An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

1. APPEAL DETAILS :

(1) An Bord Pleanala Ref. No.: PL20.235858

(2) Planning Authority: Co. Co.

(3) Planning Authority Reference No.: P09/310

(4) Applicant: Hutchinson 3G Ltd.

(5) Nature of the Application: Permission

(6) Planning Authority’s Decision: Refusal

(7) Location: Coillte, Oakport Demesne, , Co. Roscommon

(8) Description of Development: Erection of antenna support structure with 3no. panel antennas, 4no. dishes, assoc. equipment, fencing and all assoc. site works

(9) Appeal Type: 1st Party (vs. Refusal)

(10) Appellant: Hutchinson 3G Ireland Ltd.

(11) Observers: None

(12) Date of Site Inspection: 21 st May 2010

(13) Inspector: Leslie Howard

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 37 2. SITE CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT DETAILS / DESCRIPTION: (1) Site Location and Description: The application site, stated as 0.015ha, is located at Coillte Oakport Demesne, Cootehall, Co. Roscommon (see copy of the regional locality map attached). Specifically, the site is located on slightly elevated Coillte lands, approx. 1km due NW and across Oakport Lough from Cootehall Village, and 2km due SE from Knockvicar Village. Located approx. 50m from the NW shoreline of Oakport Lough, the site is proximate to the Shannon system navigation waterway, where the River drains from into Oakport Lough. The immediate contextual land use as of maturing forestry. Oakport House is located nearby to the W. Access to the site is via a private Coillte forestry access track, which has its junction onto the R285 (between the N4 and Knockvicar Village) approx. 1.75km to the W of the site. The primary and predominant land use in the area surrounding the Coillte forestry lands is agricultural, and excepting for Oakport House, characterised with what appear as low density single farm homesteads. At the time of physical inspection, waterbased traffic movement across Oakport Lough in front of the site was noticeable (see attached photographs taken at the time of physical inspection).

(2) Description of the Proposed Development: Application was made by Hutchison 3G Ireland Ltd (c/o Tracey Coles, BT Communications) for permission for development advertised as - “the erection of a 30m high antenna support structure with 3no. panel antennas & 4no. dishes attached together with equipment cabinets, other associated equipment, fencing and associated site works … forming part of the National Broadband Scheme (NBS)”, all at Coillte Oakport Demesne, Cootehall, Co. Roscommon (see series of Plans, Elevations & Sections Drawings and assoc. documentation, prepared by Threefold, received by the Planning Authority date

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 37 stamped the 02 nd June 2009, & as F.I. & C.F.I. on the 06 th Aug. & 16th Nov. 2009 respectively – attached on file).

3. PLANNING CONTEXT: (1) Roscommon Co. Dev. Plan (2008 - 2014): Relevant provisions include (see copy of relevant extracts attached) – S.3.12 Infrastructure – Telecommunications S.12.29 Dev. Management Guidelines & Standards – Telecommunications

(2) Lough Key Local Area Plan (2009-2015): Relevant provisions include (see copy of relevant extracts attached) – S.4.9 Telecommunications 4.9.1 Broadband 4.9.2 Mobile Phone Network Dev. 4.9.3 Telecommunications Strategy Policies re. Telecomms. Infrastructure Policies 44 to 50 Objectives re. Telecomms. Infrastructure Objectives 39 to 46 S.5.4 Future Economic Strategy “The rollout of high quality broadband telecommunications infrastructure and services including areas of lower population density is vital and RCC will continue to prioritise its delivery to all parts of the County ...” S.6.2 Natural Heritage S.6.2.5 Trees & Woodlands Contribute to the landscape and visual amenity; S.6.2.8 Inland Waters Policies re. Inland Waterways Policy 86 Required regard to the recommendations set out in the suite of ‘Waterways Corridor Studies’ 2004 & 2005

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 37 Objectives re. Inland Waterways Objective 98 “maintain and preserve the aesthetic value of inland waterways and the waterway corridors, ...from the impacts of dispersed and highly visible development...” S.6.3 Landscape Character Assessment Key Characteristics of Lough Key & Network “The overall image of this landscape is one of an extensive organically shaped Lakeland fringed by broadleaf forest”; Landscape Value • “The Lough Key & Boyle River Network character area is of Exceptional Value; • “Without doubt it is one of the most scenic areas in Co. Roscommon and is of national repute; Table - Landscape Character Assessment Character Area Landform Landcover Value Sensitivity CH60 Special

S.9.3.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives & Matrix 2. Gen. Conservation Policy “Developments will not be allowed in a higher order conservation zone where it is possible in a lower order zone, or outside the study area”; 3. Land Use Zoning Objectives Zone 1 • These lands are the most sensitive to development; • “Generally no development, other than the refurbishment of existing structures, the development of jetties or moorings associated with an existing tourism establishment or development associated with agriculture, should be acceptable in this zone”;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 37 • “…recommended that all lands within this zone be considered for designation as ‘Landscape Conservation Areas, as defined in Sect.13 of the 200 Planning and Dev. Act”; • Dev. proposals “must be accompanied by a Visual Impact Assessment”, which “should pay particular regard to the visual impact of the proposed development from the lake, surrounding lakeshore…”; Zone 1A • “…largely consist of woodlands fringing the lake, and are particularly vulnerable to change”; • “Permissible dev. should be limited to the categories of dev. Listed opposite and subject to strict design controls”; Table - Zoning Matrix Acceptable Proposed Min. land Min. site Visual Conformity Sewage Dev. Landscape holding w’in size Impact with design treatment Conservation 500m of site Assess’t guidelines requirements Area required required Zone 1A Refurbishment Yes n/a 0.2ha Yes DoE - Treatment of existing Conservation systems for structures only Guidelines single house (EPA)

