminal which is close to the entrance to the site. Within the applicant’s lands is a second road which connects the island to the mainland plot where a tank farm is located. The tank farm is currently leased to the National Oil Reserves Agency (NORA). The mainland tankfarm is elevated above the site of the proposed development.
There are two major road junctions in the centre of the village, at the west and east sides of the main street, Bridewell Street. About 2km south of the site the N67 Ferry Road forms a priority junction with the Bridewell Street close to the R551. At the eastern entry to the town the N69 Listowel Road forms another major junction with Bridewell Street. Parking in Tarbert is not regulated. There are two schools, on is to
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 74 the west of the junction of Bridewell Street and Ferry Road, the other is on Listowel Road.
The existing power plant site is of stated area of 42 hectares. The area subject of the current application is stated to be 10 hectares. At the power plant site the main features are the existing plant described as Station A and Station b, the reservoir, a tank farm of four tanks, a range of supporting infrastructure including a cooling water intake, a sewage treatment plant, workshop and administration buildings, a pumphouse and a jetty. There is a capped landfill to the east of the tanks. On the island also are two substations and there is an underground cable close to the site of the proposed power plant – this connects with the Moneypoint plant.
The site is widely visible from the coast notably along the N69 in county Limerick and from county Clare at Kilkerrin point and from the ferry. The site is regularly seen in context with the Moneypoint Generating Plant which is a larger structure and due to its continuous operation and associated plumes is a very dominant feature. The existing plant on site is a simple blue and white coloured structure with two tall concrete stacks. In the vicinity of the site some prominently positioned power lines are visible on the skyline in conjunction with the existing facility.
In the immediate vicinity of the existing power plant site are a small number of residential dwellinghouses and a public house. Tarbert House, a protected structure , is barely visible from the ferry road. Besborough House, a protected structure at Killimer is not visible from Kerry. The estuary road footpaths are a popular walking route and there is are also signposted route from the heritage centre in Tarbert village through the woodlands.
Photographs of the site and surrounding area which were taken by me at the time of my inspection are attached to the rear of this report.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Overview
Endesa is described as a leading utility company with substantial interests in Spain and Latin America and considerable experience in electricity generation and the gas market and demonstrated track record in terms of corporate social responsibility.
Endesa Ireland was established in January 2009 following its acquisition of four utility sites. Under the Asset Strategy Agreement requiring the ESB to sell sites, the existing power plant was sold. By condition of the sale of the site it was to be used for the purpose of energy generation. By letter from Eirgrid to the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) it was indicated that the re-development of the site subject to current capacity rights is desirable. The site is considered to be best suited to complementary generation for the predicted wind generation in the region.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 74
The proposal involves construction of a new Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) generating station in two phases. Phase 1 involves development of an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) plant and Phase 2 involves development of outstanding plant to complete the full CCGT plant. The OCGT will support predicted wind power generation and does not require network reinforcement. Completion of the CCGT development however is contingent upon reinforcement of the Transmission System in the south west and market conditions. Specifically this involves completion of the Tarbert to Moneypoint Submarine Cable by 2012 and the new Substation at Kilpaddoge by 2014. An application for Grid Connection for the first phase of the development has been made under Gate 3 Process. A separate application for Phase 2 will be submitted. The completed CCGT will be flexible and will also offer efficient generation during periods of calm weather and high demand. While it can operate as a mid merit or baseload plant it was emphasized at the hearing that the intended mode of operation is baseload.
Gas will be brought from the Bord Gais Network and although the gas line project is not part of the application the applicant company is stated to be required to provide financial support for the delivery of gas to the site. Equally the company has a right to be supplied with gas. The pipeline length about 22km.
The CCGT would be more flexible and efficient than the existing mid-merit generating facility. The latter is proposed to be demolished under a separate permission to be made to Kerry County Council within six months of completion of the CCGT plant. A ten year permission is sought.
Alternatives Considered
Section 2.5 of the EIS sets out a number of alternative technologies which were considered. A flexible thermal plant was determine to be the optimum choice in light of the Asset Strategy Agreement. The CCGT technology was determined to be the most efficient method of generating electricity from a primary fuel source and that they can be design in a multi-shaft arrangement with a suitable bypass stack to operate as a flexible mid-merit plant. Of the options for cooling direct wet cooling was favoured due to the availability of cooling water and degree of environmental control achievable.
OCGT was ruled out due to prohibitive generating costs. Conversion of existing units to operate on natural gas was not considered feasible and would not offer sufficient flexibility. Large scale Combined Heat and Power (CHP) was ruled out due to the lack of complementary industrial or district heating load in the vicinity.
Of alternative fuels considered natural gas was selected due to its negligible sulphur and particulate matter content and the significant reductions in Carbon Dioxide emissions.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 74 The Process and Efficiency
The two phase development comprises an interim operation of a gas fired OCGT plant of 305MW capacity as a peaking plant facility and, on completion, a natural gas multi-shaft arrangement CCGT of 450MW.
The 305MW OCGT comprises a gas turbine and electrical generator. The operation of a gas turbine alone is referred to as open or simple cycle mode. Overall cycle efficiency of 38% is achieved. The advantage of this process is that it can be started and run up to full load operation in a matter of minutes. Exhaust gases are discharged directly to the atmosphere by an exhaust stack. The OCGT will be constructed by the end of 2012 following which Units 1, 2 and 3 will be decommissioned. Unit 4 is to cease operation by 2015.
The completed CCGT extracts the heat from the hot exhaust gases which would otherwise be directed to the atmosphere. The hot exhaust gases are used to generate steam by passing the hot gases through a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG). The process reduces the exhaust gases temperature substantially and the gases are discharged to the atmosphere by an exhaust gas stack. Overall efficiency from the CCGT will be approximately 58%.
The two-phase approach requires a multi-shaft arrangement whereby the gas turbine and the steam turbine will each have their own dedicated generator.
Components of the Development
The main components of the plant are summarized below.
Above Ground Installation (AGI)
The AGI is the part of the plant where the gas network connects to the site and it will be retained in the ownership of Bord Gais and maintained by Gaslink. Gas will be supplied at 70 barg and depending on the turbine selected will be required in the range 35 to 50 barg.
Distillate Oil Storage
Reserve fuel oil must be maintained on site as discussed further below. The selected storage location is one of the existing tanks (no. 3) which will be refurbished.
Turbine Hall
This building houses the main plant including the gas turbine, steam turbine, condenser and auxiliary equipment. Its principal dimensions are 48m length, 62m width and 32.2m height. It is to be located to the west / north-west of the existing power plant buildings and broadly to the east of the tank farm and the capped landfill.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 74
Gas Turbine Generator
This includes a compressor section, a combustion chamber and a turbine section.
Bypass Stack
The 9m wide by 60m high bypass stack is that which connects to the OCGT phase. It will be constructed of painted carbon steel.
Main Exhaust Stack
This will measure 5.7m width and 65m in height and will be of painted carbon steel. Continuous local and remote monitoring of emissions will be achievable.
Dry Low NOx burners and NOx abatement
These will achieve efficient and stable combustion with minimal NOx production when firing on natural gas and will limit NOx emissions related to distillate oil firing.
Auxiliary Boiler
Depending on plant selection an auxiliary boiler may be required to provide heat during start up periods form cold conditions. If required it will be used only once or twice a month for a few hours. The stack will be about 30m high and the building would be 18m by 14m by 16m high.
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
This will use the heat content in the hot exhaust gases from the gas turbine to produce high pressure steam to the steam turbine. Cooler exhaust gases are expelled via the exhaust stack. Maximum mechanical energy recovery is extracted from the steam in the steam turbine. The dimensions of this structure are 43m length, 12.4m wide and 30 in height.
Steam Turbine Generator
The thermal energy of the steam generated by the HRSG will be converted to mechanical energy to drive a generator to produce electrical power. The low-pressure exhaust steam will flow to the sea water cooled condenser.
Water Treatment Plant
Potable water supply will be from the public supply to the existing on-site reservoir located to the south-east of the existing power plant. Water for use in the HRSG will need to be demineralised to achieve high purity – this will be achieved through filtration
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 74 and a resin based system in the water treatment plant. Feedwater also need to be de- aerated and treated to prohibit corrosion and a range of chemical treatment options are available. This will measure 42.5m length by 20m width and 7.35m in height.
Electrical Transformer
This is required to increase the voltage to 220kV before entry to the Eirgrid switchyard.
Emergency Diesel Generator
This will supply essential users in the event of interruption to power supply and will not otherwise operate apart from short duration testing every week.
External Finishes
The buildings will generally be of structural steel frame design clad with profiled steel sheet wall and roof cladding. The colour proposed include light grey and light green. The former will be selected where the development would be visible against the sky.
Aqueous Discharges
These include process wastewater, cooling water, surface water drainage and foul water. All wastewater streams will be appropriately treated in accordance with the revised IPPC licence prior to discharge to the Shannon via existing outfalls. Process waste water includes boiler blowdown which is collected in a boiler water containment pit, water treatment plant effluent discharge, leaks and spillages. The boiler water containment pit will be below ground and the process waters will be monitored and recirculated as necessary prior to discharge to the estuary.
Surface water runoff will be mostly storm rainwater which may become contaminated with oil. Interceptors including silt traps will be included. Existing drainage system will be used where suitable. Foul water will connect to the existing systems and there will be no permanent increase in loading. Treatment will be to allowable discharge standards prior to discharge to the estuary by the existing outfall.
The seawater cooling system will be by way of the existing water intake and outfall systems. Where necessary cooling water will be chlorinated by direct injection of Sodium Hypochlorite and Sodium Bromide solution to control biological fouling, mainly by mussels.
Reserve Fuel Storage
In line with the requirements of the CER a five day reserve of distillate oil will be stored on the site to provide for security of supply in the event of a disruption to the gas supply. This oil will be stored in Tank No. 3, one of the existing 25,000m3 storage tanks on the site, which will be refurbished as set out in section 3.7 of the EIS and will be further
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 74 detailed in the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (C&D WMP) to be agreed with the Council and the EPA. 11,000 m3 will be required to be stored for the CCGT plant; due to this volume the site is accorded a lower-tier Seveso rating. Based on the assessment undertaken for containment measures a 1.5m baffle wall is to be constructed around the southern bund wall. A Quantitative Risk Assessment is included in the EIS.
The future use of the remaining tanks is not stated.
Access, Parking and Construction and Decommissioning
Access to the site will remain as presently arranged.
The planned construction phase for Phase 1 is a 23 month period commencing in the fourth quarter of 2012. This will involve a maximum of 300 workers.
Development of Phase 2 will commence in the first quarter of 2014 and will last 25 months. A maximum of 500 workers will be employed.
Figure 3.2 shows the location of the construction laydown area to the south-west of the existing oil tanks and adjacent the proposed AGI. It is of stated area of 12,930 m2 and will include portacabins, welfare facilities and laydown areas.
Construction phase site management will be under a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
The plant is expected to be operational for 25 years. Decommissioning programme is briefly addressed in the EIS.
NATIONAL PLANS, POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020
Reliable and effective energy systems to power industry and services are described as prerequisites for effective regional development.
Prime considerations include enhancing the robustness and choice of energy supplies across the regions through improvements to the national grids. The trend of growing demand in a liberalised market raises planning issues in relation to priorities for reinforcing transmission and distribution networks and locations where new loads and generation can be accommodated.
Shannon – Limerick in the Mid West Region is a Gateway and Tralee-Killarney in the South West Region is a Hub and as such are economic drivers for the associated regions.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 74
National Development Plan 2007-2013
The planned investment in Energy over the period of the plan is 8.5 billion. The overall strategic objective of the Energy Programme is to ensure security of energy supply nationally and regionally, which is competitive and meeting a high environmental standard. Lessening the dependence on any one source of energy or fuel type is also a challenge. Increased energy demand of 1.6% per annum until 2013 is expected. A target contribution of 15% from renewable energy by 2010 has been set.
Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland – the Energy Policy Framework 2007-2020
This is a Government White Paper. The overriding objective is to ensure that energy is consistently available at competitive prices with minimal risk of supply disruption. The underpinning goals include ensuring that supply meets demand, enhancing the diversity of fuels used for power generation and being prepared for energy supply disruptions. Actions will include ensuring the maintenance of infrastructure within State ownership, ensuring that transmission and distribution networks can accommodate targets for renewable energy generation for the island to 2020 and beyond, upgrade the transmission and distribution networks taking account of regional development needs and addressing energy efficiency and energy savings.
Without policy intervention dependence on natural gas for power generation would be 70% by 2020 and while natural gas will continue to be of importance as a fuel, reduction in over-reliance on natural gas in the power generation section will be pursued through promotion of realistic alternatives. The growth in energy demand and closure of older plants will be addressed by new investment in conventional power generation. The need for additional flexibility, interconnection and greater efficiency is noted. Gas fired power stations will continue to play a key role.
National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012
Generation of electricity from renewables will result in substantial annual emissions savings. Targets of 15% electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 33% by 2020 are set.
Improvements in generation efficiency will continue to be achieved including through the commissioning of high efficiency gas-fired power plants displacing less efficient generating capacity.
National Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2009–2020
This notes Ireland’s reliance on imported fossil fuels and the associated costs for business. It sets out a strategy to reduce Ireland’s dependence on imported fossil fuels,
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 12 of 74 improve energy efficiency across a number of sectors and ensure a sustainable energy future. In relation to new generation plant it is noted that CCGT plants are a shift towards more efficient plants. The construction of modern power plants and renewable energy continue the trend towards more efficient less carbon-intensive power generation.
Eirgrid’s Generation Adequacy Report 2010- 2016
This report sets out estimates of the demand for electricity over the period 2010-2016, the production that will be in place and the consequences in terms of the overall supply / demand balance. Due to new generation commissioning, increased interconnection and other factors a surplus of at least 700MW is observed for all scenarios for the seven years. Due to the changed economic circumstances there is a significant drop in actual and forecasted demand.. Thus for the high and low demand scenarios an increase on 2008 levels is not seen until 2012 and 2014 respectively.
The target of 15% of electricity from renewable sources in 2010 will be achieved. Forthcoming projects are listed in section 4.1 wherein it is stated that Tarbert and Great Island will be decommissioned at the end of 2012 which will give a reduction of 806 MW in capacity. Section 4.3(b) refers to the likelihood of new units operating at these sites at the end of 2012 and that one of the larger 241 MW units at Tarbert may be open until 2015. For the purposes of the base case GAR portfolios it is assumed that all generation at these sites stops at the end of 2012.
Increased interconnection contributes to the adequacy position including the commissioning of the East-West interconnector by 2013. The completion of the high voltage transmission line between Ireland and Northern Ireland by 2013 will increase efficiency and stability and allow for consolidation of the generation and demand of the two areas for capacity adequacy calculations.
All Island Grid Study 2008
This concluded that the contribution of renewables could increase to 42% of total electrical demand. 6,000 MW would be likely to be from wind energy.
EirGrid’s Grid Development Strategy 2007-2025 (GRID25)
This sets out a strategy for upgrading the transmission system by an investment of 4 billion euro approximately and an estimated doubling of the system by 2025. The site is within the West region where there is an expected wind and wave generation of up to 440MW and 75 MW by 2025 . Key developments include an investment of 315 million euro in regional transmission network, upgrading over 250km of existing networks to facilitate higher capacity power flows and strengthening the transmission capacity across the Shannon Estuary.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 13 of 74
Transmission Development Plan 2008-2012
This sets out network reinforcement projects. The 220KV Moneypoint to Tarbert Submarine Cable will be completed by 2012. A new 220/110kV Substation at Kilpaddoge is due for completion by 2014.
Architectural Heritage Protection – Guidelines for Planning Authorities
These Guidelines were issued under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. The Guidelines concern inter alia development objectives for protecting structures of architectural and other interest.
Section 13.8 refers to development affecting the setting of a protected structure. A new development could have an impact even when detached from the protected structure and outside the curtilage and attendant grounds but visible in an important view of or from the protected structure. Large buildings, sometimes at a considerable distance can alter views to of from the protected structure and thus affect their character.
The Planning System and Flood Risk Management – Guidelines for Planning Authorities
These Guidelines were issued under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. They require that development in areas at risk of flooding be avoided unless there are grounds to justify the development and where it is demonstrated that the flood risk can be managed.
The Guidelines require that the planning system adopt a sequential approach to flood risk management when assessing the location for new development and to incorporate flood risk assessment into the process of making decisions on applications and appeals.
A staged approach to flooding is set out in section 2.21 and is further outlined in Appendix A. Flood zones are defined for the purposes of the Guidelines in section 2.23. In the most vulnerable of flood zones, A, highly vulnerable development which includes electricity generating power stations shall meet the criteria of the Justification Test.
Due to the uncertainty in relation to the potential effects of climate change a precautionary approach should be adopted. This might include for example that structures designed to protect against flooding are capable of adaptation to the effects of climate change when there is more certainty about the effects.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 14 of 74 Landscape and Landscape Assessment – Consultation Draft of Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2000
This outlines the basis for a systematic approach to landscape assessment focusing on landscape character, values and sensitivity. The process of establishing landscape character involves the identification of physical units, the identification of visual units and identification of image units. All of these three stages of character assessment combine to identify character areas. Section 2.2 refers to landscape values which may include aesthetic, ecological, historical or other values. A number of indicators for assessing landscape sensitivity are set out. Incorporation of appropriate policies and objectives in the development plan and follow through in development control is required.
Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning Authorities , 2009
This was prepared by the NPWS of DEHLG. It provides guidance in relation to the Birds and Habitats Directives and the procedures and obligations of member states in relation to nature conservation management. The key requirement is consideration of the nature conservation implications prior to authorisation of development consent.
An AA will be required if it cannot be excluded that the project will have a significant effect on the site, if there are doubts about the risks of significant effect and if the project is likely to undermine any of the site’s conservation objectives.