S.9.8 Overall Strategy for Dev. In the LAP Area • Primary Aim – provide for economic & social dev. whilst ensuring natural environment is not unduly compromised; • Main Strategic Aims incl. – – conserve and enhance the quality of the environment; – conserve the natural heritage of the area;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 37 S.10.27 Dev. Manag’t Guidelines & Std’s - Telecommunications Amongst others required compliance with the following – • indicate what other sites or locations were considered; • telecoms installations not favoured on land where development may be restricted or prevented for amenity reasons; • location so as to minimise any negative visual intrusion on the surrounding area, especially on landscapes of a sensitive nature; • proposals to mitigate visual impact; • demonstrated compliance with IRPA Guidelines

(3) National Policy – D.o.E.’s Telecommunications, Antennae and Support Structures (Guidelines for Planning Authorities - 1996):

The aim of these Guidelines is to provide relevant technical information in relation to installations, and to offer general guidance on planning issues so that the environmental impact is minimised and a consistent approach is adopted by the Planning Authorities in the preparation of Dev. Plans and in the operation of Development Control. These guidelines (dated 1996) require that the “operators of broadcast VHF and fixed radio link installations which support the mobile radio requirements of the emergency services, should where applicable, take cognisance of the Guidelines”. Chapt.4 Dev. Control and Telecommunications This Chapter outlines guidance for pre-planning discussions, design and siting, visual impact, access roads and poles, sharing facilities and clustering, health and safety aspects, obsolete structures and temporary permissions. S.4.2 Design & Siting Location will be substantially influenced by radio engineering factors S.4.3 Visual Impact

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 37 • Stressed as among the most important considerations; • Great care will have to be taken when dealing with fragile or sensitive landscapes; • Location in forestry plantations possible, provided antennae are clear of obstructions; • Emphasise principle of mast sharing and clustering; • In spite of precautions, some locations will remain visible; • Support structure should be kept to minimum height consistent with effective operation; S.4,4 Access Roads & Poles Can cause greater visual impact than installation itself; S.4.5 Sharing Facilities & Clustering • All applicants encouraged to share; • Where sharing mast not possible, applicant’s encouraged to co-locate on a site; • Clustering on elevated lands may not improve matters re. visual intrusion; • support structures used by emergency or other essential services are not suitable for sharing with public mobile telephone services.

(4) Planning History of the Appeal Site and its environs: No planning history is apparent on the application site, or on nearby lands.

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 37 (5) Planning Authority Reports: (a) The Planning Officers final report dated the 09 th Dec. 2009 (subsequent to initial and interim planning reports - ‘undated’ respectively, and the applicant’s F.I. & C.F.I. response submissions dated 04 th Aug. & 12 th Nov. 2009 respectively – all copies flagged on the appeal file) recommends that permission be REFUSED, generally for the same single reason set out in the Managers Order below. This recommendation was made having regard to: (i) Confirmation of the nature and composition of the proposed development; (ii) Consideration of the locational context of, and character of the site; (iii) Contextualisation re. National (DoE Guidelines on Telecommunications, Antennae and Support Structures – 1996) and Local (Roscommon Co. Dev. Plan 2008 & the Lough Key Dev Plan 2009) statutory planning references; (iv) No 3 rd party objections, or submissions apparent; (v) Acknowledgement of pre-planning discussion; (vi) Reference of Departmental and Statutory Body comments (see 3(5)(c) below); (vii) Emphasis of the key relevant planning issues as – • Visual Impact; (viii) Applicant’s F.I. response date stamped - 06/08/2010: • PA accepts principle of need for, and strategic importance of the proposed development; • PA acknowledges proposed development in context of relevant national policy; • PA acknowledges the Co. Dev. Plan 2008 makes provision for the proposed development; • Whilst local area sparsely populated, emphasise locational context “within an area of the Lough

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 37 Key Plan where visual and environmental impacts are controlled”, and in “close proximity to a waterway that is navigable and constantly used for such purposes”; • Consider F.I. response does not sufficiently demonstrate compliance with the Lough Key Plan 2009, “which does not readily permit same”; • Concern re. vagueness of the landowner - Coillte, to retain the trees in the vicinity of the application site; • Reference site location within CH60, designated as an area of “Special Sensitivity”; • Weighted reference to sites location within area designated - landscape character area CH60 and within Zone 1A; • Consideration that “the proposed development is one that would not be readily acceptable (a material contravention may be necessary of the Local Plan to allow facilitation) within this area”; • PA not satisfied that the minimisation of visual impact can be achieved at this location. This because - landowner assurance not clearly apparent of maintenance of screening by means of tree cover; and need for submission by applicant “demonstrating the visual impact of the development from the prospective of a boat passenger on the waterway”; • Emphasise that application and local surrounds “is most commonly viewed from the waterway”;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 37 (ix) Applicant’s C.F.I. response date stamped - 16/11/2010: • S.10.27 of the Lough Key Plan discourages the siting of such structures in environmentally and visually sensitive areas such as that presented here”; • Consideration that whilst Ch.4 allows for masts within woodlands where there is little or no visual impact, “this is not definitely the case in this instance as visual impact of the proposal is not entirely nullified”; • Assert that within Zone 1A, “the proposed telecommunications mast is not open to consideration within the current plan”. Rather, in order for the proposed development to be open to consideration, “a material contravention of the Plan would have to be effected”; • Assert the key issue is “whether such a contravention warrants a positive recommendation” (based on submissions and site observation); • Acknowledge that key infrastructural installations are often unsightly; • Reference other masts permitted in the general area recently, as part of the applicant’s network proposal, though outside the Lough Key Plan area; • Emphasise that lands in the vicinity “are within the Local Plan and are typically restricted”; • Note that “as is typical of the other applications in this series, that the land owner is Coillte and this recurrence is, I would conclude, a welcome co-incidence for both the developer and Coillte likewise”;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 37 • However, strongly assert that “it is however, not necessarily the best planned option and I am not satisfied that this development could not be facilititeated in a less conspicuous location on lands outside the local plan”; • Emphasise that: – the PA “has gone to great lengths in recent times to preserve the amenities of this area”; and – “this area is one of the few within the county that is afforded such protection from visual erosion and I would recommend that this be continued”; (x) Recommend refusal.