REGIONAL GUIDELINES
South West Regional Planning Guidelines 2004-2010
These Guidelines recognise the importance of energy and communications as vital aspects of the regional infrastructure and state that they need to be improved and expanded as necessary. The proposed 110kV link from Tarbert to Tralee is described as an essential piece of infrastructure. Clean coal technology will be monitored for application in the medium term.
Draft South West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022
These refer to the generating station at Tarbert in a list of principal energy resources. Grid upgrades are needed to take renewable energy into the grid. Wave and wind technologies are to play a significant part in meeting additional demand. Demand for electricity in the region is expected to rise by 60% by 2025.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 15 of 74 Mid West Regional Planning Guidelines
These refer to the significant number of electricity generating stations in the region and to the extension of the gas network to the Limerick area.
Draft Mid West Regional Planning Guidelines
These refer to the need for connectivity between Tarbert and Moneypoint generating stations to provide a safe level of redundancy in the network. Strengthening of renewable energy is emphasised.
Draft River Basin Management Plan for the South Western River Basin District
The monitoring data for estuarine waters was collated prior to WFD monitoring programs being put in place. In terms of reducing chemical pollution , a core objective under the WFD, it is noted that two estuaries fail due to historical monitoring data. In the lower Shannon estuary water body failure is due to lead.
COUNTY AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015
Amongst the strategic issues identified is provision and security of energy supplies. Objective OS 2-10 is to promote renewable energy measures, sustainable settlement and travel.
Foynes is defined as a ‘Transit Port’. Section 5.7 refers to the Tarbert / Ballylongford Land in relation to which is to an objective to promote and facilitate the development of lands zoned for industrial development and to facilitate the provision of infrastructure necessary to cater for the needs of industry in the area and the county. Map 12.1a zones lands between Ballylongford Bay and a location under one kilometre from the site for Industry. No such designation applies to the subject site.
Section 5.15 refers to Prevention of Major Hazardous Accidents. Under ECO 5-62 it is an objective to reduce the risk and limit the consequences of major industrial accidents by taking into account the advice of the HSA.
Section 7.4 refers to renewable energy in relation to which the site is one of the areas defined as a Wind Deployment Zone ‘Open to consideration’ on Map 6.1a.
Section 8.5 refers to Power. Objective INF 8-62 refers to co-operation and liaison with providers to ensure adequate power capacity and to facilitate the development of power lines. INF 8-64 is to facilitate the provision of power generating facilities throughout the county.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 16 of 74 Objective INF 8-19 is to improve the surface and alignment of the national secondary routes throughout the county. INF 8-24 is to ensure that Traffic and Transport Assessments shall, where appropriate thresholds are met, are in accordance with the NRA Guidelines 2007.
Structures listed in Appendix 2(a) is the Record of Projected Structures. Tarbert House is listed as area a number of structures Objective BH 10-7 and BH 10-8 refers to the protection of all structures within the county which are of special interest and to have regard to the recommendation of the DEHLG for inclusion of structures and for works to protected structures. BH 10-11 refers to setting of protected structures and to discouraging development that would lead to loss of or cause damage to the character or setting of parks, gardens, demesnes of special interest.
Objectives EN 11-1 and EN 11-5 are to take all necessary measures to prevent pollution and to ensure that development is managed in an environmentally sustainable manner. EN11-6 is to incorporate the specific objectives and measures from the River Basin Management Plan. Objective EN11-20 is to protect air quality in accordance with standards.
EN 11-22 is to ensure that development likely to have significant adverse effects on designated sites is prohibited and to ensure that applicants demonstrate that the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the flora, fauna or habitat being protected through an appropriate assessment which is a requirement for development proposals affecting European Site. Sufficient information to be provided to show how the proposals will impact on the designated site. Objectives relating to the maintenance of the conservation values of European Sites and Natural Heritage areas and to promote biodiversity are provided (EN11-23 to EN 11-29).
It is an objective under EN11-36 to designate a Coastal Development Zone and an Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy. EN11-38 is to accommodate within existing developed coastal areas developments for which a coastal location is required and EN 11-39 to prohibit developments that pose a significant or potential threat to coastal environments.
Section 11.4 refers to Flood Risk Management. A sequential approach and justification Approach will be utilized.
Listed views and prospects include those identified on map 12.1a.
Limerick County Development Plan 2005
Objectives in relation to transport and infrastructure include ensuring that the county’s resources are developed in a sustainable and efficient manner to promote social and economic well being , safeguarding the county’s transport infrastructure, natural and energy resource assets and encouraging appropriate investment and development. Section 8.1.2 refers to the need to improve road networks including the N69 between Foynes and
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 17 of 74 Limerick. Table 8.1 includes an objective to design, reserve land for and commence construction of the N69 route improvements from Limerick to Glin as resources become available.
In relation to energy policy INF 37 refers to facilitating the provision of energy networks in principle subject to necessary safeguard. Policy INF 44 refers to the taking of a positive approach to renewable energy developments subject to listed criteria.
In relation to the Shannon Estuary policy SE1 is to promote the economic and industrial development of the estuary. The Council will combine in its efforts with other local authorities in the region to ensure that the development occurs in a coherent fashion. The Askeaton landbank is of regional importance. Policy SE 2 refers to the expansion and upgrade of port facilities at Foynes. The Council will support alternative energy in certain areas and will support the development of tourism. The coastal road between Foynes and Glin is listed as a scenic view and prospect on Map 7.6.
Clare County Development Plan 2005
Referring to coastal zone management it is noted that the development of ports and marine facilities is economically important. The continued operation of Moneypoint power station is supported and areas within the county are designated for wind farm development.
Policy CDP 46 refers to vulnerable landscapes where only proposals of the highest quality in terms of siting and design will be permitted. Section 15.5 refers to the protection of views which will be identified in Local Area Plans. Policy CDP 51 and CDP 52 refer to ensuring that development in the vicinity of a scenic route does not obstruct or degrade the views towards and from the landscape features, result in significant alterations to the appearance or character of these areas and . does not adversely directly or indirectly affect designated sites or species.
Scattery Island is designated an ACA. The coastal zone of Scattery Island, Clonderalaw Bay and the Shannon Estuary SACs are described as having a special landscape sensitivity and Scattery Island monastery is noted to have a special devotional significance. Besborough House, Killimer is a protected structure.
The list of scenic routes in Appendix 9 includes SR18 (Carrigaholt to Doonaha) and SR19 (Cappagh to Carrowdotin south), which are both along the estuary to the north / northwest of the site.
West Clare LAP 2009-2015
The LAP recognises the role of energy generation to the present and future economy and the profile of West Clare and its national significance. Policy INF T5 refers to the
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 18 of 74 importance of the continued operation of the ferry service between Killimer and Tarbert as a critical element of transport.
A scenic coastal route extends westwards from Moneypoint. The coastal lands at and to the east of Killimer are a Vulnerable Landscape.
Policy ENV7 refers generally to landscape conservation in areas outside of defined settlements. Policy ENV8 refers to proposals for development and the retention, protection and enhancement of landscape features. Policy ENV9 refers to proposals for development in areas that have been identified as visually vulnerable.
Tarbert Local Area Plan 2006-2012
The site is not covered by the provisions of the LAP which relate only to the built up extent of the town. The importance of the Killimer-Tarbert ferry and the potential of the town as a tourist destination are noted. A public bird watching facility has recently opened. Positive employment trends are recorded.
On street parking currently causes congestion and an additional car park to the rear of Bridewell Street is proposed under objective Z-8. A significant proportion of through traffic is commercial and an additional road is proposed to remove this from Bridewell Street – objective T1 refers. A possible reduction in pavement width in Bridewell Street would allow for increased parking and road width thereby improving the flow of traffic. Objective T-3 is to extend footpaths to the development boundary. The importance of roadside trees and boundary treatments along the approach roads is noted.
PLANNING HISTORY
The County Manager’s report indicates that there have been a number of applications in recent decades for extensions and modifications to the existing plant. Other significant planning applications of relevance are listed below.
Under planning reg. ref. 09/1331 permission was has been granted to the National Oil reserves Agency Ltd for the refurbishment of the existing mainland storage tank farm. This is described as providing for an upgraded impermeable liner and walls within the bund, a control building with a treatment unit and percolation area, a truck turning area, fire fighting facilities including a pump house, firewater tank and other development. Relevant conditions include a contribution under a special contribution towards purchase of specialist fire fighting equipment and training in the amount of €30,000.
Permission for Shannon LNG Terminal at Kilcolgan, Ballylongford was granted by An Bord Pleanala under PA0002.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 19 of 74 Permission for a Gas Pipeline from the terminal to the BGE pipe in Foynes, County Limerick was granted by An Bord Pleanala under GC0003.
A pre-application consultation in relation to a gas pipeline to Tarbert Power Station is ongoing under GC0005.
Two applications for CCGT plants have recently been granted permission by the Board at Derrygreenagh, Co. Offaly (PA0011) and at Lumcloon, Cloghan, County Offaly (PA0015).
A proposed CCGT plant at Great Island, Co. Wexford is under consideration (PA0016) by the Board.
LOCAL AUTHORITY SUBMISSION
County Manager’s Report
The report describes the site and outlines the nature of the development, the planning history and refers to the making of this application under the Seventh Schedule of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006.
The report outlines salient European, National , regional and Local Policies. In terms of the Kerry County Development Plan 2009-2015 a large number of policies related to the energy sector and to the protection of heritage resources are highlighted.
The nearest designated views and prospects are at Carrigafoyle, Ballylongford and it is considered that the proposed power station which is some 9km from this area will have no effect on the views and prospect.
In relation to the Tarbert Local area Plan 2006 the county manager’s report states that there are no policies in relation to energy or power generation.
All plans and guidelines are stated to support the strategic need and benefits of such a development both at national and county levels. It is considered that the EIS fully justifies the need for the project.
The report goes on to outline matters related to the site selection, alternatives, and outlines the main components of the proposed plant and its design. A number of impacts are described. The most specific and noteworthy comments of the county manager’s report are outlined below.
Visual and landscape assessment is considered acceptable. The development will not alter the image of the estuary. The additional contribution of the proposed plant will be minimal. There will not be a significant impact on designated views and prospects.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 20 of 74 While the development will have significant visual impacts these are limited in extent and the visual impact will not significantly alter the existing or potential tourism product for the area. The main visual impact will be from the ferry and as this is often the main access to the county the impact of the power station is significant. The erection of the new power plant will have a very minor cumulative visual effect when taken in conjunction with the existing and the impact on recreational activities associated with the area will not be significant. Potential impacts must also be considered in the context of full time year round jobs.
The Roads and Transportation section are concerned about the traffic flows at school peak times and the possible conflict with construction of Shannon LNG. It is recommended that a condition be included that a Construction Traffic Management Plan be agreed with the Roads Department prior to construction.
In relation to demand for public water the Water Services Authority considers that there will be no increase in hourly consumption of potable water but there is some concern that the demand may come in surges. A new Mag Flow meter should be installed and this should be connected by radio signal to the water treatment head works in Dromin, Listowel, allowing for greater control of all activities of water consumption.
Any infrastructural deficit in the area can be addressed and will not constitute a barrier to the proposed development.
Prior to construction ambient noise levels for the area including all noise sensitive locations should be established in terms of L Aeq,T90 , L Aeq,T10 , etc and a regular monitoring regime at these locations during construction should be included as a condition of permission, Exceedance of noise limits at these locations will require proposals for mitigation measures to be approved by the local authority. Subject to the above the Council is satisfied that the proposed development will not case adverse noise conditions affecting residential amenity or the natural environment. In relation to noise and vibration transmission to the estuarine environment and the effect on bottlenose dolphins it is understood that this issue will be considered by An Bord Pleanala.
In terms of residential amenity it is considered that some inconvenience may occur during peak construction as heavy goods and wide loads may result in come traffic congestion.
In relation to plant emissions, while these will be subject of IPPC licence the view of Kerry County Council is that emission from the plant will not cause environmental pollution.
The payment of a community contribution scheme of €15,000 per annum for a period of five years or until completion of works is appropriate to offset any potential disruption to the local community during the construction phase.
Others submission area noted and summarised in the county manager’s report.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 21 of 74
The County Archaeologist considers that the proposed mitigation is appropriate.
The Heritage Officer provides comments in relation to the appropriate assessment and NPWS and recommends that the NPWS be directly contacted.
The SEE Environment Section states that the assessment has not identified any significant issues in relation to any of the areas considered.
The SEE Roads indicates no objection subject to conditions.
The EE Water Services states no objection subject to the installation of a Mag-Flow meter on the 175mm public main.
The Assistant Fire Officer includes a range of conditions including a requirement for a special contribution in the amount of €30,000 to assist in the purchase of specialist equipment and specialised training.
It is concluded that the development will not have an adverse impact and potentially may have a positive impact on the community at large through employment, population growth and community development. The proposed plant will have far less visual impact than the existing.
Recommended conditions include : • Condition 2 – ten year permission; • Condition 5 – contribution of €30,000 to Kerry County Council for traffic lights at the N67 Tarbert Ferry Road junction, as a special contribution within the meaning of section 48(c); • Condition 7 – detailed traffic management plan to be approved and to include construction traffic and traffic associated with construction personnel and may include restrictions on traffic movement at Tarbert schools at school start and finish time; • Condition 8 - all delivery vehicles serving the site shall use the N67 and N69; • Condition 10 – Mag-Flow meter to be installed on the public main; • Condition 13 – noise emitted during construction or operation phases shall not give rise to nuisance and the applicant to take any arising measures necessary to eliminate the offending nuisance; • Condition 16 – specific requirements in relation to the Site Clearance Phase including waste management plan, fencing of site, bunding, storage of oil pollution equipment on site, other measures regarding clay bunding, possible use of explosives etc; • Condition 17 – specific requirements in relation to the construction phase including testing of concrete, appointment of an Environmental Protection Office on site as a liaison office;
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 22 of 74 • Condition 18- relates to Fire Safety and Control and requires liaison with the Fire Authority and refers to the need for best practice and specific attention when commissioning the plant and undertaking gas purging; • Condition 19 – special contribution in the amount of €30,000 in respect of the provision of specialist equipment and to facilitate initial training for the fire service; • Condition 20 – annual Community Contribution Scheme to be administered by the planning authority for the benefit of the local community – amount to be €15,000 per annum for 5 years or until completion of construction – in accordance with the provisions of section 37g(7) of the 20000 Act as amended.
Record of the Special Planning Meeting of Kerry County Council on 1 st March 2010
Following presentations by various officials councillors submissions were made. A number of councillors welcomed the development and its benefits, including the provision of employment. Courses should be put in place to upskill / retrain construction workers.
Gas Supply - Route of the gas supply was queried. If routes other than the main LNG line are possible, the actual routes need to be identified. Only one pipeline should be constructed. Bord Gais may have to provide a second pipeline however and arrangements need to be put in place. Two pipelines at a cost of € 26 million each would be a waste of money. It was noted that the permitted pipeline allows for spur lines.
Electricity lines - All high voltages lines to and from the plant should be undergrounded and on a route that allows for future development of the lands between Tarbert and Saleen.
Traffic - Potential that Endesa and LNG projects will commence at the same time. Need for a traffic management plan prior to any works. Road upgrade of Tarbert to Kilcolgan Road and construction of Tarbert to Foynes pipeline will affect traffic.
Water and Sewerage - upgrades needed to cater for increased populations.
Community Gain and Contributions – the amount proposed was considered inadequate and compared poorly with the LNG project where it was stated levies in the region of €6 million would accrue while the levies in this case are €75,000 in total. The levy should be ongoing and not restricted to five years. The levy should be increased by an annual figure of €5,000 to provide for local amenities. It was queried why there was no contribution required for water / foul water provisions / general environmental levy as with other applications.
Licensing – any required licences should be granted forthwith.
Safety – the safety concerns of the community to be addressed.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 23 of 74 Submission of Mott MacDonald to Kerry County Council
This enclosed submission was prepared in response to a letter from Kerry County Council dated 27 th January 2010. The main points are set out below.
In relation to the possibility that the Shannon LNG traffic should be considered the first party submission states that the applicant has been in contact with Shannon LNG to establish the likely timeframe for the proposed development and that the earliest start date is mid 2011 with a 3 to 4 year construction period. As Endesa will commence in late 2010 with an 18 month construction period and construction peaks are expected to be in the middle of each construction period then the likelihood of all peak construction traffic occurring at a same point and time is unlikely. As with all major construction projects a construction traffic management plan to be agreed.
The submission also recognises a minor error in nomenclature and states that car ferry traffic has been incorporated. In relation to school opening and closing times it is considered that the location of the site is such that there will not be a significant impact but that this can be considered further under the construction traffic management plan.
In relation to significant peak hour flows the impact of this on construction traffic is considered by KCC to be insufficiently highlighted. In response Mott MacDonald states that it is clearly indicated that the peak hour traffic flows would cause congestion at one particular junction and that as mitigation traffic signals are proposed. The resulting RFC for the junction would be 24%.
In relation to the recommendation by KCC that the proposed Inner Relief Road be included in traffic analysis Mott MacDonald indicate that the inclusion of this proposal would be of minimal assistance to the construction activity and operational activity of the development.
Submission of Tarbert Development Association
The local authority also encloses a submission prepared by Tarbert Development Association . Issues raised include the route of the gas supply, the costs associated with the provision of two separate pipelines, the need to protect the land mass from Tarbert to Saleen for development by under grounding of high voltage power lines, the potential for clash of construction traffic with Shannon LNG traffic, the need for the Inner Relief Road in Tarbert village as identified in the Tarbert Urban Design Framework, the need for a traffic management plan, water and sewerage to be upgraded and the need for ongoing consultation. The project is supported, the aim of the submission being to minimise local impacts and maximise benefits.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 24 of 74 SUBMISSIONS OF PRESCRIBED AND OTHER BODIES
Submissions to An Bord Pleanala
NRA The NRA has no objection in principle provided the identified junction capacity issues at N67 / R551 (Junction 2) are appropriately addressed. Mitigation measures proposed in Chapter 10 are noted and should be subject of detailed agreement between the applicant, road authority and NRA with costs to be borne by the applicant.