(b) Objections / Submissions: No 3rd party objections, or submissions apparent.

(c) Departmental and Statutory Body Comments: Environ. Sect.: No apparent objection, subject to Conditions re. compliance with ICNIRP Guidelines & Euro. Prestandard ENV 50166-2; sustained monitoring of non- ionising radiation; & restriction of ‘sound pressure levels’ (see report dated the 02 nd July 2009). Area Eng. - Boyle: No Objection, subject to standard Conditions. Note concern acknowledged re. prominent visual impact from water based views (see report dated the 19 th June 2009). Fire Authority: No objection (see report dated the 16 th June 2009).

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 37 Irish Aviation Authority: Stated “no observations” (see report dated the 24 th June 2009). An Taisce: State concern that - • applicant has not demonstrated site suitability in the woodland adjacent Oakport Lough; • resultant visual intrusion in a sensitive area; • prejudice to future ecological enhancement of woodland area (see report dated the 19 th June 2009).

(6) Planning Authority Decision Details: Roscommon Co. Co. as Planning Authority, by Managers Order No. PL993/09 dated the 11 th Dec. 2009, decided to REFUSE PERMISSION for the proposed development, for the following 1no. reason (see appeal file):

“The proposed development is located in a scenic area within the confines of the Lough Key Area Plan (Zone 1A) and is also indicated in that plan as being an area of special sensitivity (referred to in that document as CH 60 in landscape character assessment). It is the policy of the Planning Authority to restrict development in this area to small scale tourism projects and residential developments and refurbishments to qualifying persons as set out in Chapter 10.2 of the Lough Key Area Plan. This case does not arise in this instance and therefore, if permitted the proposed development, would materially contravene said aforementioned policy and be capable of eroding the visual amenities of the area and be contrary to its proper planning and sustainable development ”.

Note - The Planning Authority’s regard of the proposed development as a material contravention of the provisions of the Lough Key Area

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 37 Plan 2009, in the stated single reason for its decision to refuse planning permission. This strong opinion, now requires the Board to consider the provisions of Section 37(2)(b)(i)-(iv) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (see copy of relevant extracts attached).

4. 1st PARTY GROUNDS FOR APPEAL – HUTCHISON 3G IRELAND LTD. (c/o BT Communications Ireland Ltd. – 18/01/2010): Introduction: (1) Clarify BT Ireland act for applicant’s re. acquisition of the site, & the assoc. planning issues; (2) Contextualise nature and substance of the application, and the PA’s refusal decision - one stated refusal reason; Summary of the Appeal: (3) Being of strategic national importance, the proposed development complies with implementation of national policy objectives re. improvement of mobile communications services; (4) An essential national need exists for the proposed development, under the govt. tendered project - the National Broadband Scheme (the NBS); (5) Site selected as it meets height requirements, and optimum location re. area coverage and increased network capacity; (6) Proposed development consistent with National Telecomms. Guidelines 1996; (7) The National Broadband Scheme (NBS) forms part of Govt. policy; (8) Proposed development consistent with Reg. Planning Guidelines for the W. Region; (9) Proposed development compliant with the Co. Dev. Plan 2008 (re. telecomms policies) and the Lough Key LAP 2009 (re. provision of broadband), and will provide essential infrastructure to the Co’s rural population; (10) Proposed design will enable possible site sharing, consistent with telecomms national policy;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 37 (11) No other suitable options / alternatives exist locally, to use existing support structures; (12) No other options exist locally, suitable to accommodate necessary telecomms equipment to meet the coverage objectives; (13) Health and safety issues satisfactorily addressed in compliance with the Guidelines 1996; Applicant’s Main Arguments and Consideration: (14) The Need for the Telecommunications Installation: (a) NBS to be rolled out on an ‘electoral division’ basis, addressing ‘electoral divisions’ deemed to be without adequate broadband services; (b) The applicant (ie: ‘3’) and BT Ireland engaged in the construction and rollout of required infrastructure; (c) Assert cell sizes (ie: coverage required by a single site) for the NBS are much smaller than for GSM or 2G networks. Therefore more sites are needed; (d) More sites are required by the NBS, is dependent on the number of users on the network in a given area (ie: more users means additional capacity on the network taken up, causing coverage of the sites to shrink); (e) Clarify that within ‘urban areas’, with greater numbers of users, cells are located closer together (ie:150m - 350m for cells in urban areas). In ‘rural areas’ where user numbers are minimal, cells separation distances are greatest; (f) Key consideration in selection of the application site; (10) The NBS Project Implementation and the Benefits of Broadband: Emphasise the broad economic and community development benefits of the NBS in Ireland; (11) Site Specific Assessment of Need: (a) Reference ‘technical justification’ included with the initial application documentation - demonstrated need, and the lack of suitable alternative sites;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 37 (b) Emphasise that the application site, within Coillte Oakport Demesne, provides coverage to - Cootehall, Knockvicar, Rockingham, Glebe & surrounding residential areas, as well as to roads N4 and R285; (c) Application site “is ideally situated to provide the required level of coverage as set out by the NBS project”; (12) Site Selection and existing Support Structures: (a) Overview of the “existing support structures” surveyed, “but none have been found to provide acceptable levels of operational radio coverage to the surrounding area to fit the objectives for the National Broadband Scheme”. These incl. at- • Vodafone ; • CIE Rockingham; • Vodafone Site 1; • Vodafone Site 2; • O2 Site; • Coillte Turlagh; (b) Stress main objective to provide sufficient coverage to both Knockvicar and to Cootehall; (c) “The other sites investigated would not provide the level of coverage required in the area to allow ‘3’ to fulfil its contractual and licence obligations in the area”; (d) re. ‘Co-location’, clarify that ‘3’ has licence agreements with - • Electricity Supply Board; • Vodafone; • O2 Communications; • Meteor Mobile Communications; • RTE; • Towercom (formerly Eircom Towers); and • Garda Towers; (e) Conclusion: The ‘technical justification’ demonstrates - • the technical need for the Coillte Oakport Demesne site;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 37 • the exhaustive search undertaken, and the lack of suitable alternative sites in the area, “that provide both a technically viable and an acquirable solution”; • Proposed design intended “to have as low a visual impact as possible without compromising the quality of signal”; • Developed site would form an integral part of the strategic broadband infrastructure required for the NBS; Refusal Reason No. 1 -- The Applicant’s Response: (13) Introduction: Having regard to the PA’s stated ‘material contravention’ in the Refusal Reason, argue weighted reference to the provisions of Sect.37(2)(b) of the Planning & Dev. Act 2000, as follows - (a) the NBS is of both strategic and national importance; (b) the NBS forms part of Govt. policy (ie: being tendered, and contract monitors by the Dept. of Communications); (c) the NBS is consistent with “the aspirations of the regional planning guidelines”; (14) National Policy: Govt. and Departmental Policy: (a) Affirm national level policies supporting the rool out of broadband services across Ireland; (b) National Spatial Strategy - 2002: Emphasise stated objective to “establish frameworks for the development of enhanced … communications networks”; (c) National Dev. Plan - 2007: • Infrastructure listed as a priority area for investment; • Re. Broadband - clarify scheme top deliver Broadband across Ireland being developed, for implementation, particularly to areas uneconomical for the private sector to service; (d) The National Broadband Scheme (the NBS): • The NBS is part of national policy, and applicant contracted to Dept. of Communications to provide