An Taisce The submission relates to the need for the project and market variables. Refers to Eirgrid’s Generation Adequacy Report 2010-2016 and the Annual report of the Commission for Energy Regulation 2007. The comments relate to Security of Supply, Sustainability and Competitiveness the three pillars of the Energy White Paper.
Over reliance of gas undermines security of supply for the purposes of the GAR Eirgrid assumed that all generation at Tarbert stops at 2012 and no new plant is assumed at these sites for the duration of the study period (page 34 of GAR 2010-2016). Even taking this into account a surplus of supply is predicted to 2016 (page 59 refers). A surplus of 700MW or at least 14% applies. Peak demand in 2000 was 3,750 MW and in January 2010 was 4,950MW. For factors related to future economic growth in the coming decade will not be anything like the 120MW of the previous decade.
The amount of gas generation required both in baseload and peaking plant is questioned in the context of carbon emissions. Electricity costs in Ireland are very high and the cost of gas is increasing. The impact on Irish businesses in the future is discussed. If the Great Island plant is constructed a further 7% will be added to the existing 14% surplus. If the Tarbert plant is also commissioned the surplus will be 28%, excluding all of the plants both RE and gas that are seeking permission and / or grid connections and that are not included in the GAR. The ultimate sources of gas from the European network and from the proposed Shannon LNG is not secure.
In view of the stated surplus of electricity up to and including 2016 and the proposed Great Island plant (resulting in a surplus of 21%) permission should not be granted.
Tarbert Development Association TDA welcomes the proposed replacement of the old and inefficient plant and considers that the new plant will result in environmental benefit and be in keeping with Government policy. Negative impacts relating to noise, traffic, dust and air quality during construction are acknowledged. The proposed employment of local labour during the construction phase is welcomed.
In relation to traffic management during phase 1 and 2 there are concerns that the construction of this and the Shannon LNG developments would clash which would greatly impact on the traffic movement through the village. Kerry County Council had acknowledged that an Inner Relief Road should be constructed prior to the LNG terminal. It now seems likely that the projects will clash and a condition on the permission for the Endesa development should be contingent on the Council purchasing the field known as
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 25 of 74 the Market to facilitate the construction of the Inner Relief Road. Measures to reduce noise level are noted including the bus service to the site from a remote car park. Persons using the bus service should be required to park on the Listowel Road and not in the streets or housing estates. Ongoing contact with our association would be desirable.
Department of Transport notes the need to consider the increase traffic volumes through Tarbert village and on the operation of the ferry. Allowance to be made for any road improvements, widening or traffic calming measures required by the Council.
Kerry County Council letter of 27 th January 2010 This refers to a number of queries that need to be resolved to enable the Council to properly address the road and transportation impacts. The Shannon LNG construction traffic will have to be considered. Road junctions are incorrectly labelled. Car ferries at peak season have capacity to unload up to 60 cars and this needs to be highlighted. Consideration of school opening and closing times is required. Construction traffic peak hour flow impact is significant and the impacts needs to be further developed. The Inner Relief Road shown in the LAP should be included in the analysis.
Health and Safety Authority The application is covered by Regulation 27(1) of SI 74 of 2006. The development constitutes a new establishment. The Authority has determined that the siting criteria for new establishments has been met and does not advise against the granting of permission in the context of major accident hazards.
The Authority will bring to the attention of the Planning Authority the need to consult with local emergency services on any potential impact in the context of an emergency and access for emergency services.
Our policy is to advise on the consequences of worst case major accidents. The risks are considered sufficiently low. There is a possibility of a major accident to the marine environment from a catastrophic failure of a storage tank and, even less likely is the possibility of a fire in the bund resulting from serious tank failure.
The advice is based on the specific circumstances of the proposal including the location of various tanks and the substances stored therein. This should be considered in relation to the imposition of conditions. Lining in the existing bund referred to in section 1.4.4 of the QRA is to be impermeable material to the satisfaction of the Authority.
Clare County Council
In relation to visual impact the development will be visible from sections of the visually vulnerable landscape in Clare. Having regard to the existing structures on site and the scale of the development it is considered that the proposal may not be significantly detrimental from views in Clare. Conditions to minimise the visual impact of the development in terms of external finishes to the structures should be attached.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 26 of 74 In relation to grid connection it is noted that a connection to Moneypoint does not appear to be proposed. Should such a connection be sought in the future there may be implications for the Lower River Shannon SAC and coastal lands of Co. Clare. The implications of the proposed on Moneypoint should be addressed by the Board .
The classification of the site as a SEVESO site is noted. While issues in relation to same are subject to control by the HSA the impact of minimum safety distances imposed by the HSA on the land uses and marine uses in Co. Clare is a consideration for An Bord Pleanala. The Board is requested to assess the potential for impact on the social, economic, landuse or tourist value of Co. Clare and its marinas, shorelines and waters.
The cumulative impacts needs to be fully assessed and the potential impact of the development including any shipping movements on the SAC, air quality, water quality, sea-transport restrictions, if any.
Irish Aviation Authority No comment except to request further consultation in the event that the stacks exceed 90m. Prior to use of any tall cranes the Kerry Regional Airport should be consulted.
Submissions to Applicant - Scoping and Consultations for EIS preparation
Appendix 6 of the EIS report the following consultations.
Limerick County Council referred to the importance of tank refurbishment methodology and to the integration of paint colours for existing and proposed plants. Welcomes the reduced heat dissipations from discharge of cooling waters. Given the proximity of the SAC measures to deal with spillages or emissions are important and no dumping or disposal within the SAC should occur.
Kerry County Council The draft scoping report appears to cover all concerns.
Clare County Council The EIS should include an assessment of the development on the receiving environment and should be based on comprehensive surveys of the area. Should address any impacts on the infrastructure located in Co. Clare and any requirements for upgrades. An assessment of impact on views to and from designated scenic routes and designated areas of south west Clare. Calculations of amount of and description of nature of materials to be disturbed or excavated on site and impact of such excavation or ground disturbance on wildlife, habitats and surface waters. Impacts on air and water quality including from remediation measures to existing fuel storage tanks and from cooling water.
Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources No comment.
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment No comment.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 27 of 74 DEHLG Archaeological and Architectural Heritage Potential for previously unrecorded archaeological material means underwater archaeological assessment required. Architectural heritage encompasses more than protected structures. Even if there is no impact this should be noted for technical completeness of the EIS.
Department of Agriculture Queries plans in relation to the jetty and oil storage tanks which will become redundant. Maintenance dredging at sea water intake needs to be discussed.
HSE Southern Area states that a public health assessment might be included in the EIS.
NRA refers to general good practice and need to follow TTA Guidelines 2007. Needs to identify if a road safety audit is required based on RSA Guidelines.
GSI – requests information from site investigations for their records.
HSA - no comment at this stage.
IAA states there are no lighting requirements for the proposed 60m and 65m stacks.
Shannon Ferry Group Ltd Offers assistance.
Shannon LNG indicates an interest in being further informed.
Sea Fisheries Protection Authority indicates the site is not within a Designated Shellfish Protection Area and it is unlikely that it will interfere in the long-term with any sea- fishing operations.
An Taisce Concerns in relation to the levels of natural gas required and unconvinced that SLNG will offer security. Unconvinced that the owners of SLNG will remove their suspension of the project in the short term. Contingency plans regarding source of natural gas are required. Alternatives to the development including renewables should be outlined. Unconvinced of business case and benefits to the nation. Any groundwater quality or over-abstraction problems should be identified. Cumulative impacts on groundwater including from climate change should be addressed.
Tarbert Development Association Broadly welcomes the development. Expresses concern in relation to traffic management in the village and along the ferry terminal road. The Inner Relief Road identified in the LAP is needed prior to commencement of development and of the SLNG which is likely to coincide with the proposal. Improvements of the N67 pavement are required. The route of the gas pipeline from Foynes should be identified.
Irish Whale and Dolphin Group by teleconference indicated to the applicant that the project poses no concern in terms of whales and dolphins.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 28 of 74 ORAL HEARING
Appendix 1 contains copies of written submissions presented at the hearing. The stenographer’s record of the hearing is also attached under Appendix 2. The following is a brief record of the hearing including a list of the submissions made and a synopsis of the discussion.
Submissions on behalf of applicant
Mr Rory Mulcahy provided an overview of the project and addressed a number of procedural and legislative issues including the decision to apply separately for permission to demolish the existing plant, appropriate assessment, the review of the IPPC licence.
Mr Miguel Gonzalez presented an overview of Endesa and its experience in the energy market and commitment to sustainable development.
Mr Maurice Kelly provided a description of the project including consideration of alternatives and the need for the development, referring also to socioeconomic benefits arising including community gain.
Mr Donal McRandal described primarily the detail of the technology, its design and efficiency and the site layout.
Mr Paul Kelly presented evidence prepared by Mr Peter Phipps of Mott MacDonald Ltd, who was available by phone to answer queries. Mr Kelly presented evidence in relation to flood risk assessment and the flood defence strategy.
Mr Simon Clear addressed the planning context and the basis for a community gain levy.
Mr Mathew O’Brien presented evidence on air quality issues including the modelling undertaken as the basis for stack height determination.
Ms Donna Hassett addressed impacts and mitigation measures related to surface water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive and with reference to the IPPC licence.
Dr Adam Payne presented on the impacts and mitigation measures related to marine ecology. His presentation also responded to other submission relating to bottlenose dolphins and birds.
Dr Elaine Bennett’s presentation referred to the ecological value of the site and the impacts and mitigation related to terrestrial ecology.
Mr John Flannery addressed landscape and visual impacts and presented a number of visual images including views of the post-demolition stage.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 29 of 74 Dr Martin Critchley addressed the hearing on the preparation of the photomontages and on a recent site visit to test their accuracy.
Mr Alan Wilson referred to soils and geology and related impacts and mitigation.
Mr Sean Doherty addressed proposals relating to traffic and transport management including the possible cumulative impact with construction of Shannon LNG and other construction phase issues.
Mr Frank Coyne made a presentation on archaeology, architecture and cultural heritage.
Submissions on behalf of the local authority
Mr Paul Stack, Senior Engineer, Kerry County Council provided additional comment as a supplement to the Manager’s Report on the issues of emergency access, flood risk, archaeology and roads and traffic.
Submissions by prescribed bodies
An Taisce’s submission presented by Ms Elizabeth Muldowney primarily addressed the national reliance on gas for energy and the associated potential economic dangers of this dependency. Ms Muldowney noted that An Taisce had not objection to the Great Island proposal by Endesa as there was a strategic need at that location but that the same argument does not occur in this case.
Mr Mike Fitzsimons on behalf of the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board objected to the layout of the current screening arrangements on the cooling water intakes, noted a preference for an air cooling system. If permission is to be granted the developer should be required to modify the screen system to return live fish to sea.
Submissions by observers
Three submissions were presented.
To commence Mr Thomas O’Donovan read a statement on behalf of Safety Before Shannon LNG . This refers to the need for a strategic environmental assessment of the Endesa project stating that the EU has now decided that the Shannon LNG project should have been so assessed. If the Shannon LNG project does not go ahead then it is queried where the gas supply will be obtained. The Endesa project is also discussed in the context of reliance on gas.
Mr Donovan also made a submission on his own behalf which referred to safety aspects of the development, potential risks to people and the environment and to the need for a strategic environmental assessment as well as for balance in terms of the economic benefits and the potential hazards.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 30 of 74 Tarbert Development Association welcomed the development but expressed concerns relating to traffic management in particular and the need for the inner relief road. The need for security of supply was emphasised as was the employment benefits arising. The idea of two pipelines in north Kerry was described as a waste of money.
Response to questions at hearing
Traffic
Mr Frank Hartnett clarified that Bridewell Street is of sufficient width for two way traffic with parking on one side. The inner relief road and associated car parking would provide an alternative parking area. The Part 8 would be published within 2 months for the inner relief road and the car park and these would be pursued by compulsorily purchase if necessary.
In relation to the proposed traffic lights Mr Hartnett described that these would ease existing congestion as traffic on the Ferry Road presently has to give way to the main flow through the village. Two sets would be promoted by the Council in any case. It was agreed with the applicant that the two sets are to be vehicle linked and actuated. Removal of parking on the north side of the street is important to ease congestion. If two sets of lights are needed they would be installed and the applicant is willing to contribute financially. Mr Doherty indicated that even diagonal pedestrian movements would be facilitated at the lights and that pedestrians would not wait longer than 45 seconds at any particular junction.
In relation to funding of environmental improvement works at Bridewell Street these would be reliant on the Shannon LNG development contributions.
Construction parking could be facilitated on the site and a sketch map prepared by Mr Doherty was submitted during the hearing. Car sharing at the county Clare side was indicated to be likely to exceed three persons per vehicle. About 48 vacant car parking spaces may be available at Killimer on a given day and the manager of that site had told Mr Doherty that the area available could be rationalised to provide more spaces. Mr Doherty estimated that at a rate of 1.25 persons per car there might be up to 50 vehicles arriving at the Killimer side. The Ferry company own about 4 acres of land in addition to the parking.
In relation to shift staggering Mr Doherty stated that this was not overly considered as there is more than adequate space on the road network to deal with the worst case traffic scenario. Mr Hartnett agreed that traffic management could be addressed by construction traffic plan to take into account worst case scenario, school traffic etc.
In relation to the Council’s commitment to improvement of roads in the village Mr Hartnett referred to the spend in 2009 of €800,000.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 31 of 74 Mr Donovan indicated that the bypassing of the village in its entirety is preferable. Mr Hartnett indicated that there are no such plans at present and that it would be a matter for the NRA and is not likely to be a priority. Ms Murphy referred to the Urban Design Framework as an appropriate template for traffic management in the vicinity and that the Tarbert Development Association was pleased with the content of discussion.
Mr Hartnett clarified again that the second set of traffic lights is desirable regardless of the proposal.
Mr Doherty confirmed that the most appropriate manner for access for heavy loads is through the Foynes port as confirmed through specialist advice.
Fisheries
In relation to the option of air cooling Mr Mulcahy indicated that this had been considered on a number of grounds, that it is not BAT and has greater noise and visual and landscape impacts. Dr Payne indicated that there would be discussion with the Fisheries Board and that several options to refurbish and improve the system to ensure that impinged fish can be returned in good condition and options to prevent fish getting into the system in the first place. The issue at this site is related to the number of fish and the number of species. At the Great Island plant there is a greater concern related to Salmon. In relation to river and sea lamprey and twaite shad Dr Payne indicated that there were not large numbers being impinged and Dr Payne could not indicate why certain species would be prone to impingement. Mr Fitzsimons indicated that salmon smolt impingement did not appear to be a significant concern at Tarbert and noted that given the need to protect the range of biodiversity in the estuary either the species need to be deterred or they need to be allowed to pass safely through. In relation to the matter of acoustic deterrents Mr Fitzsimons did not comment on whether they could work for all species but did say that efficient mechanical screens could be designed to minimise any ingress of fish at all. The Board would be reasonable satisfied with such a system. In relation to the air cooled system the absence of a thermal plume is also a feature but this could be addressed under the IPPC licence. Dr Payne agreed on questioning that improved screening would be feasible, clean and cost effect way of preventing fish from entering the system and that there would be no issue with such a condition. In relation to the potential for adverse impacts arising from reduction in the extent of the plume Mr Fitzsimons stated that while there are benefits to having a slightly warmer bay but the area concerned would be very small and there would be significant dilution.
Mr Donovan referred to the impact of chlorine and to the impact on bottlenose dolphin. In relation to dolphins Dr Payne stated that the matter had been discussed extensively with Simon Barrett of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group who considered that there was no issue. At this stage there was a brief discussion on the nature of piling and noise impacts and Dr Payne indicated that if piling were undertaken in the water there would potentially be an impact on dolphins but the current proposal would be very unlikely to have an adverse impacts. Any acoustic deterrent for fish / invertebrates would not have an impact on dolphins due to their different hearing capability. After a short adjournment
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 32 of 74 to allow the first parties to respond to the various impacts relating to the selection of foundation design including the possibility of coastal water ingress to the site, Ms Hassett clarified that to prevent water ingress from the estuarine environment sheet piling would be used and that the noise predictions contained in the EIS were based on bored piling, which generates more noise.
Mr Donovan finally referred to the need to protect all species and to the Berne Convention and the cumulative impacts.
Birds Following a question relating to the source of material on bird distribution the applicant confirmed that it came through discussions with the NPWS. The reason for congregation away from the plant might be related to the presence of the existing power plant or to the availability of food sources.
Dr Bennett confirmed that the construction of the flood defence strategy would not have a significant effect on mammal movement through the site and that it would not be necessary to provide gaps to facilitate such movements.
Heritage In relation to Besborough House the protected structure at Killimer Mr Coyne indicated that it had not been visited and that it is within the zone of theoretical visibility but is not directly impacted. Mr Flannery had not visited the site either but considered that given the distance there would not be significant impacts or worsening of impacts.
Contributions
Michael McMahon responded on the matter of the Council’s decision not to require a contribution under the development contribution scheme. This decision was reached following considerable discussion and the brownfield nature of the site and the reduced impact in terms of water usage, operational traffic etc. In relation to roads any contribution would be by way of a special contribution in any case. He clarified that the normal practice would be to charge for the additions e.g. in the case of a hotel for instance for the additional floorspace. If a contribution was to be charged then Class 8 would be appropriate he confirmed.
In relation to the special contribution in the amount of €30,000 the Acting Chief Fire Officer Mr Vincent Hussey stated that the amount was to be levied in view of the need for specialist training and on questioning confirmed that the training would be similar to that required for the NORA facility which is subject of a current planning application and for the Shannon LNG.
In relation to the amount of €30,000 for traffic lights this was calculated based on the Roads Department experience.
In relation to the amount for community gain the applicant reiterated that the amount of €150,000 would be acceptable in accordance with application PA0015. When queried in relation to the criteria for deciding such sums Mr Mulcahy indicated that impact on the
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 33 of 74 community compared to the baseline situation had to be considered. He referred in this case to the lesser impact compared with the existing plant and to the employment benefits. In terms of the construction disruption Mr Mulcahy noted that this was the biggest consideration but that on the reverse side it provided employment. Mr Mulcahy indicated that the output of the facility is not something which impacts on a community but that more relevant considerations should be the construction and the siting within the community. Mr Mulcahy also acknowledged that the durations and two-phased construction period should be a consideration. Mr McMahon noted that the suggestion from the Council was that the funding would be for five years or the construction period and that the duration of construction should be a consideration. The Council welcomed the offer to increase the contribution to €150,000 if the payment is to be over five years. The applicant indicated that five payments of €30,000 would be acceptable. The inspector again referred to two decisions by the Board at Ferbane and Derrygreenagh which attracted payments of €50,000 per annum and €70,000 per annum. Mr Mulcahy stated that it would be dangerous to compare two developments while acknowledging that the Lumcloon case had been the basis for their own suggestion – Mr Mulcahy also noted that the Derrygreenagh site is greenfield. (Ms Muldowney later stated that Derrygreenagh was a brownfield site. )
Mr Donovan indicated that the sum of €150,000 is too little for the risk involved and for the employment which will be generated and the environmental impacts including from burning of gas.
Mr Fox stated that the other two sites are greenfield and that all the traffic in this case will have to pass through the village causing additional problems. The higher figure would be appropriate.
No party in the room could offer any reason why funding should be shared with any community in Limerick and the local authority noted that all infrastructure derives from Kerry Council.
Landscape and Visual Impacts
The applicant indicated willingness to engage with the local authority in relation to mitigation measures in terms of finishes to buildings. In relation to the overall area the applicant noted that the NORA facility is not within its control entirely but suggested that that facility could be dealt with as part of a consultation scheme under the umbrella of Kerry County Council. In relation to the mainland tank farm Mr Kelly noted that while painting of three tanks would be feasible one of the tanks is insulated which may restrict options. The Inspector noted that from time to time the Board does require that an applicant engage specialist services, in this case a landscape architect.
No further information was available in relation to whether or not a third stack would be part of the design. Mr O’ Brien indicated that for about 10% of the time especially in cool conditions a plume would be visible.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 34 of 74 In relation to screening of the plant Mr Flannery indicated that the benefit would primarily relate to giving the structures a setting and he noted that there may be biodiversity benefits also. Mr Kelly referring to the available ground indicated that the majority of lands on the northern side is hard standing and operational . The potential for planting on elevated ground was described as very limited and the 23m buffer required at either side of overhead power lines was also noted.
Air In response to a query regarding used of baseline data from the EPA monitoring sites, Mr O’Brien indicated that this decision was preceded by discussion with the EPA who indicated that the data from Zone D would be appropriate. Mr O’Brien indicated the value of long term data for establishing baseline conditions and noted that the EIS relies on a three year average concentrations. He noted that the short term monitoring carried out for the Shannon LNG EIS indicated that results were even lower than the zone D monitoring stations were predicting and that the EPA data was utilised. Finally Mr O’Brien noted that the study area extends to 15km from the chimneys and that the data carried out at Shannon LNG is appropriate as a comparison.
Mr Donovan queried whether there would be any adverse impact on Tarbert village in misty days. Mr O’Brien noted that the main pollutant of concern would be nitrogen dioxide and that the model utilised was sophisticated and considered such weather conditions. The EPA emission limits and the height of the stack ensure appropriate dispersion. Mr Donovan noted the previous problems related to Aughinish. Mr O’Brien noted that a continuous emissions monitoring system will be in place and that the EPA will require that the plant refers reports to the EPA and that the systems are independently checked and calibrated.
Soils and Geology
In relation to soils and geology and the ongoing investigations of contaminated lands Mr Wilson stated that the EPA are aware of the general issues around the site which related predominantly to the three landfills and the available information indicates that additional contamination is likely to be very localised.
Ancillary development
Mr Kelly indicated that the Eirgrid input into the ESB / CER Asset Strategy is that the site is presently most suitable for peaking operation. In relation to transmission upgrades necessary for phase 2 Mr Kelly referred in detail to the Kilpaddoge 220kv development which will be a new hub for power flows into the south-west, the Moneypoint / Kilpaddoge 220KV submarine circuit, the Knockanure 220kv station and the Kishekam development. Mr Mulcahy noted that due to the improvements being undertaken in the upgrading of the transmission network a baseload / mid-merit plant will be supportable at this location by 2017. In terms of market conditions Mr Kelly indicated that this is a reference to demand growth. He clarified that the closure of Unit 4 is required and is not related to the proposed plant.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 35 of 74 Tarbert Development Association queried whether the new power lines would be underground. No additional information was forthcoming.
In terms of community gain Ms Muldowney referred to the Monaghan model of community development which An Taisce would recommend be used.
Need for the development
Ms Muldowney expressed scepticism about the energy demand figures outlined in the Draft South Western Regional Planning Guidelines. Mr Mulcahy indicated that the figures from section 1.1.3.6 had simply been quoted. Ms Muldowney indicated that these would appear to be very high and that the document was still open to consultation. Mr Clear indicated that the regional authority would have consulted with local authorities and would have a basis for the information but that it is not clear within the document where the information comes from.
In relation to alternative power options and advancements in new technologies Ms Muldowney and Ms Murphy differed on the speed of such delivery. Mr Muldowney referred to there being time for reconsideration of current policy and that with the Great Island power plant the surplus would increase to 21%. Mr Kelly indicated that while the GAR report for 2010 indicated a surplus there have been four occasions here to date on which we have system amber alerts which is when a further single loss of a large generator would result in a customer disconnection and that on 10 th January this year all four generators in Tarbert were dispatched urgently to full capacity. Ms Muldowney insisted that there are changed circumstances and a period of accepted oversupply of energy and that a detailed independent study should be undertaken on the matter of need.
In relation to alternative energy Mr Donovan queried the tidal potential of the estuary which Mr Kelly said they have not considered as it is outside the scope of the project.
Safety
In relation to future use of the mainland tanks these will be retained but it is not decided what will be stored therein. Mr Mulcahy acknowledged that any material change of use arising either from the Seveso requirements or from traffic intensification would require permission.
In relation to the commissioning phase and the matter of gas purging the accident in the US appears to have resulted from use of gas for pipeline purging while it is intended in this case to use an inert gas. Mr Hussey clarified that the recommended condition 18 is to ensure best practice is carried out in the purging of gas lines and Mr Hegarty stated that anything which comes out of the inquiry in the States would be adhered to.
In relation to the potential for escalation or domino type effects Mr Kelly indicated that following consultation with NORA the applicant is satisfied with the separation distances and similarly in relation to the siting of the CCGT plant, which would not compromise
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 36 of 74 further potential development of the mainland tanks. Mr Hegarty confirmed that the fire officers had consulted with NORA and that there would not be a domino type effect because of the distance and the nature of the uses. Following further discussion on this matter Mr Heggarty indicated that the volume of material to be stored in the tanks should be limited by planning condition. Mr Kelly indicated that there should not be a constraint on these tanks as they will be need for storage of distillate oil and for operation of existing unit 4. Mr Hegarty indicated that his concerns relate only to the completed development. Requested to clarify his position once more Mr Heggarty asked to consult the applicant but later was satisfied that if the on-site plans cater for the continued use of the three tanks and use of half of one other he would agree the fire fighting requirements necessary. Mr Mulcahy in this regard referred to the operational monitoring role for the HSA which ensures ongoing monitoring. Mr Mulcahy also referred to the basis for the QRA which was that the remaining tanks were filled with heavy fuel oil ( a non Seveso substance) and that there would be no reason to require that the tanks remain empty in that circumstances.
Flooding
In relation to the potential for flooding of residential properties nearby Mr Kelly referred to the ground level of those houses which is typically 5.49m to 6.28m and the recommended flood defence wall level of 7.5m ODP. Flooding due to inundation of the site and surrounding area by the estuary would affect lands upstream and downstream equally. Mr Kelly pointed out that the residential properties nearby may be flooded in their own right and should have their own flood defence measures but that such flooding possibility is not a consequence of the development.
In relation to the potential for emergency access in cases of flooding of the Ferry Road Mr Kelly indicated that every year the N67 floods for a few hours and that based on future flood assessments the road is likely to be impassable for four to five hours in a 1 in 200 year flood event or more extreme events. Mr Hussey considered that this matter is addressed in condition 18.5 of the recommendations of the Manager’s Report but that it had since been further considered and a document in this respect was circulated. In relation to the off-site situation the applicant and fire officers have since discussed a special emergency response plan to include measures such as shutting down of the plant to reduce on site risks during such periods and alerting emergency response in the event that access external to the site is unavailable. It would also be required that the site be equipped with monitors and pumps to provide some initial control and a water monitoring system for prediction purposes. Mr Kelly indicated that the process of implementing an accredited safety management system for the existing plant had commenced.
Mr Donovan indicated that the local residents should be assisted in terms of mitigating factors for flooding and that climate change needs to be addressed. Mr Kelly confirmed that the flood risk assessment was undertaken in accordance with the very recent OPW Guidelines. Mr Mulcahy also addressed the existing oil storage tanks which had been
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 37 of 74 referred to in the QRA and that even in the event of tank failure or a leak there is no risk of overtopping of bunds.
In relation to the demolition phase the 2008 Planning and Development Regulation provides that development now includes any demolition associated with the development. Thus it would seem to follow that demolition associated with development requiring an EIS also requires an EIS. It is premature to undertake that assessment at this time and any condition in relation to demolition would be premature and possibly inappropriate. The EIS contains a commitment to undertake the demolition. The decommissions which is a necessary prelude to the demolition phase must be undertaken under the terms of the IPPC licence within six months of cessation of use of all four units.
In relation to the need for an SEA and the Shannon LNG project Mr Mulcahy indicated that there appears to have been a reference to the EU Petitions Committee. Mr Clear referred to the petition being possibly in relation to the proposed Shannon Estuary power generating zone. Mr Donovan clarified that an SEA is required before the plants proceeded and that the Commission agreed due to the proposal of two hazardous Seveso sites. Ms Muldowney indicated that an interim ruling appeared to have been undertaken that the rezoning of lands for the LNG terminal should have been subjected to a strategic environmental assessment as more than 10,000 people were affected. Mr Clear noted that the recently updated Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines contained an SEA.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 38 of 74 ASSESSMENT
I propose to examine the issues arising in this case under the broad headings below.
1. Principle of Development 2. Adequacy of EIS and need for SEA 3. Appropriate Assessment 4. Other procedural Issues 5. Ecology 6. Flooding 7. Safety 8. Emissions to Atmosphere 9. Soils and Geology 10. Surface Water 11. Roads and Traffic and Parking 12. Human Beings 13. Landscape and Visual Impact and Cultural Heritage 14. Financial Contributions 15. Other Issues
Principle of the Development
In relation to the general principle of the development proposed and the site suitability there are a number of aspects including: - the national policy particularly energy policy, - availability of ancillary infrastructure and general suitability of site.
National energy policy
Energy policies at a national level address matters of efficiency, climate change and cost as well as the critical importance of security of supply in terms of economic growth. In general I consider that a proposal of this nature advances the national policies partly through supporting renewable energy generation and particularly by the provision of additional electricity generation to meet increased demand in the future. On the other hand national policies refer to reliance on imported fossil fuels and the need to change this dependency. It is also the case that there is an unprecedented growth in the permitting of gas fired power stations in recent years and a short term surplus of supply.
The concerns expressed by An Taisce in opposition to this development include : • there is sufficient flexible energy generation to support wind energy; • there is increasing renewal on gas powered generation at a national level; • there is no particular strategic need for additional power generation in this region; • in view of the economic downturn and the excess energy and advances in other renewables, policy should be reconsidered and an independent study commissioned. .
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 39 of 74
I refer the Board to comments made by An Taisce at the hearing in relation to its endorsement of a number of proposed energy projects which it considers are of strategic importance (Day 2, page 9). This would include support by the national committee of An Taisce for the proposed Great Island CCGT plant.
Adequacy of flexible energy generation
As the applicant noted at the end of the hearing the development is not just a proposed for baseload CCGT plant as phase 1 is for the provision of an OCGT plant. The flexibility of the latter is such that in emergency situations, times of exceptionally cold weather or when there is a dip in renewable production, electricity can be rapidly generated. A certain amount of highly flexible generation is required to support wind energy. An Taisce however states that the required capacity has been permitted. Taking into account the number of peaking power plants permitted or before the Board for consideration I consider that this argument appears to have merit. Indeed the applicant did not overly emphasise this aspect of the development in the oral hearing discussion or presentations. I would note that this part of the country is being increasingly important in the wind energy sector. However, it has not been demonstrated that the OCGT development is actually needed to support wind energy generation. I do not recommend that the Board grant permission for the development for reason of supporting renewable energy alone.
Increasing reliance on natural gas
An Taisce’s concerns include that ‘near gas’ will be depleted and that by 2030 Ireland will be at the end of a long gas pipeline and costs will increase to the detriment of local business and domestic customer. It is undisputed that there is adequate national power generation capacity in the short term (seven years) and this is acknowledged in various publications including the GAR. The Tarbert site is accounted for in the GAR which estimates that taking into account new generation and interconnection a surplus of at least 700MW is observed for 2010-2016. At Tarbert the GAR refers to Unit 4 being closed by 2015, and to the likelihood of new units opening at this (and the Great Island) site by 2012.
In this context and having regard to the emphasis throughout energy policy and land use planning policy relating to security of supply, I consider that the request by An Taisce effectively that no further gas fired plants be authorities is highly questionable. The calculated short-term excess in capacity includes that a new plant would be operational at this site by 2012. Additionally, the excess in capacity is not that large bearing in mind that some permitted developments are not commenced or incomplete. Great Island is still before the Board and two plants are only recently permitted. As one observer at the hearing noted it is preferable to have an excess in power generation and in the meanwhile in my opinion, pending future development in blue energy and other clean energy generating options it is reasonable in the interest of security of supply that the development proposed be facilitated. In this regard I note that the wind energy sector has been successful in contributing to the energy market in Ireland but that compared with
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 40 of 74 blue energy it is a well tested technology. While there are some success stories in the blue energy sector I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence including from Ms Muldowney’s presentation for the Board to be satisfied that realistically long term energy planning can be put on hold pending widespread development of and investment in new technologies.
In relation to security of supply which I consider is the most critical matter for the Board to concern itself with in terms of national policy, I consider that a grant of permission should be forthcoming. This is a fossil fuel based plant but it is an efficient and cost effective technology and at the present time it appears to be the most certain option in terms of security of supply.
In relation to the matter of electricity costs I note the arguments in relation to ‘near gas’ and reliance on external suppliers but I also consider that there are serious financial risks in putting a hold on longer term generation planning on the basis that there are likely to be better technologies at a future date. Future reliance on natural gas is acknowledged as being problematic, but the White Paper’s acceptance that such reliance will continue for the foreseeable future must be considered.
There may also be a strong rationale for a further study at this time. However, in effect An Taisce is calling for the Board to refuse permission on the basis that the existing energy policy is not appropriate and for the Board to effectively call for a halt to further gas fired production at this site or at any site where there is not a demonstrated strategic need. The Board is best placed to consider its role in the shaping of future energy policy having regard to the impact of incremental authorisation of natural gas fired power plants. In doing so however, it is essential that the Board is satisfied that security of supply is achieved and in the absence of demonstrated and timely alternatives I do not consider that a refusal of permission is warranted.
Other Comments
I note that An Taisce state that there is no strategic requirement in this area which would justify further development of gas fired power generation and I consider that the applicant did not persuade the hearing otherwise.
The applicant’s reference to the recent amber alerts is not a strong argument in my opinion as the energy generation and distribution sectors are likely to change radically in future years on construction of recently permitted CCGT plants and the interconnector.
I note that An Taisce strongly queried the predicted regional growth in electricity demand which Ms Muldowney stated were implausible. As the applicant point out the Regional Authority is best placed to consider these matters and I consider that the Board should give some weight to the draft Guidelines. In addition I note that the historical contribution of the Tarbert power plant to regional power generation has been 590MW.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 41 of 74 Availability of ancillary infrastructure and general suitability of site
Gas Supply In relation to the alleged reliance on and intrinsic connections between the current proposal and the Shannon LNG plant, I submit that there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant is wholly dependent on the Shannon LNG development for gas supply. A number of references in the application documentation refer to the responsibility of BGN and Gaslink for routing and construction of the pipeline. At the hearing the applicant acknowledged that the ultimate source of gas might be a spur from the Shannon LNG pipeline but reiterated that the responsibility for provision of supply is for BGN and Gaslink. Equally the securing of consent for a new pipeline from the grid is an option for providing gas to the new plant and in this regard ongoing pre-application consolations were noted in the applicant’s submissions. My view is that a decision on the specific source of gas and the route of any pipeline are unresolved matters.
In relation to the observers’ comments regarding the expenditure involved in provision of possibly a second gas pipeline in north Kerry I note the comments but consider that this is not the forum for resolution of this matter.