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 37 broadband services nationally (partic. rural areas, many of which don’t have any service); • Emphasise the essential need for the proposed development at the local level; (e) The proposed development, on the application site, is consistent with national policy objectives re. wireless broadband services; (15) National Telecomm’s Policy: the National Telecomm’s Guidelines: Assert compliance with the Guidelines as follows - (a) Design & Siting (S.4.2): • The application site location enables the broadband coverage objectives to be met; • Location within forested lands consistent with such site suitability advocated in the Guidelines. Reference Coillte Teoranta future management plan for this location, submitted to the PA; • Acknowledge design dictated by technical parameters. Assert proposed design “ensures it is visually unobtrusive and in fitting with the environment in which it is located”; (b) Visual Impact (S.4.3): • Weighting regard to the combination of radio factors, planning considerations & acquisition considerations, the application site is the ideal location; • Confirm applicant’s ‘visual impact assessment’ by way of photomontages and assessment (ref. application doc’s. and CFI response submission); • Assert compliance with S.4.3 re. – application site is not a terminating view; – views of site are intermittent and incidental, therefore “may not intrude overly on the general view of prospect”; and

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 37 – consideration of the local factors determining the extent to which the proposed mast would be noticeable or intrusive; • Application site is “firmly outside and remote from these nationally and locally identified sensitive areas” (ie: national monuments; SAC’s; pNHA’s; NHA’s; SPA’s; scenic views; historical trails), in compliance with national policy on telecomms; • State the application site “appears to be on the edge of Zone 1A and 2A”; • Assert Zone 1A within the LAP 2009, “is a general classification on lands … and the ability of this location to absorb development should be assessed according to the merits and circumstances of each specific proposal”. Zone 2 described as having “…capacity to absorb a degree of development”; • Weighted reference of Board’s decision on comparable development under PL27.233743 , wherein commentary is made on “the acceptable level of visual impact; • State LAP 2009 enables for location of telecomms masts within established woodlands, “however, the provisions then restrict such assessment for this area”; (c) Sharing Facilities & Clustering (S.4.5): • No suitable local ‘candidate / option’ exists on which to accommodate the applicant’s equipment. Mast sharing therefore not an option; • State preference for mast sharing, where available and technically suitable re. requirements; (16) Local Policy: the Co. Dev. Plan: (a) Reference relevant Co. Dev. Plan 2008 and the LAP 2009; (b) Application site is on the edge of Zone 1A and Zone 2A, and far removed from scenic routes and historic trails;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 37 Telecommunications Policy: (c) Recognise ‘broadband’ as a required “essential infrastructure utility”; (d) Stress the NBS as clearly “a co-ordinated and focussed development for the provision of broadband to defined areas”; (e) Weighted reference to consultations with Co. Co. Officials re. respective mandates and the proposed development; (f) Emphasise the 2008 Co. Plan “clearly sets out a clear path of support for communications networks and the benefits of these systems; it also sets out the Councils role in supporting and facilitating the development of such essential infrastructure”; (g) The 2009 LAP incl. Telecoms in its definition of ‘Economic Infrastructure’, and states that “the provision of broadband in the Lough key LAP area will facilitate investment opportunities in this part of the County”; (h) Argue that an LAP providing for residential and tourist developments, “must provide for ‘essential infrastructure’ to adequately support such rural living”; (i) Broadband coverage will facilitate narrowing of urban vs rural living, enabling ‘flexible work practices’; (j) Reference LAP’s preferred location of masts / support structures “in established woods rather than near residential developments”, and that “it associates locations within woodlands as potentially having little or no visual impact” (ref. Sect.4.9.2 of the LAP 2009); (k) Assert the application site as an appropriate location in the local environment; (l) Assert site location “is somewhat an arbitrary in terms of views where some views are more significant than others”, “is at a point that is more robust than others”, and “would not be particularly dominant”;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 37 (m) Reference Board’s decision under Reg.Ref.No.PL27.233783 to grant permission for an NBS site located within the ‘area of outstanding natural beauty’ within Co. Wicklow; General Policies & Objectives: (n) Assert the proposed development meets the requirements of national telecomms policies “contained in the Plan 2005-2011” (o) Emphasise national priority of ‘essential infrastructure’ broadband rollout to rural areas, wherein within Co. Roscommon, there exists a significantly high percentage of rurally located people; (p) Argue the Co. Co. “has not given due consideration to the wide-ranging implications on the rural community in their decision making”. Instead of weighing up the positives and the negatives of the proposed development, Council has only considered the negatives, with little consideration demonstrated of the NBS as a unique telecomms rollout; (q) Applicant accepts “there will be slight negatives, mainly the possibility of the site being visible from certain areas”. However, point out that this is the case for all telecomms support structure’s “and an accepted fact in national policy”. (u) “However, denying the rural community access to wireless broadband where many have no access to broadband at all is not in line with local, national or even European policy” (17) Relevant An Bord Pleanála cases: Reference following Board decisions to grant permission as relevant - Reg.Ref.No.PL25M.232702 - Frewin Hill, Wattstown, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath; Reg.Ref.No.PL27.233783 - Kilbride, Talbotstown, Co. Wicklow; Reg.Ref.No.PL27.233743 - Coillte Fauna, Donard, Co. Wicklow; (18) Conclusion: (a) The application site is the best “combination of considerations” (ie: natural setback / buffer from built up areas / private