I consider that the Board should primarily be concerned that a supply of gas can be reasonably provided and that the site is generally suitable in that relation to proximity to the grid, which is the case. The prevailing uncertainty relating to the pipeline is not an unusual circumstance and has not previously precluded the Board from granting permission for power plants.
Having regard to all of the above I do not consider that there are grounds for refusal of permission based on prematurity or absence of agreement regarding the finalised gas pipeline. Nor do I consider that permission for the proposed development should be withheld on the basis that the source of gas might be from the Shannon LNG facility, which is presently subject of legal challenge. This is an independent project with options for supply.
Other infrastructure At the hearing the applicant provided a useful list of planned upgrades to power lines and substations in this region as well as envisaged dates for completion. I consider that there is ample evidence that the area is to benefit from infrastructural upgrades in the area to allow for the mid-merit or baseload phase. The established output of the plant on site is 590MW but it is not clear that future output will be regulated at that level. I note however that the connection and the total output and mode of operation of the plant is not ultimately a matter for the Board. The development will be subject of separate regulation which will determine this matter. In this regard there was discussion at the hearing in relation to the baseload operation and the applicant acknowledged that the CER had indicated that the site might be most suited for peaking power.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 42 of 74
General Suitability Overall I consider that having regard to the brownfield nature of the site, the established use, the existing electricity infrastructure and planned upgrades and the prevailing planning policies, the site is in principle suitable for a development of the type proposed.
Adequacy of EIS, need for SEA
Adequacy of EIS I refer the Board to the role of the EIS as a ‘jumping off point’ in the EIA process as described by Mr Mulcahy. The EIS submitted has been supplemented by further information in line with the issues highlighted in the agenda circulated. The question therefore is whether there is now sufficient information available for the purposes of environmental impact assessment.
The Board will note in considering the remainder of this report that complete exhaustive investigation of the site context has not yet been undertaken; I refer for example to geotechnical investigations and contaminated lands and other matters. However, I am satisfied that such information is not necessary for the Board at this time and that the EPA will play an important role in some aspects through the licensing process. Equally the detail of some of the extensive mitigation measures, for example in relation to construction management are suitable for future agreement with the local authority. In areas where matters of fundamental importance in the decision making warranted more detailed presentations such as flooding and traffic for example, supplementary information provided at the hearing lead to resolution. Other baseline information was discussed at the hearing for example in relation to air emissions and visual impacts and I am generally satisfied that the impacts can be appropriate assessed. The sole exception in this respect would be consideration of ecology as discussed below under appropriate assessment.
The EIS submitted is legally adequate insofar as it addresses all of the minimum requirements. Equally however, and with the exception of ecology, I am satisfied that the breadth of the investigations and the depth of consideration of the impacts and mitigation measures proposed in that document and discussed at the hearing provide sufficient information to enable a full assessment of the development.
Strategic Environmental Assessment A substantial concern addressed in two observations at the hearing relates to the need for a strategic environmental assessment to be undertaken. Submissions in support of this argument refer to cumulative impacts arising from two Seveso developments close to each other, to the decision of the Commission in relation to the Shannon LNG project, to the sourcing of gas for the plant from the Shannon LNG pipeline and to Energy Plans proposed for the estuary.
In relation to the general issue of whether or not there is a requirement for strategic environmental assessment I note that this arises in relation to plans and programmes and that the requirement in this case is for an environmental impact assessment, which is the
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 43 of 74 normal assessment procedure for projects. In the oral hearing submissions there was an attempt to link the project with the Shannon LNG development, which it is stated is to be investigated by the European Commission on the basis that it should have been preceded by a strategic environmental assessment. I consider that this matter should not be further considered by the Board as there is no necessary direct connection between the current proposal and the Shannon LNG plant and secondly I can find no legal basis for determining that SEA is the appropriate legal mechanism in this case. Equally as the development provides for a continued use of the existing lands and is not of radically different nature to the existing plant and taking into account the QRA undertaken, I do not considered that there are highly significant long term environmental consequences arising from the cumulative impacts with Shannon LNG.
Appropriate Assessment
I will address the following : • Overview of AA • Appendix 12 • Nature and adequacy of the screening report • Conclusions
Overview – Appropriate assessment is an assessment of the implications of a plan or project on a Natura 2000 site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The starting point is a screening stage. Where significant effects are likely, uncertain or unknown at screening stage there will be a requirement to undertake an appropriate assessment.
There are two publications of particular relevance namely the DEHLG Guidelines published in December 2009 and the 2002 EC publication Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. The screening stage of the process of appropriate assessment is addressed in both documents. The purpose of the screening stage is to form an objective conclusion as to whether the likely effects of a project or plan, alone or in combination with other projects or plans, upon a Natura 2000 site are significant effects. Annex 1 of the EC 2002 report indicates that consideration of adverse or beneficial impacts is relevant in terms of ‘significance’ and that the assessment of significance is essentially a judgement based on a number of factors such as the character and value of the affected environment, the magnitude, extent and duration of change, the resilience of the environment to cope with change, confidence in the accuracy of prediction of change and the scope for mitigation. Alternative approaches to consideration of significance also exist.
The guidance documents require application in the screening stage of the precautionary principle proportionate to the project or site in question. In terms of determining ‘significance’ one document makes a comparison to the test which would be applied in determining if EIA is required noting that where an EIS is required it should normally be assumed that an appropriate assessment will also be required. AA will address only significant effects as they relate to the designated site and its conservation objectives. A rigorous approach to screening will be required.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 44 of 74
Appendix 12 - The screening report is presented in Appendix 12 of the EIS wherein the applicant concluded that significant effects are not likely to occur. The 21 page screening report identifies and considers the potential impacts. It outlines for example the special conservation interests for the SPA and SAC, the risks during the construction and operation phases are identified and are considered as to whether they are significant as meant in AA.
The risks including disturbance and disruption to birds during the construction phase, risks of spillage, the impact of NOx during operation and matters to do with fish impingement and otter disturbance are concluded to be not significant or uncertain or unknown in terms of the conservation objectives.
Thus the screening report concludes that the conservation objectives of the SPA and SAC features will be maintained. As significant adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites are unlikely from the construction or operational phase and no cumulative or in-combination impacts on the integrity of the sites are predicted, it is concluded that an Appropriate Assessment is not required.
Nature and Adequacy of the Screening - I consider that the basic requirements of objectivity and certainty in the screening process demand a high level of baseline data, understanding and knowledge of the Natura sites. In addition, the need for objectivity and transparency should be demonstrated by the use of indicators such as the estimated degree of decrease in key species to ensure that the conclusions drawn are demonstrated to be objective. Professional judgement also is of considerable importance in the process.
DEHLG has not requested that an AA be undertaken. Nevertheless I consider that the relevant guidance documents require that the screening process be transparent and in this regard I have some concerns. In considering the applicant’s position as set out in Appendix 12 and taking into account the information in the EIS and presented at the oral hearing, I highlight consideration of the effect on protected birds and marine ecology in particular. Both are relevant in terms of the conservation objectives.
In relation to the overall approach to the screening report I note as follows. The power plant at Tarbert pre-dates the designation of the SAC and SPA and the ecological values for which the sites are designated as part of the Natura network have not been demonstrated to be affected by the existing industry. However as Dr Payne mentioned at the hearing in relation to birds one would have to be able to assess the situation without the plant to see its actual effect, in relation for example to the degree to which birds may be avoiding the plant. It is also the case that the existing plant pre-dates current legislation and practice. I consider that the effects of the new plant need to be separately assessed. This assessment should in my opinion have regard to whether the effects likely are significant in terms of the conservation objectives of the SPA and SAC. Thus information regarding the conservation status including long term monitoring data is a necessary starting point. It is not reasonable that the Board is requested to accept largely
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 45 of 74 unfounded statements to the effect that there is no significant effect arising from the existing plant – this needs to be documented with reference to local conditions.
I consider that the primary question should be whether or not the proposed development is to give rise to significant effects , not whether these effects are less than the existing plant which is sited adjacent to the designated sites. However, a theme throughout the screening report is that the impacts arising are not likely to be significant as they are not expected to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the habitats. I consider that this general approach is not correct. It does not allow for a thorough investigation of the complexities of the impacts which may result from the proposed development and for consideration of the significance of these effects. In addition, this approach is not backed up by adequate and detailed reports on the sensitivities of relevant species and their conservation status.
In relation to cooling water intake for example, I am unconvinced by comments which refer to reduction in the cooling water intake and the fact that less fish will be entrained. The conservation objective for the SAC includes protection of a list of Annex II species. The 2006 Fisheries Board study identified a high level of impingement of fish and that the cooling water intake are a possible pressure on the estuarine fish. The original proposal as presented in the EIS was to refurbish the cooling water intake. The revision to the layout and the installation of a new type of screen as discussed at the hearing has not been accounted for in the screening report. In principle I consider that the level of fish entrainment arising from the development needs to be assessed as to its significance in terms of the screening report. If the Fisheries Board recommendation is adhered to it would appear that a conclusion of no significant effects might arise.
In relation to marine ecology I consider that there are a number of uncertainties relating to Annex 2 species. One of these species, twaite shad, is described as being particularly sensitive to noise. The significance of effects from the proposed development in its operational or construction phases is not addressed. Salmon are described as being sensitive to thermal changes and to turbidity and again I am unconvinced that there is sufficient follow up to these stated characteristics of the protected species when it comes to the screening stage. On the matter of reduced thermal load, I do not consider that it is sufficient to state that the proposed development will not have a not a significant effect without prior assessment of the actual thermal load, or of the cooler water temperature on fish numbers or species and any consequences for feeding birds / mammals. I conclude that there is a need for further assessment on the matter of cooling water intake and water emissions in terms of the impact on the marine ecology to produce a persuasive and conclusive screening report, particularly where the conclusion of that report is that an AA is not required. The baseline information presented in relation to marine ecology appears to be well researched insofar as a large number of studies are referenced but the screening report is deficient in its failure to draw conclusions in terms of specific impacts arising.
In terms of the potential to give rise to effects on the SPA the screening report identifies the construction phase as of most relevance, the main risks being disruption and
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 46 of 74 disturbance to birds feeding and roosting in the mudflats especially adjacent the causeway road and contamination by discharges and releases during construction of the habitats that are of importance to qualifying bird species. Operational impacts are also noted. The effects are not considered significant as set out on page 14 of the Appendix where there is reference to the habituation of birds to traffic on the causeway, to the use by the wintering birds of the eastern side of the bay about 500m from the causeway and 1.5km from the site boundary and other factors. There is reference to another estuary site where research indicated that birds tend to stay 200m from construction sites.
At the hearing I requested more information in relation to the baseline data; in response it was confirmed that no site specific surveys were undertaken on behalf of the applicant, that the information in relation to the usage by birds of the eastern side of Tarbert Bay was based on a conversation with NPWS. I note that at the screening stage the relevant guidance refers to it not being essential to undertake baseline studies. However, there remains a high level of burden of proof particularly when it is being concluded that AA is not required. When queried as to whether there might be particular reasons for birds concentrating at that part of the bay Dr Payne did offer a few possible suggestions including that they may be moving away from the existing plant. The applicant has not provided information in relation to sensitivities of particular bird species to construction noise or the relevance of seasonal considerations for example. There is a reference to Tarbert Bay as a small but important part of the SPA this is not explained. The level of information presented in the EIS is poor insofar as there is no presentation of baseline data related to this particular part of the SPA, to the impact of the existing plant and to the conservation status of relevant species in the SPA, which is a very large site spread over a number of coastal zones.
Having regard to all of the above I have no option but to conclude that in relation to birds, the EIS and the screening report are not demonstrated to be based on a detailed knowledge of the habitat including nature of relationships between birds and the existing plant and natural habitat. The conservation status of species in situ is not described. There is no evidence of use of indicators or objective criteria for the future scenario which includes construction of the new plant in two phases at the time when the existing plant will remain operational. The SPA site code 0044077 states that the site receives pollution from several sources and that it is not known if these have any significant impacts on the watering birds. It is not clear if this reference would include licensed facilities operating within their relevant parameters and the matter is not picked up in the applicant’s submissions. Having regard in particular to the lack of site specific information regarding birds, I do not see how the applicant has concluded with certainty that there are no significant effects particularly in relation to birds but also to marine ecology and at the very least the fundamental matter of transparency is not achieved.
Conclusions - I conclude that it is not proven that the development will not have a significant effect on the Natura 2000 Sites and their qualifying features. The applicant’s submissions and statements in the EIS address this issue in a roundabout way by stating with reference to the existing plant that the emissions are lower, that the activities will not impact on the integrity of the site or the qualifying features and that there is no
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 47 of 74 probability of a significant effect on the conservation objectives and hence no need for AA. I do not agree with this approach. I do not consider that the applicant’s submissions have justified the decision not to prepare an AA. That is not to imply that I consider that there is evidence presented to the effect that the development would adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned – that is an entirely different matter. However, I do consider that there is uncertainty and a lack of transparency, that there is doubt about the risk of a significant effect and that therefore an AA must be carried out .
The matter of whether there would be an adverse effect on the integrity of a Site is not part of the screening stage . It is part of the AA as set out for example on page 25 of the EC document. In bringing this matter into the screening stage I consider that its whole purpose is undermined. The applicant’s approach defines the screening process as answering the question ‘ can it be demonstrated that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site’. In my view that approach is not in compliance with guidance documents as the question posed in fact refers to the AA process. The fundamental matter I suggest is whether or not the applicant has through the provision of sufficient objective information demonstrated that significant effects are not likely to arise. I am not persuaded by the evidence presented and I do not consider that the Board can conclude that the decision not to undertake AA was correct in this case.
I consider that the lack of objection by DEHLG regarding the screening process must be given some weight but I reiterate the need for certainty and objectivity and thoroughness at the screening stage. I conclude that an AA is required in this case.
Other procedural Issues
Ten Year Permission The adequacy of the public notices was considered at the oral hearing in respect of the failure to include reference to the ten year duration of the permission. Submissions on behalf of the applicant noted that the regulations do not require duration of permission to be contained in public notices and that the notice was submitted to the Board for comments and that none were raised. I note that the EIS and the non technical summary refer to the ten year permission and that the Board has previously accepted similar public notices without reference to the duration of permission. In this context I consider that the requirements for public notification have been complied with adequately.
Information submitted to hearing I have considered whether it would be appropriate to require further public notification in relation to the information submitted at the oral hearing. The nature of the information submitted did not alter the physical development except through the provision of a low flood defence wall and bank. In the context of the overall scheme before the Board this additional feature would not constitute a material alteration. The information / documents presented at the hearing largely clarified submissions which had heretofore been available in the public realm. I have concluded that there is no requirement for further public notices.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 48 of 74 Project Splitting Project splitting was referred to at the oral hearing and I would support submissions on behalf of the applicant to the effect that this term is appropriately used when an application is split to ensure avoidance of the EIA process. I consider that the separation of the pipeline and the power plant in the consent process is acceptable and does not undermine the thinking behind environmental assessment and is not an invalid approach.
Ecology
I now propose to consider in more detail some of the specific ecological concerns. I refer mainly to aquatic species and to birds as specific conditions are required in this regard and the protection of a number of fish and birds are at the heart of the European site designations.
Fisheries
The baseline evaluation of the estuary and the evidence of the Fisheries Board refers to a number of fish of commercial importance and of conservation importance. A number of protected fish including four Annex II species are of medium to high value. The potential impact of water abstraction is an important operational impact and the applicant acknowledges that the potential for fish to be impinged by the fine screens at the cooling water intake will remain. As a mitigation measure the applicant refers to the reduced volume of water intake which means that fewer larval fish and eggs will become entrained. There is also a commitment to use the best available technology in consultation with the relevant authorities to minimise fish impingement.
Generally, the position of the Fisheries Board in its presentation to the hearing involves opposition to the existing layout of the current screening arrangements on the cooling water intake. The recommendation of the Central Fisheries Board is that the impact of cooling water intakes on fish populations could be reduced by a system which returned live fish from thrash baskets to the sea. Mr Fitzsimons also referred to the availability of very efficient mechanical screens such as flat bar screens that virtually no fish pass through; I consider that this revision would be appropriate and should be a condition of permission if granted. Dr Payne for the applicant stated that the suggested improved screening would be feasible, clean and is the most cost effective measure.
There was a discussion in addition in relation to acoustic measures which might discourage certain species from that part of the estuary. This would be specific to whatever species have hearing within the particular range. A system to deter a large number of species may be unfeasible and unnecessary.
In relation to the suggestion that the system be air cooled I consider that there is not a strong case for such a system in the interest of protection of fisheries. In this regard I note that the Fisheries Board has no concerns relating to the thermal plume and that the plume is significantly reduced in this application. I also consider that it would constitute a radical alteration to the design of the plant and that there would be cost and visual
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 49 of 74 implications which would have to be considered. A condition in relation to such a system would not therefore be appropriate and if the Board pursue this matter a revised set of drawings, EIS and public notices should be sought.
On the basis of discussion at the hearing, I recommend that the Board require by condition that a screening system be installed to prevent entrainment of fish and other aquatic species and consider that subject to mitigation the development is acceptable in terms of nature conservation objectives arising insofar as protection of fisheries is concerned. A separate planning condition is considered appropriate in the interest of clarity.
Birds In terms of the impacts on birds the estuary is of international importance and Tarbert Bay is a small but important part of the designated SPA, which is the most important coastal wetland site in the country and regularly supports in excess of 50,000 wintering waterfowl. The report of the DEHLG to the Board states that the importance of the site is primarily for over-wintering water birds and notes the presence of migratory water birds which use the site as a stopover.
Neither the site of the proposed development nor the shoreline are important to feeding or nesting birds, which congregate at the inter-tidal mudflats and which utilise the salt marsh vegetation fringing the mudflats as high tide roosts. As set out in the EIS the potential for significant construction phase disturbance to feeding and roosting activities are deemed unlikely as the birds are habituated to traffic on the causeway and the main feeding and roosting inter-tidal areas are in any case at a significant distance from the site and will not be visible. There are in addition no known high tide roosts close to the site. Mitigation measures set out include visual screening of the extent of the construction site and laydown area to prevent starling and disturbance of birds. These measures are contained in the EIS and do not need to be highlighted by planning condition. In theory I accept the comments regard the impact on birds. However, as stated above there is inadequate baseline information presented as the basis for the conclusions in relation to bird activity.
In relation to the lighting regime of stacks this matter was highlighted in the report of the DEHLG as requiring further information while noting that the overall lighting emissions level is to be reduced. A the hearing it was noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the existing stacks which are substantially taller have resulted in bird collisions and it is therefore considered that the reduced lower stacks will further minimise the risk of such collisions. Dr Payne also referred in his presentation to a study which concluded that towers less than 250m rarely cause a threat. I consider that this matter can be addressed by condition and that a separate condition should be attached.
Mammals
The development does not directly impact on any badger setts or otter roosts although both badgers and otters as well as hares visit the site. There are no identified bat roost. It was confirmed at the hearing that the proposed flood defence works would not unduly
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 50 of 74 hinder animal movement and that no additional mitigation measures arise. I do not consider that further mitigation is required beyond the measures contained in the EIS.
Bottlenose Dolphins
The resident population of bottlenose dolphins is considered to be a species of high value for which the Shannon estuary is a critical habitat. The waters close to the Tarbert power plant are regularly used by bottlenose dolphins
As the works proposed are terrestrial and restricted to the brownfield site and there is no blasting proposed no significant noise or other impacts which might affect the dolphin population are likely. The applicant has advised that the noise assessments undertaken were on the basis of bored piling but that sheet piling which generates less noise would be likely to be used in the event of ingress of water.
General Comment It is essential that the construction phase impacts are minimised to lessen disturbance to species and habitats of ecological value. In this regard I note the importance of the applicant’s proposal to consult with the NPWS in relation to the preparation of method statements for each construction activity as part of the CEMP. This matter should be clarified in a planning condition. Subject to the above mitigation measure and having regard to the nature of the development, the site context and the future regulation of water and air emissions by the EPA as well as proposals to undertake prior further investigations of contaminated lands and geotechnical investigations, I am satisfied that the development does not pose a significant threat to the ecology of the area.
Flooding
I propose to examine the following: • the adequacy of the assessment undertaken including proposals for flood defence; • general compliance with the OPW Guidelines; • adjacent lands; • emergency access and site safety.
Assessment Undertaken The issue of potential flooding of the site is addressed in Chapter 14 of the EIS. This contains conclusions of a preliminary Flood Risk Assessment for the site and referred to ongoing development of a Flood Defence Strategy. An Updated Detailed Coastal (UDFRA) and a Flood Defence Strategy (FDS) were made available at the oral hearing. The submissions indicate that there are no records of the site flooding particularly since the operation of the existing power station in 1968.
As the basis of the UDFRA a survey of the shoreline was made and an assessment of the hydrodynamic conditions of the site and analysis of climatological data undertaken. All of this culminated in modelling of the potential for overtopping of the existing defences. Flood inundation models were run for the 200 year and 1, 000 year flood return period flood event, with and without allowance for climate change. This concluded that parts of
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 51 of 74 the site including the development area are at risk of flooding during tidal events of 200 year and 1,000 year return periods.
The development at a proposed finished floor level of 6.2m ODP is below the 200 year predicted still water level. The 1,000 year event water level identified was 7.37mODP and allowing for an additional sea level rise the final 1,000 year return period with climate change event was set at 7.50mODP.
Options for managing flood risk are addressed in section 7 of the UDFRA. For reasons of staff resources, site layout and operation requirements and costs the selection was restricted to permanent flood walls and earth embankment defences. Section 8 sets out the options for addressing the provision of a flood defence for elevated still water levels, which is the most significant concern. The effect of the required flood defence is that walls or embankments would be generally 1m above existing ground level but up to 1.5m in areas.
In relation to the impact of flooding on the capped landfills the UDFRA indicates that the most significant impact would be physical damage to the capping layer and that there may be lesser effects such as increased infiltration of floodwater through the capping layer. The UDFRA indicates that it is not possible to quantify this risk but that mitigation through construction of flood defences would be of benefit. In particular one of the three capped landfills is on the island and at a low level and would benefit from the flood defence structures proposed. I consider that the presence of the capped landfill supports the selection of flood walls and bunds instead of simply raising the level of the proposed plant.
I consider that the requirement in the OPW Guidelines to undertake a flood risk assessment, which addresses depth and rate of onset of flooding is complied within this case. The information is readily understood and includes clear diagrams of the flood sequence. The proposals for flood defence appear to resolve the issues arising and also benefit the site and environment through protecting capped landfills.
Compliance with the OPW Guidelines On the basis of the OPW Flood Risk Management Guidelines the development is within Zone A and Zone B namely it is located in areas where highly vulnerable development including essential infrastructure such as electricity generating power stations should not typically be located unless the Justification Test is satisfied. This matter is addressed in section 14.4.6 of the EIS wherein there is reference to the established use of the site, to the availability of infrastructure and cooling water and to the policies regarding increases in energy generation and efficiency. The FDS it is stated will include measures to minimise risks.
The requirements of the Justification Test are not in my opinion explicitly complied with through the submissions in the EIS. Neither however is it clear that a Justification Test is actually required. The relevant County Development Plan was adopted on the 6 th of April and thus pre-dates the Guidelines. The site is not zoned for electricity generation (other than wind). However, it is an established use on a brownfield site and the planning practice relating to established uses effectively confer such status on the site. I also note that in section 3.5 of the OPW Guidelines it is stated that essential infrastructure
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 52 of 74 may be located in Zone A lands where it cannot be located elsewhere; having regard to the established use, the need for large volumes of cooling water, the availability of certain infrastructure which is not readily available else where, it could be argued that the development cannot reasonably be located elsewhere. In addition, I note that the section 5.28 of the Guidelines refers to situations where the sequential test and the Justification Test need not apply including in the case of additions to existing industrial enterprises and this is relevant also to the current proposal. Finally I note that the assessment undertaken demonstrates that the proposal complies with point 2 of the Justification Test. I conclude that in principle the development is acceptable in terms of compliance with the OPW Flood Guidelines.
Adjacent Residential Properties In terms of the potential impact of the development on adjacent lands the FRA repeats comments contained in the EIS in relation to the large scale of the estuary which has a substantial capacity to accommodate the effects of any local change arising from either the development or the proposed mitigation measures. I refer the Board to the diagrams within the FRA which indicate that a number of low- lying residential properties to the south of the site are predicted to be flooded during the 1 in 200 year flood event. I consider that the statements on behalf of the applicant in relation to absence of consequential flooding of adjacent lands are reasonable and that there is no evidence to support any likelihood of a ‘knock-on’ effect. These properties would appear to require flood defences, but that is outside the scope of this application and is not related to the proposed development.
Emergency Access and Site Safety In terms of site safety and access during flooding the proposals in the FDS will allow for free movement of personnel within the site during flood events. The applicant’s submission also refers to safe havens within the site where staff can shelter in the event of extreme flooding and / or emergency; this would include high ground away from the plant close to the site entrance. This matter would be addressed in any agreed Emergency Plan.
Of concern also is the flooding of the Ferry Road which presently occurs for short periods twice a year and is predicted in future years to be impassable in the future for a two hour period either side of high tide. During discussion at the hearing the Fire officials indicated that in periods of predicted extremes of flooding the prior closure of the plant would be the proposed mitigation measure. The preparation and implementation of an Emergency Plan is proposed and this can be subject of a planning condition. I am satisfied that the periodic flooding of the site would not pose unacceptable risks in terms of management of an emergency subject to prior closure of the plant which is feasible.
Conclusions Having regard to the UDFRA and the FDS and to the submissions on behalf of the applicant and the comments of the Council’s Fire Officer and Assistant Fire Officer I am satisfied that the proposed development including the defence walls and embankment, which are proposed as mitigation is acceptable at this location. In terms of the emergency access route there are realistic options for dealing with this matter. I also conclude that the applicant has demonstrated that the development would not exacerbate
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 53 of 74 flooding on adjoining lands. Having regard to the presence of capped landfills I am satisfied that the approach of the flood defence strategy involving the construction of barriers to prevent flooding of the site is appropriate and has advantages over increasing finished floor levels of the proposed development. As proposed by the applicant it would be essential that the flood defence measures are implemented prior to commencement of construction.
Safety
The primary matters arising in respect of safety include: • contents of the Quantitative Risk Assessment; • the advice of the Health and Safety Authority; • the future use of the island tankfarm; • commissioning phase.
The QRA The QRA identified a range of potential hazards at this site including the potential for escalation with the top tier NORA facility, accidents arising from the pipelines and from the jetty unloading lines, from the AGI and the distillate storage tank (tank no. 3). The QRA is a 56 page report some of which is of a highly technical nature and it is contained in Appendix 3.3 of the EIS. Amongst the salient points are: • none of the inner, middle or outer risk zones extends beyond the site – they do however extend to the marine environment – Figure 6.1 refers; • the risk of escalation with the top tier NORA facility was deemed to be negligible due to distance and the nature of the activities – overall this was not deemed to be a credible risk; • societal risks were restricted to the workforce and were deemed acceptable; • containment of the 11,000 cubic meters of distillate oil in the event of catastrophic failure would be achieved through construction of a 254 m long 1.5m high baffle wall.
Advice of HSA Due to the requirement to store approximately 10,000 tonnes of distillate oil at the island tank farm as an emergency backup fuel the site will constitute a lower tier Seveso site. It will be a new establishment. The technical advice of the Health and Safety Authority is that it does not advise against planning permission in the context of major accident hazards. Rresponsibility for emergency access and fire fighting lies with the Council.
In terms of the report of the HSA two potential risks are highlighted. Firstly there is reference to the possibility of a major accident to the marine environment from a catastrophic failure of a storage tank. In this respect the HSA refers to the proposed lining in the existing bund (section 1.4.4 of the QRA) which is to be impermeable material to the satisfaction of the Authority. Even lower in terms of likely risks the HSA identifies the possibility of a fire in the bund resulting from serious tank failure. All risks are considered by the HSA to be sufficiently low. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to attach a planning condition in respect of these matters.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 54 of 74
In relation to the imposition of conditions in general the HSA notes that its advice is site specific and based on the location of the tanks and the particular circumstances of the case. I consider that it would therefore be inappropriate to any alteration of the site layout without first seeking the advice of the HSA.
On the basis of this report of the HSA and the QRA I consider that the Board can be satisfied that the development is acceptable in terms of major accident hazards and threats to the marine environment and the local population in particular.
Future Use of Tankfarm In relation to other matters raised in the QRA the Fire Officer concurred that the potential for a domino type hazard with the NORA facility was not of concern because of the distance and the nature of the developments. Mr Kelly for the applicant also stated that the siting of the CCGT plant would not limit any future use of the island tanks. On this point however Mr Hegarty referred to the fact that only half of one of those tanks would be used and when queried on whether a condition restricting the volume of storage should be attached to any permission he agreed that it was appropriate (Day 2, Page 125). He clarified that these comments relate to the completed phase as opposed to the interim phase when there will be a requirement for heavy fuel oil storage. Mr Kelly noted that the analysis undertaken is based on the storage of 11,000 cubic metres of distillate oil and that the remainder of the tanks would be empty. This is indeed my understanding of the basis for the QRA (section 1.4.4 of the QRA refers). Mr Mulcahy however stated that there would be no reason to oblige that the tanks be retained empty where there is no reason for that requirement. Ultimately, Mr Hegarty agreed that if the on-site plans cater for the storage of heavy fuel oil in the tanks that would be acceptable.
I consider that there are a number of legitimate concerns relating to the proper planning and sustainable development of this area which arise in this case and which warrant a response in the form of planning conditions. Section 7.8.3 of the Development Management Guidelines refers to situations where fire safety considerations may arise including in respect of the location of the proposed development in relation to existing industrial or other hazards and the fire service access for the proposed development, both of which are relevant to this case.
In relation to the future use of the island tankfarm I recommend that it be subject of a future planning application for reasons other than safety concerns. Critically such a condition would eliminate any potential landuse concerns which might arise in relation to the future use of the tanks and will provide certainty particularly for local residents. To clarify the extent of the permission and to eliminate possibilities of subdivision of the planning unit in the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, I recommend that the future use of the tanks be subject of a separate application.
As a further comment I consider that the detailed comments of the fire officials at the hearing was slightly confused but their basic standpoint was to revert to the plans prepared, with which they were satisfied. In this respect I note that the QRA appears
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 55 of 74 based on the tanks being empty in the medium term. This again emphasises the fact that the future use of the tanks is a legitimate concern for a planning condition if only to clarify the extent of the development.
In relation to the access route and emergency planning in general the Fire Officer’s recommendation is that these matters be incorporated into a special emergency response plan within an accredited safety management system. This includes measures such as shutting down of the plant and alerting the emergency services in the event of a predicted flood event, monitoring water levels and maintaining the ability to pump water prior to arrival of the emergency service. The applicant indicated that this has commenced.
Commissioning The Board may be familiar with a recent accident which occurred at the commissioning stage of a CCGT plant in the US. This accident occurred subsequent to the report of the HSA. I do not consider that it is appropriate or necessary to refer the matter back to the HSA for two reasons namely that it appears not to have been the first accident of its type in the US and secondly the HSA did not make any subsequent comment and retain a future monitoring remit.
In relation to the accident in the US, no specific information on this matter was presented at the hearing. However, it was indicated that the accident was related to the purging of gas lines using gas in an enclosed space and that the standard procedure likely to be adopted in this case would be to use an inert gas. Mr Hussey stated that the recommended condition 18 relating to careful planning and monitoring of the commissioning phase process was intended to ensure best practice in this regard. It was indicated by Mr Hegarty that the results of any inquiry in the US would be followed and any recommendations would be adhered to.
I note that the risk of accidents was subject of considerable comment by one observer. However, there was no specific technical evidence presented to the effect that the nature of the proposed development is inherently unsafe or that the proposed site is inherently unsuitable. I do not consider that the evidence warrants either a request for additional information on any matter or a refusal of permission.
Conclusions I do not consider that the Board can reasonably form the view that the proposed development would either give rise to significant risk of a major accident or endanger the health and safety of persons occupying or employed in the structure or adjoining structures. I consider that the only matter for the Board to consider would be the conditions to be attached relating to the requirements of the Fire Service and the use of the mainland tankfarm and the adoption of an accredited safety management system. I consider that it would be appropriate that such conditions be attached.
Emissions to Atmosphere
The EIS Chapter 15 addresses climate and air quality. At the hearing the applicant clarified that closure of unit 4 by 2015 is required in order to comply with the Large Combustion Plant Directive.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 56 of 74
Baseline information presented in the EIS is mainly from the rural ‘D’ agglomeration data. I note that use of long-term data even where it is not from the immediate site context may be preferable to short term site specific data according to the EPA Guidelines. In addition the evidence at the hearing in relation to the Shannon LNG application was that although some short term monitoring was undertaken for that site the Zone D results were in fact used anyway. The results presented are formed based on a three year average and are considered representative. The selection of monitoring stations in this case was undertaken in consultation with the EPA to ensure representative ness of sites.
The dispersion model ADMS was run for four scenarios. This is a complex model which allows for factors such as building wake and terrain effects. The relevant emissions modelled were NO 2, NO x, SO 2, PM 10 and PM 2.5 . Scenarios 1 and 2 included the OCGT burning natural has and distillate in conjunction with the operation of Unit 4 of the existing plant and Scenarios 3 and 4 were modelling of the CCGT burning natural gas and distillate fuel oil. Based on the above information a stack height determination assessment was undertaken to ensure adequate dispersions. It is not anticipated that the stack height would change through the IPPC licensing application because the assessments which were conducted as part of the EIA are the same assessments that would be completed to support the IPPC application itself. A third stack may be required however depending on the plant selected. It is noteworthy that in this case the primary determinant is local building heights.
The proposed plant will give rise to far lower emissions than the existing plant by reason of use of low sulphur fuel and emissions control technology. In general the data presented shows that the maximum process contributions to ground level concentrations is ‘small’ or less, all of which descriptions are quantified in the EIS. While the applicant noted that the main pollutant of concern would be NO 2, the results of the modelling undertaken demonstrate that all relevant pollutants for the purposes of the air quality standards are at sufficiently low concentrations. Control of pollutants emitted is ultimately a matter for the EPA through licence and while the Board may refuse permission for related reasons there is no evidence in this case to support such a decision. The observer’s reference to a dissimilar development is not relevant to this case.
In terms of the short term air emissions the assessment undertaken identifies a moderate risk of dust effects but these can be mitigated as part of the CEMP. I also accept that the applicant’s submissions demonstrate that negligible impacts on the designated ecological sites would result. Subject to conditions relating to the IPPC licence and limits on dust and implementation of mitigation measures as proposed, the development is acceptable in terms of air impacts.
In terms of climate change the burning of fossil fuels and continued reliance on such energy production measures was of significant concern to An Taisce. I have addressed the principle of the development above in this context. I note that climatic factors are addressed relatively briefly compared with air quality impact. The data provided
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 57 of 74 includes the emissions intensity in terms of tonnes of CO2 per megawatt for the proposed plant which compares very favourably with other types of combustion. The requirement for new entrants to apply for an allowance of CO2 emissions is also noted. I have no further comments to add to my conclusions above.