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 37 dwellings, whilst screening support structure and assoc. equipment); (b) Applicant’s belief that “the very special circumstances of meeting the needs of providing broadband to ‘connect the unconnected’ would outweigh any slight harm that may arise”; (c) The application and appeal documentation set out “justifiable reason for locating within the local area (ie: the balancing of a combination of factors). These include - • radio planning requirements; • lack of availability of existing support structures for co- location; • development plan policies / constraints; and • availability of land; (d) A clearly demonstrated need exists for the proposed ‘broadband’ development; (e) The proposed development is sited and designed so as to minimise its visual impact; (f) Affirm compliance with national telecomms policies and other relevant policies; (g) Request that the decisions of the LPA be overturned, and that permission be granted.

(10) Conclusion: (a) The new national Digital radio service will produce an Emergency Service network that is compressive, modern digital, dedicated and fully integrated; (b) Stress importance of location of Emergency Services radio equipment at Eircom exchanges as a first choice location. This ensures – a secure and resilient network, directly connected to the Eircom transmission network & providing instantaneous, secure & integrated communications; (c) Stress urgency of the proposed new Emergency Service system in the strategic national interest;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 37 (d) Justify site selection in proximity to a single residence, having regard to limitations of location and the security requirements of the network; (e) In compliance with national requirements, the proposed telecoms installation is of a discreet design and is at an acceptable location; (f) Having regard to technical requirements, stress need for weighted reference to the technical limitations / constraints on site location and the significance of the site as part of the NDRS network; (g) Stress and substantiate site as an ideal location for a 15m Emergency Service support pole, plus aerials (ie: no existing structures in the area, ensuring coverage to this area of Dunamon); (h) Weighting regard to the limitations on location, as well as the design proposal being the slimmest and lowest height possible, argue that the proposed structure “will not have an excessively negative impact on the residential amenities of the area” (ie: location in a utilities location, set back from the public road, height reduced to 15m, & the site is screened by trees of up to 12m in height); (i) Site is not within a SPA, SAC, ACA or nay other sensitive location; (j) Design chosen to ensure a slender support pole, set at the minimal height to provide the required coverage; (k) Reference that the TETRA technology has a 10yr licence period issued by the Govt., submit request “for a grant of permission for a minimum of 10yrs but a permanent grant of permission would be preferable”; (l) Request expediency of Board decision in the national interest.

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 37 5. RESPONDENTS TO THE 1st PARTY APPEAL: (1) Planning Authority Response (01/02/2010): • PA not satisfied that this location is the optimum one; • Point out this area is restricted in terms of development in order to protect its visual amenity; • Clarify current application is one of 5no. similar applications made by the current application, all in Coillte lands; • Comment that the site search in this series of applications, has always led to Coillte Lands. Conclude that “this casts doubt on the site search process”.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT: (1) I have considered all of the points raised in the appeal, inspected the site and its environs, and assessed the proposed development in the light of the Roscommon Co. Dev. Plan 2008, the Lough Key Local Area Plan 2009, and of National Policy (ie: DoE Guidelines on Telecommunications, Antennae and Support Structures – 1996). I have also taken particular note of the Planning Authority’s regard of the proposed development as a material contravention of the provisions of the Lough Key Local Area Plan 2009, in the single reason for its decision to refuse planning permission. This strong opinion, now requires the Board to consider the provisions of Section 37(2)(b)(i)-(iv) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (see copy of relevant extracts attached).

I believe that the relevant issues in review of the merits of this appeal relate to: (a) The principle and location of the development; (b) Alternative Site Investigation – Co-Location / Clustering; (c) Rural Landscapes and associated Visual Amenity; (d) Public Health Impact; (e) Services General Services and Infrastructural provision;

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 37 (f) Material contravention of the provisions of the Lough Key LAP 2009 – Consideration of the provisions of Section 37(2)(b)(i)- (iv) of the Planning and Development Act 2000; (g) Roscommon Co. Co. Development Contributions Scheme 2008; and (h) Time period of permission.

(2) The principle and location of the development: I have had careful regard to the comprehensive and technically substantive arguments submitted by Hutchison 3G Ireland (c/o BT Communications Ireland Ltd -- see original application documentation, the F.I. & C.F.I. documentation, and the appeal submission). I am satisfied that the principle of the proposed development has been satisfactorily established, and that in the ‘public interest’ the development as part of the rollout of the ‘National Broadband Scheme (NBS)’ network infrastructure facilitating broadband services, is a project of strategic national importance. The PA clearly in its considerations, do not dispute this strategic national significance. Further, as discussed at 6(3) – (5) below, I am generally satisfied as to the location of the proposed development within the context of the existing mature Coillte forestland at Oakport Demesne, and not withstanding its proximity to the waters edge of Lough Oakport (see attached photographs).