Soils and Geology
The site is of made ground and across the site investigations revealed that bedrock varies between 1m bgl and 9.3m bgl. The site has been reasonably well investigated but constraints to full investigation include the existing power lines and the presence of the existing power plant. As would be expected there is evidence of site contamination hydrocarbons, metals, TPH and PAH compounds. Some breaches of standards relative to generic assessment criteria are noted and assessments are ongoing. Three on-site disposal areas are identified in the EIS.
The potential release of contaminants is one of the possible impacts of consequence at this site which adjoins designated environmental areas and is close to residential development. The risk of contamination at the site is described as high when the source pathway and receptor characteristics are considered. The development could give rise to the creation of new pathways and could result in additional contaminations. Health and ecological impacts could arise due to direct and indirect contact between human beings, flora and fauna and contaminated lands. At operational stage contamination could result from foundations and spills.
While it is acknowledged that the groundwater resources within the site are likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the estuary the EIS does not present a lot of detail on this matter. In addition when requested at the hearing to comment further on this matter the applicant suggested an additional mitigation measure in the form of sheet piling which would provide an impermeable barrier. I consider that this proposal would limit any potential ecological impact which might arise in this case. No long-term dewatering is required to facilitate the development. The main threat to groundwater and the adjacent habitat in this regard would include to be the potential for spills, alterations to transmission pathways and impacts related to the foundations. In addition I note the applicant’s comments in relation to the positive impacts from removal of contaminated sources and breaking of pollution linkages.
I consider that the mitigation measures set out in section 13.5 of the EIS adequately address relevant likely impacts and while further investigation is required in relation to intrusive works and drainage systems I consider that there is sufficient information available to enable the Board to be satisfied that there are no significant environmental concerns arising to warrant a refusal of permission.
Surface Water
In relation to surface water impacts the cooling water intake and the creation of a thermal plume need to be considered in the context of the existing plant which will cease
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 58 of 74 operation by 2015. Both the thermal input and the amount of water intake are significantly reduced; in any case there is no indication that either is causing a significant adverse environmental impact. The control of water abstraction and cooling water are elsewhere considered in terms of ecological impacts.
As flooding is a significant concern in this case it has been separately considered above. I restrict my remaining comments to the potential for pollution and the Water Framework Directive. Under the WFD the Board is required to ensure no deterioration in the chemical status or ecological status of a body of surface water.
In terms of the proposed development there is no change to the domestic water supply requirement, a new water treatment plant will produce process water taken from existing water reservoir which is supplied from the mains; the latter holds sufficient capacity for fire fighting purposes.
Construction phase impacts will be controlled through a proposed Construction and Environmental Management Plan part of which will be a Water Management Plan which will address erosion and sediment control. Standard and well tested measures are proposed to address the construction phase impacts. In relation to the industrial history of this site I note that the capped landfill sites are not to be interfered with and that the proposed intrusive contaminated land assessment will identify any contaminated lands encountered and material will be removed prior to construction activities and in agreement with the EPA.
There are a number of types of wastewater streams arising at this site. Process waste water arises from boiler blowdown and from the on-site water treatment plant and will be discharged by way of a neutralising pit and an automated system will allow discharge only where relevant parameters specified in the revised IPPC licence are metres. Surface water run-off will be collected and treated via silt trap and bypass interceptor. All foul water is to be treated in a new proprietary treatment system. Cooling water will be taken in and returned to the estuary at existing outfalls and table 14.7 of the EIS is a BAT assessment of the cooling water system. The latter will have to be modified to address the concerns of the fisheries. Limited biocide usage has been necessary in practice at the existing plant and this is anticipated to continue.
In terms of the residual impacts arising from the operational phase these are noted to be of similar nature to the existing waste waters but volumes will be significantly reduced and the overall residential impact is not therefore considered significant.
The Water Framework Directive has, as a key objective, a requirement that all water bodies in Member States should achieve or retain good status by 2015. The Lower Shannon Estuary is a Transitional Water Body of overall Moderate Status. General conditions and biological elements are classified as high or good. The water body failed in relation to specific pollutants and chemical status. I accept the comments in section 14.6.2 of the EIS relating to the proposed development which will not introduce specific pollutants and chemicals which are at the root cause of failures under the WFD. In
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 59 of 74 addition I note that the assimilative capacity of the waterbody is large, that various design controls and monitoring proposed will ensure that all practicable steps are to be undertaken to mitigate any adverse impacts on the receiving water and that all waste water streams will be monitored under the revised IPPC licence.
In conclusion in relation to surface water I consider that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the receiving environment and that it will not cause further deterioration of the water body.
Roads and Traffic and Parking
The roads and traffic impacts during the two 24 month construction phases are amongst the most significant matters in this case. The level of impact arising is evident from the estimated morning peak hour of 404 trips and the evening peak hour of 414 weekday trips and the requirement to provide parking for up to 500 workers and to accommodate large loads. As traffic from the subject proposal and the permitted Shannon LNG both converge onto Tarbert village the possibility of overlapping construction phases needs to be considered. It was reported at the hearing that the most likely commencement of construction for the Shannon LNG is mid 2011. In addition to these major developments I note that the NORA facility is currently subject of a planning application and that there was a reference at the hearing to works to the sewage treatment plant which would be undertaken also in the next few years. The latter projects are not within the remit of the Board and are not in any case of the same scale and are not further assessed below.
Tarbert Village Roads and Traffic Management In terms of the carriageway width and condition of the road network in the village centre there are no significant concerns. However, there is a clear need for traffic management measures and the local authority has demonstrated commitment to improving the village core. This particular matter has been subject of study prior to the application and plans have been prepared by the Tarbert Development Association and Kerry County Council. Costings were presented at the Shannon LNG hearing.
From inspection and based on discussion at the hearing the main concern in terms of the impact on the village arises at Bridewell Street. At present with parking on both sides of the road large vehicles frequently cause congestion. Subject to the removal of on-street parking from the northern side Bridewell Street it is of sufficient width to cater for two way traffic flow. Plans for an inner relief road and car park at the rear of Bridewell Street are being advanced by the Council and the Part 8 is to be advertised two months. The inner relief road is a short road its main purpose being to access the car park. I am satisfied that the implementation of these measures will provide sufficient road pavement width for free-flow of traffic through the village.
Funding for the inner relief road and car park is to be generated through payment of contributions by developers of the Shannon LNG facility. The local authority noted at the hearing that substantial funds had been paid under PA0002 and €800,000 had been spent in recent months on resurfacing of the Ferry Road and Listowel Road. However
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 60 of 74 the money for works to Bridewell Street and the provision of the car park would be dependent on the Shannon LNG project going ahead and contributions in this regard are still not forthcoming. In view of this uncertainty and also in the interest of equity I consider it is appropriate that a special contribution towards these works be made in this case. The amount payable is best determined by the local authority in light of the prevailing circumstances at the time including a detailed costing of any works to be undertaken and consideration of the amounts to be paid by other developers.
Pedestrians The village centre can be a hostile environment for pedestrians at present as crossing the 9m wide street in the presence of large vehicles is a daunting task. The mitigation measures proposed in terms of traffic lights will be of benefit as the cycle proposed would incorporate an all green stage allowing for diagonal crossing movements. The hearing was advised that in general pedestrians should not have to wait for more than 45 seconds. This would be a significant improvement over the current situation. I also consider that the removal of parking from one side of the street will benefit pedestrians as present conditions encourage motorists to straddle the footpath when parking, which in turn discommodes pedestrians. In all , I conclude that subject to the implementation of mitigation measures the comfort and safety for pedestrians will be greatly improved.
Junction Capacity The traffic assessment undertaken for the EIS is based on the prior completion of Shannon LNG, which was the available information at the time. At the oral hearing new evidence was presented which examined the possibility that both developments would be constructed at the same time.
Baseline traffic counts undertaken in late August revealed that the AM and PM peaks were determined to be between 08:00 and 09:00 and between 17:00 and 18:00. Analysis undertaken using PICADY revealed that the two junctions analysed are operating well within capacity in 2009.
An assessment of the construction traffic generation was conducted based on the construction plan and based on a maximum of 500 construction workers on site at any one time and 20 heavy vehicle deliveries to the site during the day. Construction workers are assumed to arrive at the site by passenger vehicle and to arrive and depart at peak times with an assumed occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle. Even based on the Shannon LNG being operational the accepted capacity standards for one of the junctions analysed was breached; this is Junction 2 at the R551 and N67, i.e. Bridewell Street and the Ferry Road. With mitigation in the form of a simple signalised junction it was predicted that congestion is effectively eliminated. Thus the applicant’s own calculations demonstrate that the proposed development gives rise to a need for a set of traffic lights to cater for traffic generated by the development. I am satisfied that this measure is sufficient to eliminate congestion related to the development.
In the event that the construction of Shannon LNG and the Tarbert station coincide significant network congestion issues arise as demonstrated in the Mr Doherty’s submission submitted at the hearing. I refer in particular to the Table 7 Page 14 which provides RFCs for 2015 for the two junctions modelled. Without mitigation measures
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 61 of 74 significant congestion and delays would be expected. On modelling the two junctions as simple signalised junctions the congestion is eliminated and the RFCs calculated show the road network would operate well. Based on this data there may be a requirement for traffic signals at both junctions but subject to their installation the development proposed and the Shannon LNG construction traffic can both be accommodated without impeding traffic flows.
Abnormal loads The EIS indicates that about 28 abnormal loads will enter through Foynes over the construction programme. The county manager’s report has indicated that the road network from Foynes Port is adequate to cater for large loads and that is had been so used in the construction of wind farms recently. At the hearing the applicant confirmed that that a specialist haulier had been requested to examine the Ferry Road and that it was deemed suitable for large loads. In terms of mitigation the suggestion is that these deliveries will take place at non sensitive times and outside of peak traffic. Following some discussion on the options for access to the site I am satisfied that delivery through Foynes port is the preferred option.
Parking for CCGT Plant There is ample on site parking for the operational phase. The construction phase with peak employment levels of 500 staff will generate significant parking requirements. The EIS is silent on the location of workers’ parking will take place but this was clarified through the preparation and submission during the oral hearing of a sketch map SK01 showing 491 spaces at three main parking areas within the site. This includes some areas of hard standing provided for construction of the original plant as well as existing parking spaces. I am satisfied that there is available on site parking to meet parking demand for construction workers and shift workers.
Having regard to the proximity of the site to the ferry terminal and to the fare structure applied it is likely that traffic and parking impacts will affect county Clare as well as county Kerry. I noted at the time of my first inspection to the site and in particular a late afternoon ferry ride, that there is some level of car sharing taking place at present in order to avoid the quite punitive rates for cars compared with pedestrian fares.
At the hearing it was indicated by Mr Doherty for the first party that at Killimer at present there are two car parks accommodating over 56 cars in total and that an additional overspill area may be available as there are further lands within the applicant’s holding. The requirements for parking in the county Clare area are determined by the applicant on a conservative basis to be 1.25 persons per car possibly resulting in a requirement for up to 50 car parking spaces. Typically it is estimated that 10 cars would be parked at the ferry car parks at present.
In the event of shortfall in parking at the Killimer side there are two options namely rationalisation of use of the upper car park to provide increased capacity or available of further lands at that location for temporary parking. There is sufficient land available and further consideration of this matter can be addressed through agreement with KCC as part of traffic management planning.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 62 of 74
Other matters Operational phase trip generation estimates are shown in table 10.3. A total of 37 trips in the AM peak hour is predicted and of 27 in the PM peak hour. These are not significant levels and do not require any planning conditions or further assessment.
Section 10.5.1 of the EIS referring to noise mitigation measures suggest that a shuttle bus from a remote car park to the site might be an option. This matter was not expanded upon elsewhere in the EIS and I do not recommend that it be pursued by the Board at this stage as it would be likely to give rise to issues with the provision of a parking site which might be difficult to resolve or have adverse consequences for the immediate area.
In relation to the impact on schools in the village the applicant notes the location of the Community school relative to the access routes to the site. I consider that the national school at the Listowel Road will be more affected particularly at opening times but the short timescale involved means that some restriction on construction traffic can be arranged. I accept the proposal that the applicant and the Council agree this matter and any necessary restrictions as part of the traffic management plan.
Notwithstanding the fact that the demolition of the existing power plant is subject of a separate application the applicant has submitted a TTA for this phase which is contained in Appendix 2 of the EIS. Congestion is again predicted to arise at Junction 2 due to workforce departing the site but this congestion is mitigated by maintenance of the signalised traffic controls. This future impact will be assessed under a subsequent planning application and does not require detailed consideration at this time.
Human Beings
The overall socio-economic value of the development is quantified by the applicant in terms of largescale short term employment and permanent employment and related spin- offs. In addition the development and related mitigation measures will result in improved traffic management and works to the public realm, which will increase the commercial and residential attractiveness of the village. Negative construction phase impacts are also acknowledged in the EIS but the overall conclusion is that the development will positively contribute in socio-economic terms.
The applicant’s view is not shared by three of the observers. An Taisce’s concerns relating to the national energy costs are discussed above wherein I concluded that the case is, at the very least, not clear-cut. I note that Mr Donovan and Safety Before Shannon LNG would have significant concerns regarding safety which they consider would not justify the development and would not be balanced by proposed financial contributions. I consider that the QRA and the comments of the HSA are convincing and that there is no evidence of unreasonable risk.
I concur with the overall conclusion that the socio economic benefits to the locality will be positive.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 63 of 74
In relation to land use impacts I consider that the revitalisation of the brownfield site which has an established use for energy production is beneficial and I agree with the comment in Chapter 8 of the EIS that the operation will not change significantly in land use terms. I conclude that the development will not affect land uses in the area.
In relation to the impacts on the nearest residential receptors the two main concerns are construction impacts and operational noise. The implementation of the CEMP will mitigate the construction phase impacts, particularly noise and dust and traffic related impacts. There will be two periods of 12 and 10 months when construction noise levels are high. Table 11.6 of the EIS shows however that based on modelling undertaken there is not predicted to be any exceedance of the construction phase limits for the 6 receptors assessed. Vibration is discounted in Chapter 11 of the EIS as being of concerns given the 210m distance to the closest sensitive receptor.
Operational noise levels are limited by the EPA to 55dB(A) L Aeq,30min daytime and to 45 dB(A) L Aeq, 30min night-time. The predicted noise levels for the operational phase at the noise sensitive receptors are below the existing ambient levels and below the impact assessment criterion for the night-time phase. At four NSRs there is a decrease of over 3dB(A) hence the positive impact is noticeable event for night-time; this is based on the existing plant noise levels being discontinued as will occur by 2015. In addition, the tonal element identified in IPPC monitoring is not expected to arise. In short, there will be a positive improvement in the experience of residents in terms of the acoustic environment and the construction phase impacts can reasonably be mitigated.
Landscape and Visual Impact and Cultural Heritage
Baseline Conditions The receiving landscape character is described in section 16.3.2 of the EIS largely with reference to the landscape character areas defined in the county development plans. I consider that the Shannon Estuary along the north Kerry and Limerick coasts is a special landscape. The need for its protection is recognised in the prevailing development plan policies which include listed views and scenic areas. The history and land uses of the area, which are relatively rare on a national scale are embedded in the visual perception of the Shannon estuary. The area’s distinct landscape character derives from a combination of the natural features and the presence of large- scale industrial plants strung along the coastline, as well as the many structures related to shipping and seafaring. The addition of the permitted Shannon LNG plant will alter the existing context which presently is dominated by Moneypoint and Tarbert power plants.
The EIS in designating sensitivity weightings takes account of the topography and the existing development. Viewers’ evaluation of the resource and its sensitivity to change arising from the proposed development will take account of the fact that the proposal will be located on the site of an existing power plant. In this regard it is unsurprising that the development proposed notwithstanding its scale and nature and its location in an attractive landscape attracted no significant objections based on visual impacts.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 64 of 74 The applicant’s submissions refer to the fairly restricted views within local area subject to the theoretical zone of visibility and based on inspections of the area and I concur with this assessment. Notwithstanding the panoramic nature of some views to the site from the estuary and from coastal lands and from uplands, there are also large areas from which the site is screened.
Overview of impacts and design The existing plant is most clearly visible from two locations namely from the coast road to the east of the site and from Kilkerrin point opposite the site and the proposed plant will similarly be have more impacts from these locations; viewpoints 1, 11, 12 and 15 are noteworthy. The oblique aerial view presented at the hearing provides a good image of the landscape context and existing development.
Permanent landscape impacts in this case derive from the introduction of an additional large industrial structure at this site; there are no other significant changes in topography or in terms of removal or addition of vegetation. The construction phase impacts including the presence of cranes and stored materials will be significant but of short duration.
The demolition of the existing power plant will be a significant landscape impact as it is of considerable scale and height. The structures associated with the existing power plant are notably larger in height. For example existing stacks are 152m and 121m in height while proposed main and bypass stacks are 65m and 60m. Demolition of the existing plant is envisaged in the medium term and while it will be subject of a separate application the applicant has committed to undertaking this work. Images submitted at the hearing give an impression of the post-demolition appearance of the site; these require careful consideration as they contain inaccuracies but it is clear that the overall impacts would be beneficial. In addition the Board will note supplementary images of viewpoint 11 and 15 after demolition and I submit that the visual benefits at this location would be replicated at viewpoints 1, 3, 12 and 16 in particular.
In overall terms I consider that at a regional scale the additional plant will not significantly alter the landscape resource or in any way diminish its value. The effect of the proposed power plant will be to consolidate the industrial presence on the site. The views experienced from nearby public roads or from the Shannon will not dramatically alter. The new development will be viewed in the context of the NORA facility and the island tankfarm and while the proposed CCGT plant is of significant scale its impact is reduced by its location within the industrial setting.