(3) Alternative Site Investigation – Co-Location / Clustering: Section 4.5 “Sharing Facilities and Clustering” in the D.o.E.’s Guidelines 1996 recommends that existing masts should be shared rather than new masts constructed, and that “sharing of installations (antennae support structures) will normally reduce the visual impact on the landscape. These provisions are underscored at Sects. 3.12 “Telecommunications”, 3.13.2 “Mobile Phone Network Dev.”, and associated Policies and Objectives of the Roscommon Co. Dev. Plan (2008), as well as at Sect’s 4.9 “Telecomms” and 10.27 “Dev.

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 37 Management Guidelines & Std’s - Telecomms” of the Lough Key LAP (2009). I note that Hutchison 3G Ireland - H3G (c/o BT Communications Ireland Ltd), as applicant, has expressed a commitment to subscribe to these policy guidelines. Having careful regard to the comprehensive and technically substantive arguments submitted by H3G (see original application documentation, F.I. & C.F.I. documentation, and the appeal submission), I believe that a reasonable argument establishing the need for development purposes, has been made as to why co-location and further clustering at existing locations within the existing largely mobile phone telecommunications infrastructure network surrounding Lough Key, is both not practical, nor technically feasible. Having regard to the information available, I do not share the PA’s apparent doubt as concluded in their final planning report (see 09/12/2009), and in their response submission to the H3G appeal (see 01/02/2010) that having regard to the current application site as “one of five (5) of this nature presented by this applicant - all in Coillte lands”, and therefore “that this casts doubt on the site search process”. This view by the PA would appear to have influenced their concerns re. the applicant’s methodology of site selection, and the decision to refuse planning permission. In response, I can find no evidence in all of the documentation available, substantiating the view inferred that site choice was influenced by the applicant’s association with Coillte Forestlands, as much as finding the optimum location in accordance with both technical and statutory planning requirements. Rather, I weight direct reference to the Dev. Management Guidelines and Standards for Telecomms set out at Sect.12.29 of the Co. Dev. Plan 2008 which clearly set out that applicants be required to demonstrate “they have made reasonable effort”. Whilst this may have required both F.I. & C.F.I. submissions from H3G (c/o BT Communications Ireland Ltd), I believe they have reasonably and satisfactorily achieved this, according to the clearly articulated and detailed specifications for the roll out of the NBS network for broadband services across Ireland. No doubt, the fact that

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 37 it would appear that H3G have an association with Coillte forestry lands in pursuit of effecting NBS programmatic implementation is to their advantage. I do not share what appears as the Planning Authority’s circumspect approach in this regard.

On the information available, H3G appear to have focussed primarily on existing location points of telecomms transmission infrastructure. Clearly, the current proposal is for new development on a new site. Whilst concluding in favour of the proposed development at this location, I acknowledge the applicant’s site selection methodology would have been assisted further, if this location was comparatively evaluated against other ‘greenfields’ locations in the area.

I accordingly have no planning objection to both the principle of a new antennae support structure being constructed in the area in order to supplement and consolidate the growth of a NBS broadband services network for Co. Roscommon (as part of the establishment of comprehensive national coverage).

(4) Rural Landscapes and associated Visual Amenity: The suite of provisions set out in each of the Roscommon Co. Dev. Plan 2008 and the Lough Key LAP 2009 (consistent with the DoE’s Guidelines 1996), are such that any new development requiring a rural location should not seriously detract from the rural landscape character of the area, or intrude on the associated visual amenity. Located proximate to the waters edge of Oakport Lough, this is particularly relevant having regard to the provisions of the Lough Key LAP 2009, within which Lough Key is classified as an ‘Exceptional Value’ landscape, and “one of the most scenic areas in Co. Roscommon and is of national repute” (Sect.6.3 - ‘Landscape Character Assessment’), and specifically Chapt.10.2, Zone 1A and Landscape Character CH60 thereof, which substantiated the PA’s consideration of the proposed

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 37 development as fatally flawed, and in material contravention of these provisions. Contrary to the PA’s conviction, in respect of the public realm, and weighting regard to the strategic national significance of the proposed development, its site location within the screen of existing maturely forested Coillte lands at Oakport Demesne, and the stated commitment by Coillte that “the clump felling is due to begin in the year 2032” (ie: the duration of several temporary permissions at this location, in accordance with Sect. 4.8 of the DoE’s 1996 Guidelines), and that Coillte “are prepared to commit to keeping a ring of trees of 20m outside the compound subject to normal forestry constraints” (see Coillte C.F.I. letter - 09/11/2009), I share the view argued by H3G (c/o BT Communications Ireland Ltd), that no unnecessary or serious negative impact will result consequent of the development of the proposed new antennae support structure and antennae / dishes, in the in situ Coillte Oakport Demesne landscape. Having weighted reference to Sect’s 4.2 ‘Design & Siting’, 4.3 ‘Visual Impact’ and 4.4 ‘Access Roads’ of the DoE 1996 national guidelines, I share the sustained argued conviction of H3G, that no disproportionate negative visual impact will result. In fact, excepting for the tip of the new antennae support structure, at worst, I assert that the proposed development will not be readily visible at all from the public realm. In such circumstances I reference that Sect. 4.3 of the 1996 Guidelines advocates that the “softening of the visual impact can be achieved through judicious choice of colour scheme” and associated finishes. These mitigations may be addressed by Condition, were the Board to consider a grant of permission. I repeat the stated commitment of Coillte to sustain the existing screen of forest. Sect.4.3 further allows for weighted favourable consideration of the proposed development, notwithstanding its LAP 2009 locational restrictive designations (ie: Chapt.10.2, Zone 1A and Landscape Character CH60), as follows –

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 37 • the tip of the support structure may be visible from certain views, “but yet are not terminating views”; • views possible considered to be “intermittent and incidental”; • views possible certainly do “not intrude overly on the general view of prospect”; as well as • local factors determining the extent to which the proposed development will be intrusive. These include – intermediate objects; topography, the scale of visibility in the wider landscape, the multiplicity of other objects in the wider panorama, the position of the protrusion re. the skyline, and the contextual weather and lighting conditions affecting visibility. I point out further, that no Co. Dev. Plan 2008 or Lough Key LAP 2009 designated “scenic route” or “scenic view”, is apparent in proximity to the application site, nor relevant designated ‘NHA’s’, ‘pNHA’s’, ‘cSAC’s’ or ‘SPA’s (see Map 4 - Natural Heritage in Lough Key, attached).

I do share the weighted reference made by the applicant’s - H3G, to the last paragraph of Sect.12.29 –“Telecommunications” of the Co. Dev. Plan 2008, and Sect.10.27 - “Telecomms” of the Lough Key LAP 2009, which clearly each state – “If the proposal is contrary to the above, the Planning Authority will need to be satisfied that the installation is of strategic importance if permission is to be granted”. Having careful regard to the comprehensive and technically substantive arguments submitted by H3G (c/o Bt Communications Ireland Ltd - see original application documentation, F.I. & C.F.I. documentation, and the appeal submission), I believe that a reasonable case has been made by H3G, demonstrating the proposed development as being of strategic national importance – a part of the nationwide rollout of the new NBS for broadband services, with comprehensive coverage through a nationwide network lattice of telecoms infrastructure. H3G are correct in pointing out the PA’s apparent failure to acknowledge this ‘qualification’ provision in the last

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 37 paragraph of Sect.12.29 and 10.27 respectively. As opposed to the private commercial interest in the growth of mobile telecommunications networks, I advocate in empathy with H3G that there is a real public interest benefit to be gained from the roll out of broadband services across Ireland generally, and Co. Roscommon particularly. Effective and efficient public services, in this case the facilitation and enabling of integrated and co-ordinated broadband services, must be a reasonable expectation in the public good.

In my view the Roscommon Co. Dev. Plan 2008 and Lough Key LAP 2009 provisions (ie: compliance with the ten bullet points requiring attention under Sect’s.12.29 and 1027 respectively), as well as those of the DoE’s 1996 Guidelines, have been reasonably and satisfactorily addressed by the applicants - H3G. The proposed development generally, and the site location specifically, demonstrates a genuine attempt to reduce threat of impact on local amenities, whilst balancing the technical requirements of the broadband services infrastructure rollout, and the necessity of location on the application site. Accordingly, and contrary to the PA conviction, I am satisfied that no serious, fatal or disproportionate visual obtrusion in the landscape will result from the proposed development. In this regard I do not believe that the PA’s single Refusal Reason can be sustained and that the H3G appeal arguments against the Refusal Reason be upheld (see 6(7) below re. ‘material contravention’ considerations).

(5) Public Health Impact: I have had regard to the argued public health threats and associated implications for the local community, from development of the proposed new antennae support structure and antennae / dishes. I note that no specific substantive objection has been made against the proposed development in this regard. I believe that subject to compliance with emission limits for non-ionising radiation (to recognised International Radiation Protection Assoc. Guideline

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 37 Standard), and noting that there has been no categorical link between public health risks and tele / radio-communications masts established to international convention, no serious health risk is apparent to residents and livestock in the area, from the proposed new development.

I share the Planning Authority’s precautionary approach in this regard as part of their F.I. and C.F.I. consultations with H3G. I have considered all of the H3G documentation submitted in this regard, clarifying compliance with both the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, and the DoE’s 1996 Guidelines. Specifically, I note the “Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines”, dated 20 th May 2009, submitted by H£G as part of the application documentation. I further note that compliance with emission limits is regulated nationally in Ireland by the Commission for Communications Regulation. Further, I accept the clarity understood from H3G that a licence to provide the broadband services is itself subject to compliance with strict emission control limits set by the ICNIRP; that broadband services management and operational procedures comply with those set out by ComReg, in compliance with audits; and that the NBS development proposed, complies with ICNIRP Standards – the relevant public safety standard in Ireland. Accordingly, I accept that H3G have sufficiently demonstrated the proposed development to be well below the levels of the ICNIRP Guidelines, and that consequently a public health issue is not of major concern in this case.

(6) General Services and Infrastructural provision: Having regard to the nature and specificity of purpose of the proposed development, and based on all the information submitted with this development proposal; the observations made at the time of my physical inspection; the relevant provisions of the DoE’s 1996 Guidelines, the Co. Dev. Plan 2008 and of the Lough Key LAP 2009,

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 37 respectively; the expressed opinions of the Environ. Sect. – 02/07/2009, and Area Engineer Boyle – 19/06/2009 respectively (see copies of reports flagged on file); that no significant traffic or waste / effluent will be generated by the proposed development; and that the existing Coillte forestry road is proposed for access, I am satisfied that subject to adequate regular mitigation, monitoring and management, as generally Conditioned as standard by a Planning Authority, adequate services are available to the proposed development, that no obvious serious threat to public and environmental health exists (see also 6(5) above), and that the proposed development would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

(7) Material contravention of the provisions of the Lough Key LAP 2009 – Consideration of the provisions of Section 37(2)(b)(i)-(iv) of the Planning and Development Act 2000: The Planning Authority had regard to the proposed development as a ‘material contravention’ of the provisions of the Lough Key LAP 2009, in its stated Refusal Reason. In response, I assert the view that having weighted regard to the national strategic importance of the proposed development, as comprehensively discussed above, the Board is enabled under the limited discretion provided at Sect. 37(2)(b)(i) – “the proposed development is of strategic or national importance” of the Planning and Dev. Act 2000 (as amended), to decide in favour of the proposed development. I am satisfied that a satisfactory case has been made by H3G, in terms of Sect.37(2)(b)(i)-(iv) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and that their appeal arguments against the PA’s decision to refuse permission by reason of “material contravention” of the Lough Key LAP 2009 are reasonable and acceptable (see para’s 3.25 - 3.39 of their appeal submission - c/o BT Communications Ireland Ltd). In respect of my own assessment of the merits of the proposed development, I do not believe that Sect.37(2)(b)(i)-(iv) facilitates the limited discretion of the Board towards a grant of permission for the proposed development.