Due to the nature of materials, lighting and elements of the design I consider that the new facility will have a more overtly industrial character than the existing power plant which has mellowed over the years and has a simple elegant mass. The more utilitarian character of the proposed plant is however balanced by its greatly reduced mass and height and the infrequency of plumes. Lighting of the structure is a concern which requires consideration in the event of a grant of permission. On balance I do not consider the landscape character is significantly affected by the proposed development, even
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 65 of 74 when the cumulative impact of both plants is considered. However, with careful consideration of external finishes, lighting and where possible, co-ordination with existing development, any adverse impacts arising can be minimised.
Listed views and protected structures The site is visible from a number of listed views and protected structures. These are described in detail in Chapter 16 of the EIS and in general I consider that this assessment covers all relevant issues and is accurate. I refer below to some of the more significant impacts on the protected views and landscapes which will be impacted by the proposed development. Figure 16.5 of the EIS is a composite map based on the relevant development plans.
View from Knockanore, Co. Kerry The protected view from the high road at Astee to the south west will not be significantly impacted due to the significant distance of over 15km. Within this view at present the existing power plants are visible and I agree with the comments in the EIS that the landscape character of the landscape character area is adversely affected by their presence. However, I also concur with the assessment that the importance / sensitivity to change is low because of the location of the development within the site of an existing industrial facility and that the impact will not be significant.
View from Carrigafoyle / towards Ballylongford Bay, Co. Kerry In this area is Carrigafoyle Castle, a visitor attraction. I consider that the special value of the landscape in this area is related to the reed beds en route to the castle and to the views to the Bay. There are some views to the site from this general area but I agree with the assessment made in the EIS that the visual impact will not be significant as the proposal will be seen in association with the existing plant. The landscape character will not radically alter and the proposed development will not significantly detract from this view.
View from Beal Point, Co. Kerry I agree with the comments in the EIS to the effect that this view is not significantly affected.
View from vulnerable landscape at Killimer – Killadysert Co. Clare From some area within this vulnerable landscape the proposed plant will be very visible. The view from Kilkerrin point is shown in photomontage 11. This is one of the locations from which the site is very prominent in views and due to the unimpeded direct nature of the view to the site from this location I agree with the applicant’s assessment that there will be an impact of medium significance. From Killimer and from the ferryboat I consider that there will be impacts of medium to high significance depending largely on the distance from the site. Views from the ferry are changing constantly but they are of importance in defining the first impressions of county Kerry to many tourists. However, while views are of large impact their duration is short.
Views from the scenic route to the west of Killimer, Co. Clare Depending on the direction of travels views to the proposed development will be limited or will be in the context of the existing power plant at Moneypoint and on the site. Moving further west to the vulnerable landscape perhaps the area of most significance is Scattery Island from which there are direct views to the site. The additional built form at the subject site will
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 66 of 74 not be of significant visual impact in my opinion and Moneypoint power plant will remain the dominant form detracting from the estuarine landscape.
Views along the N69 , Co. Limerick From Glin village and west of Glin including a location at an entrance gate to Glin demesne there are very clear views to the site and the existing plant as well as the Moneypoint plants are prominent in the landscape. Viewpoint 1 succeeds in providing a general impression of the landscape and of the proposed development but may not come close to conveying the more significant landscape impacts. In places further west along this road the existing plant appears far more dominant than is represented in this image . However, it is the case as shown in viewpoint 1 that the landscape context is already defined by the industrial sites, which terminate the views along the relatively narrow river channel. I agree with the comments in the EIS that the magnitude of change arising is small.
Scenic area at entry to Tarbert village This is an attractive landscape shown in viewpoint 2 and the existing plant is a dominant landscape feature. The new plant will partly be concealed by topography and will be viewed in the context of the existing plant. However, due to the proximity to the site I agree that the impact on this scenic area may be considered moderate.
Residential properties The lands at which the CCGT is to be located are very well screened from nearby residential receptors. The nearest houses are the cottages close to the secondary site entrance and these are quite low lying and shielded by topography. The important views from these houses would be towards the estuary hence the visual impact of the development is insignificant. Tarbert House nearby does not have direct views from ground level or from the house towards the site and there would be no significant visual impact arising from the proposed development. The demolition of the existing chimneys would be positive in terms of visual impact as these are quite prominent in views from the garden of Tarbert House.
Mitigation In terms of mitigation measures limitations of available lands is noted. The site itself does not have large areas of land available and such lands are further constrained by a need to maintain 23m buffer zones adjacent underground power lines. I concur with the applicant’s comments that screening through planting cannot be achieved as the plant is too large and views from the estuary especially are quite distant. However I also agree with the landscape architect’s comments in relation to the beneficial effect of tree planting in terms of integrating the site with surrounding lands. The open nature of the site boundary and the absence of trees at the coastline means that the proposed CCGT plant will be especially prominent in views from the ferry. Realistically the options for tree planting are quite restricted; this can be further explored between the applicant and the planning authority in the event that permission is granted.
In terms of the layout of the site there is no indication that minimisation of landscape impacts was a guiding force. Rather, it is clear from submissions at the hearing that the technical requirements and the existing infrastructure the main drivers of the site layout. While I am of the opinion that different site layouts would have produced less adverse
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 67 of 74 visual impacts I do not recommend that this matter be further explored having regard to technical, cost and safety implications.
Cultural Heritage In terms of architectural heritage the nearest protected structure is Tarbert House; I have concluded above that there are no significant indirect impacts. Close to the Killimer ferry terminal there is another large house, also a protected structure , Bessborough House, which was not inspected by myself or by the applicant’s team. However, I would agree that the distance involved is such that the additional industrial development at this site would not be likely to have an effect on the setting. Scattery Island a monastic site and Carrigafoyle Castle are both national monuments which are visited by the public. Given that they are both over 9km from the site the development will not adversely impact on their setting.
The proposed development site is of architectural potential and architectural monitoring during site clearance is recommended. This would ensure appropriate monitoring and if necessary excavation of any subsurface remains associated with the remains of the battery and the star fort within and adjacent the site.
Conclusions
In conclusion in relation to listed views and scenic areas I do not consider that the proposed development will adversely affect these views to such an extent as to warrant a refusal of permission or a significant variation to the scheme.
In terms of the assessment undertaken I am satisfied that the viewpoints selected for the preparation of the photomontages are generally representative. I consider that the photomontages are a useful aid.
Subject to appropriate conditions ensuring the monitoring of the site for archaeological remains, the development is acceptable in terms of architectural and archaeological heritage.
Having regard to the likely future use of the island tankfarm and options for altering the finish on those tanks, to the likely future demolition of the power plant, the ongoing application at the NORA facility and the need to select and agree the finishes of the proposed development and the possibility of minimising light intrusion, I recommend that the Board require the applicant to retain the services of a landscape architect to ensure that the proposed development and future layout of the site are best integrated into the landscape and co-ordinated with other development.
Financial Contributions
Community Gain
I consider that in principle a community contribution as provided for under the Act is appropriate. This matter was further explored at the hearing and the discussion
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 68 of 74 considered both the amount which would be appropriate and the criteria for deciding the amount.
In relation to the criteria for determining the amount payable there was general agreement that the main concern derived from the construction phase disturbance arising. The county manager’s report had indicated that while the development would give rise to a positive impact on material assets there would be potential disruption to the community and that an amount should be payable for the duration of the construction. At the hearing the Council officials again stressed that the final sum determined by the Board should be set out over the duration of the construction phase. I am in agreement with the local authority in relation to annual payments.
In relation to criteria for determining the amount the discussion at the hearing revolved around issues of timescale of construction, relevance of the existing plant and its emissions, relevance of the power generating capacity of the proposed plant and employment benefits. There was general agreement that the most relevant issue is the construction disruption.
In terms of consideration of the actual sum which would be appropriate the applicant suggested a payment of €150,000. This constitutes a doubling of the of € 15,000 per annum for five years minimum recommended in the county manager’s report, which elected officials considered was too low. The local authority welcomed the offer to increase the contribution to €150,000 if the payment is to be on an annual basis. The applicant indicated that five payments of €30,000 would be acceptable.
I refer to three previous decisions by the Board which are similar developments and which attracted a community gain payment.
PA001 – CCGT of up to 450MW at Toomes (near Louth Village), County Louth and Cornagarvoge, County Monaghan. The Board required a community gain of five annual payments of €50,000 each (€250,000 in total). The EIS indicated that civil, mechanical, electrical works and commissioning are estimated at approximately 30 months.
PA0011 – CCGT of 430MW at a brownfield site at Derrygreenagh, Co. Offaly . The Board required a fund in the amount of five annual payments of €70,000 each (€350,000 in total). Table 11.1 of the EIS stated that the 38 month construction period would be over five separate periods.
PA0015 – CCGT up to 350MW output on a brownfield site at Lumcloon, Cloghan, County Offaly. The Board required a fund providing for three annual payments of €50,000 each (€150,000 in total) commencing on commencement of construction of the facility. The typical construction timeframe was indicated to be 34 months (2.83 years) between ‘Site Evaluation’ and ‘Commissioning and Testing’ of the plant.
The Lumcloon decision was used by the applicant as the basis for suggestion the overall sum of €150,000. The Board will note that the €50,000 annual payment provided for under that decision is not dissimilar to the amounts payable in the two other decisions
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 69 of 74 referred to above for developments of similar nature. In this case the overall figure proposed by the applicant needs to be considered in the context of the relatively long construction timescale which is set out in the EIS as being in two phases of 28 months and 30 months. This was adjusted at the oral hearing when it was stated that two 24 month construction periods is anticipated. I consider that the duration of construction is a material consideration. The payment proposed by the applicant in the amount of €30,000 per annum is substantially less than was required in comparable cases.
In this case apart from the general disruption to residents close to the site, the development will adversely affect the tourist image of the county of Kerry as the first impression for many visitors will be of a large construction site. The impact on the village through traffic increases and parking restrictions are also noteworthy. The estuary walkway, which is a popular local amenity will also experience increased levels of traffic and noise and visual impacts for the construction period. I agree with the comments by the Tarbert Development Association that the through flow of construction traffic through the village warrants consideration of a relatively high figure. For all of these reasons I consider that an annual payment of €50,000 in keeping with similar decisions of the Board would be appropriate and I recommend that a total of €200,000 over four years be required to be payable through a community fund administered by a properly constituted liaison committee.
The expressed view of some elected representatives was that the community gain should be ongoing, that the amount appeared very limited compared with the Shannon LNG contributions and that the amount should be increased by €5,000 to provide for local amenities. I consider that the comparison with Shannon LNG is not relevant as the developments are quite different in nature, extent and location. I also suggest that there is no justification for an ongoing payment regime particularly in this instance where there is an established use of the site and where it is agreed that the rationale for the payment is related to construction disturbance. In relation to the proposal to increase the amount of the community gain by €5,000 I suggest that this amount would be remain too low.
The Board will note that Mr Mulcahy objected to a comparative assessment as a means of calculating any community gain, while acknowledging at the same time his references to the Lumcloon decision. In the absence of any other guidance I suggest that this is a reasonable basis for the above recommendation.
When asked, nobody at the hearing could offer any reason why funding should be shared with any community in county Limerick. Given the distance to the nearest village in county Limerick I consider that the community gain should be agreed only with Kerry County Council and the liaison committee.
Special Contribution
In relation to special contributions two matters arise; fire safety requirements and traffic lights.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 70 of 74 In relation to special fire fighting training and equipment the relevant officials confirmed at the hearing that there is some overlap between the current proposal and the requirements arising at the Shannon LNG development and to the NORA facility. The Board will note that under condition 36 of the Shannon LNG permission (PA0002) there is a requirement to pay for specialist fire fighting facilities but no amount is referenced. The condition also allows for contributions to be apportioned in the case of subsequent development benefiting from the specified infrastructure. Subject to a similar provision relating to apportionment of costs I consider that the required special contribution of €30,000 is reasonable.
The requirement for traffic lights is also recommended to be subject of a special contribution in the amount of €30,000 to cover the cost of purchase and erection of the structures. Two sets may be required to ensure traffic flow. It was made clear at the hearing that these lights are desirable, if not necessary, even in the absence of the development and that the local authority is pursuing this matter regardless of the proposed development. I refer the Board to page 56 of Volume 2 of the transcripts wherein it is stated that the local authority is committed to installing traffic lights regardless of any development. The legal requirement relating to special contributions under section 48(2)(c) is that payment may be made only where there are specific exceptional costs not covered by a scheme which are incurred by a local authority in respect of infrastructure benefiting the proposed development. The traffic lights at ferry road are suggested by the applicant as a mitigation measure to overcome congestion and in this respect I am satisfied that the special contribution payment for the traffic lights should be attached by way of special contribution. The second set of lights would benefit the development only in the context of serious traffic congestion arising from construction of Shannon LNG and the CCGT plant and in such circumstances a special contribution could also be reasonably requested.
While I have set out above the likely amounts payable I recommend in view of uncertainty regarding future payments related to other developments that the amount in the special contribution be agreed with the local authority.
General Contribution
The Council has not recommended payment of a contribution under the Development Contribution Scheme. This matter was subject of some discussion during the oral hearing and at the special meeting of Kerry County Council. At the latter a number of councillors queried the view of the Director of Services that as there is no increased demand for services there would be no requirement for a contribution under the Scheme. The Director of Services explained at the time of the special meeting that in order to apply a levy there must be a reason for it and they must be justified. The brownfield nature of the site was the significant difference in terms of the requirement for levies between this and the Shannon LNG development. At the hearing it was further clarified that the Council took account of the brownfield nature of the site and the reduced impact in terms of water usage, operational traffic etc.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 71 of 74 I am of the opinion that there are very limited circumstances under which any local authority may decide not to require payment of a contribution under the General Contribution and following consideration of this matter and the arguments made by the officials I have concluded that no such circumstances arise in this case. In particular I consider that in the absence of a specific objective to exempt certain forms of development the local authority should require such payment on the basis that the understanding of the elected representatives when adopting the scheme is such that it will required unless there is an exemption. No such exemption applies in this case. While the Act states that the planning authority ‘may’ include conditions relating to payments and does not state ‘shall’ it would be most unusual practice in my experience not to require such payment under the Scheme. I recommend that the Scheme be applied to ensure ongoing improvements to the county’s infrastructure.
At the hearing the officials confirmed that if a contribution was to be charged then Class 8 would be appropriate. The submissions noted that payment for roads under the scheme would be on a case by case basis and under a special contribution. I note that in the case of Shannon LNG the Board required that payment be made under a special contribution towards the upgrading of Bridewell Street and the provision of an off-street car park; equally I consider that payment should be made in this instance towards such works as the removal of parking from Bridewell Street is necessary to facilitate traffic management associated with the development.
Payment for sewerage does not apply as public services are not being utilised. The amount for water and amenity on the basis of the stated floor area of 6,403 square metres and on the basis of the 2008 scheme, which the local authority confirmed remains valid is €77,028.09.
Other Issues
The applicant indicates that no evidence was presented to indicate whether or not there is need for condition requiring the granting and review of an IPPC licence prior to development. However, such a condition is normally attached by the Board and is necessary to ensure that the development does not progress prior to environmental emissions being appropriately investigated and controlled. I therefore recommend that such a condition be attached.
The Board will note that there is a discrepancy in the photomontages presented at the oral hearing; I refer to the presentation of images showing the elements to be demolished. This is a relatively minor issue and does not require clarification prior to the making of a decision.
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 72 of 74
RECOMMENDATION
Having inspected the site and considered all of the relevant information including the Environmental Impact Statement and supplementary information including information presented at the oral hearing, I conclude that on the basis of available information the applicant has not demonstrated that an appropriate assessment is not required.
As such the options open to the Board would be to request the applicant to revise the screening report or to require an appropriate assessment. I consider that the applicant should be advised that a revised screening report is required and if on undertaking that report it is concluded that there are significant effects an appropriate assessment shall be undertaken.
I recommend that the Board request additional information under section 132 as follows.
It is considered that the screening report submitted as part of the EIS is deficient in terms of its methodology and that the baseline ecological information presented is inadequate.
In relation to the methodology adopted for the screening the Board considers as follows;
(a) the screening stage should be limited to consideration of whether the development would give rise to significant effects in terms of the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites,
(b) the presentation of conclusions in relation to adverse effects on the integrity of the site is not part of the screening stage,
(c) the conclusions in relation to effects on the integrity of the site are not in any case demonstrated in an objective and transparent manner,
(d) the screening report relies overly on a comparative analysis with the existing plant without demonstrating a thorough understanding of the effects of that plant or the degree to which such comparison is relevant,
(e) insufficient consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts arising from the overlap between the phased construction of the CCGT plant and the operation of the existing plant,
(f) it has not been demonstrated on the basis of objective information that the construction phase of the proposed development would not give rise to significant effects on the Natura 2000 sites in view of their conservation objectives.
In relation to the baseline ecological data the Board considers that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient understanding of the condition and complexities of the existing environment on which to base a finding of ‘no significant effects’. In particular the
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 73 of 74 Board considers that there is inadequate baseline information presented in relation to birds including the particular importance of Tarbert Bay, the sensitivities of the species to disturbance and their usage of the estuary including any seasonal variations. In relation to marine ecology it is considered that the impact on aquatic species by reason of disturbance, thermal loads and surface water emissions requires further consideration.
Having regard to the aim of both the Habitats and the Birds Directives to maintain and where necessary restore the favourable conservation status of habitats and species and to the nature and scale of the development and its location, the Board is not satisfied based on the evidence presented that the effects of the development are not significant.
The applicant may wish to consider a revised screening stage report. However, any such report shall achieve the highest level of certainty and transparency if it concludes that an appropriate assessment is not necessary.
In keeping with legislative requirements and the precautionary principle an appropriate assessment shall be undertaken if the revised screening report concludes that significant effects arise.
______
Mairead Kenny Senior Planning Inspector 1st June 2010
PA0017 An Bord Pleanala Page 74 of 74