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 37

(8) Roscommon Co. Co. Development Contributions Scheme 2008: I note the obligation to make a development contribution payment for ‘communications masts’ as set out in the Co. Co’s. adopted 2008 Dev. Contribution Scheme. This is set out at Table 5 – “Levels of Contribution – Other Categories of Development”, where Category D addresses ‘communications masts’. This requirement may be addressed by way of Condition, should the Board be mindful to grant permission.

(9) Time period of permission: Notwithstanding the need for long term sustainability of broadband services coverage, Sect. 12.29 of Co. Dev. Plan 2008 provides that planning permission for support structures “shall be for a temporary period of not more than 5 years”. Consistent with these provisions, and with Sect. 4.8 “Duration of Permission – Temporary Permissions” of the DoE’s. 1996 Guidelines, I also reference the Boards consistent approach having regard to the general practice and policy relating to telecomms structures, that a permission for longer than a period of five years would not appear appropriate. Whilst I have recommended the Conditioning of the standard 5year permission below, the Board may find differently if it were mindful to grant permission, and having regard to the strategic ‘public service’ nature of the proposed development, and the applicant’s - H3G contract with Govt. in this instance, entered into on 23/12/2008 (consequent of a competitive tendering process), to implement and operate the NBS. I note that Sect. 4.8 of the 1996 Guidelines clearly sets out that “Permissions should take cognisance of the duration of the licencing arrangements”.

7. RECOMMENDATION: Having regard to all of the above, I recommend to the Board that permission for the proposed development be GRANTED in accordance with the following Schedules.

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 37 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to – (1) the “National Broadband Scheme (NBS)”, of the Dept. for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, a project co-funded by the Irish Government and the EU, and whose objective is to provide affordable, scaleable broadband services, with comprehensive nationwide coverage as a vital element; (2) the national strategy regarding the improvement of broadband communications services; (3) the Guidelines relating to Telecommunications Antennae and Support Structures which were issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government to Planning Authorities in July 1996; (4) the general topography and landscape features in the vicinity of the site; and (6) the existing pattern of land use and development in the vicinity; it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of the area, would not be prejudicial to public health and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

(1) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the application on the 02 nd June 2009, as amended by the further plans and particulars received by the Planning Authority on the 06 th August and the 16 th November 2009 respectively, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions. Reason: In the interest of clarity.

(2) This permission shall apply for a period of five (5no.) years from the date of this order. The telecommunications structure and related

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 37 ancillary structures shall then be removed unless, prior to the end of the period, planning permission shall have been granted for their retention for a further period. The site shall be reinstated on removal of the telecommunications structure and ancillary structures. Details relating to the removal and reinstatement shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority at least one month before the date of expiry of this permission. Reason: To enable the impact of the development to be re- assessed, having regard to changes in technology and design during the specified period. .

(3) The transmitter power output, antenna type and mounting configuration shall be in accordance with the details submitted with this application and, notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and any statutory provision amending or replacing them, shall not be altered without a prior grant of planning permission. Reason: To clarify the nature and extent of the permitted development to which this permission relates and to facilitate a full assessment of any future alterations.

(4) Surface water drainage arrangements for the proposed development shall comply with the requirements of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of public health.

(5) The development shall comply with the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) Guidelines and the European pre- standard 50166-2. Reason: In the interests of public health and of amenity.

(6) Details of the proposed colour scheme and finishes for the telecommunications structure, ancillary structures and fencing shall be

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 37 submitted to the Planning Authority for written agreement prior to the commencement of development. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

(7) Landscaping of the site shall be carried out in accordance with a landscaping scheme, which shall include hedging planted inside the boundary fence, and demonstrate Coillte’s commitments to forestry management immediately surrounding the site, and which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

(8) A low intensity fixed red obstacle light shall be fitted as close to the top of the mast as practicable and shall be visible from all angles in azimuth. Details of this light, its location and period of operation shall be agreed with the planning authority before development commences. Reason: In the interest of public safety.

(9) No material change of use of the mast shall be made without a prior grant of planning permission. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area.

(10) The structure shall be protected against lightning. Reason: In the interests of public safety and of orderly development.

(11) No advertisement or advertisement structure shall be erected or displayed on the proposed structure or its appendages or within the curtilage of the site. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 37 (12) The developer shall allow, subject to reasonable terms, other operators to the telecommunications structure and allow antennae and ancillary equipment to be installed for such purposes. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the non– proliferation of masts in the area.

(13) The developer shall allow, subject to reasonable terms, other bodies wishing to use either the site or the structure for the purposes of tele or radio communications. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, the non–proliferation of masts in the area, and the proper planning and development of the area.

(10) The site shall be reinstated on removal of the NBS telecommunications structure and ancillary structures. Details relating to the removal and reinstatement shall be submitted to and agreed with the Planning Authority as soon as practicable. Reason: In the interest of orderly development.

(11) The developer shall give the Planning Authority two weeks notice in writing of his intention to commence development on the site. Reason: In the interests of orderly development.

(12) The developer shall pay to the Planning Authority a financial contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area of the Planning Authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or on behalf of the Authority in accordance with the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in such phased payments as the Planning Authority may facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 37 of the Scheme shall be agreed between the Planning Authority and the developer or, in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme. Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a Condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the permission.

(13) Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall lodge with the Planning Authority a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other security to secure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site, coupled with an agreement empowering the Planning Authority to apply such security or part thereof to the satisfactory completion of the reinstatement, including all necessary demolition and removal. The form and amount of the security shall be agreed between the Planning Authority and the developer or, in default of agreement, shall be referred to An Bord Pleanala for determination. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site.

______Leslie Howard Inspector 30/07/2010

PL20.235858 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 37