An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Re: 26.GA0005 – Application under Section 182C of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended)
and
26.DA0006 – Application for a Compulsory Acquisition Order under the Gas Act, 1976
DEVELOPMENT: Natural Gas Pipeline, with ancillary ducts, manholes and an associated above ground installation connecting the existing natural gas network at Baunlusk above ground installation, County Kilkenny to the Great Island above ground installation (granted permission as part of 26.PA0016) located within the Great Island Power Station in County Wexford.
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Strategic Infrastructure Development (26.GA0005).
Compulsory Acquisition Order (PL26.DA0006)
APPLICANT: Bord Gais Eireann
LOCAL AUTHORITIES: Kilkenny County Council Wexford County Council
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 77
SUBMISSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
Prescribed Bodies:
Kilkenny County Council Wexford County Council South Tipperary County Council The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht The National Roads Authority Iarnród Eireann Inland Fisheries Ireland The Health Service Executive The Commission for Energy Regulation An Taisce
Observers:
The Great Island Generating Station Concerns Committee Liam Knox John Barron Donal Gorey
Objectors to Compulsory Acquisition Order:
John Barron Donal Gorey
Dates of Site Inspection: 24th February 2012, 1st March 2012 and 5th March 2012.
Date of Oral Hearing: 3rd and 4th April 2012
Inspector: Andrew Boyle
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 77
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This is a direct application to the Board for approval under Section 182C of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended by the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006. The proposed development consists of the construction of a gas pipeline from an Above Ground Installation on the existing gas pipeline from Cork to Dublin at Baunlusk in County Kilkenny to the electricity power station at Great Island in County Wexford. Under Section 2(1) of the 2000 Act, as amended by Section 6 of the 2006 Act, the proposed development constitutes strategic gas infrastructure as it comprises a strategic downstream gas pipeline, which, in turn, is defined as any proposed gas pipeline other than an upstream gas pipeline which is designed to operate at 16 bar or greater and is longer than 20 kilometres in length. The proposed development would be 46 kilometres in length and would operate at a design pressure of 85 bar.
Pre-application discussions were held with the Board under Section 182E of the Act of 2000, as amended by the Act of 2006. On 20th October 2011, the Board served notice that it was of the opinion that the proposed development fell within the scope of Section 182C of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended.
There is also an associated application for a Compulsory Acquisition Order under the Gas Act 1976.
2.0 THE SITE
The site is linear, extending over a distance of approximately 46 kilometres. It would consist of a 14 metre wayleave which would be acquired by the applicant. This would be located within a 100 metre wide planning corridor which would define the scope for minor re-routing during the construction period. The corridor would normally be centred on the pipeline, but there would be locations where it would be moved laterally relative to the pipeline to avoid going outside the boundary of the ownership of the wayleave landowner or to avoid known archaeological or ecological features or existing buildings.
The land through which the proposed pipeline would pass is described in Chapter 3 of an Environmental Impact Statement which has been lodged with the application and is shown in a series of strip maps and aerial photographs – Figures 3.1-3.24 in Volume 2 of the EIS. For the most part, the pipeline would pass through gently undulating farmland, most of which consist of fields in pasture which are bounded by field hedgerows. It would occasionally pass through areas of lower lying poorly drained land. The pipeline would cross a number of watercourses, the most notable of which is the River Barrow estuary between Ballinlaw in County Kilkenny and Ferry Point in County Wexford. Other watercourses of note are the Kings River and Little Arrigle - tributaries of the River Nore and part of the River Barrow and River Nore
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 77
cSAC and the Derrylacky River, a tributary of the River Blackwater in County Kilkenny. The pipeline would pass through small areas of woodland.
3.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development would consist of the laying of an underground pipeline between Baunlusk and the Great Island power station. The pipeline would be 400 millimetres nominal diameter and would be composed of high strength carbon steel with an external corrosion protection coating and a cathodic protection system. The pipeline wall thickness would be 7.11 millimetres or 14.27 millimetres, the thicker wall thickness being used near residences and at road and other crossings, as required by the design code under IS328: 2003. The pipeline would be covered to a depth of at least 1.2 metres over most of its length, increasing to 1.6 metres where it would require additional protection such as at road and river crossings. An Above Ground Installation would be constructed at Castlebanny, approximately halfway along the length of the pipeline.
Construction would take place within a fenced strip of land, known as the working width or spread. This would generally be 36 metres wide but would be reduced at certain locations such as hedgerows, woodland and ecologically sensitive areas. Increased working widths would be used at road crossings and similar locations for health and safety reasons. Topsoil would be stripped and stored separately to one side within the working width in a low mound not exceeding 3 metres in height. It would be kept free from disturbance to reduce the risk of physical damage or compaction.
The pipeline would be delivered in 12 metre lengths. These would be stored in a storage yard at Belview Port. They would be delivered on flat bed articulated trucks, a minimum of 5 lengths being delivered at a time. The pipe sections would be offloaded with mobile cranes. They would be delivered to their final location along the working width to be stored on wooden skids parallel to the trench line. For changes in direction, pipes would be bent in a pipe bending machine at the pipe storage area or on site. For large changes in direction, factory – manufactured bends would be used. The pipeline would be strung out and then welded together. These girth welds would then be non- destructively tested.
The pipe trench would be dug either with mechanical excavators straddling or running alongside the pipeline trench or with a specialist trenching machine. The depth would be variable but would allow a minimum reinstatement cover of 1.2 metres or 1.6 metres. Where rock is at or close to the surface, it would be excavated using a mechanical rock breaking plant. It was confirmed during an oral hearing into the proposed development that rock blasting would not be required.
The welded pipe would be lowered into the trench in a continuous operation. It would be bedded on and fully surrounded by sand or suitable excavated material. Where necessary, the pipe would be surrounded with a rock shield
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 77
or by making up the initial fill with a fine material to a sufficient level over the pipe to protect it from rocks and stony ground. Two 15 millimetre high density polyethylene telecommunication service sub-ducts with associated manholes and couplers would be directly buried in the sand surround above the steel gas pipe. Manholes for these ancillary ducts would be located at every road crossing.
Following the placing of pipeline marking tape over the pipe, the pipe trench would then be backfilled. Material would be replaced in the trench in the reverse order to which it was excavated. Surplus material displaced by the pipeline would be disposed of to appropriately permitted facilities, in the event of it not being required by the landowner. Land drains would be reinstalled and the working width re-graded to reflect its original profile. Suitable surplus subsoil would be spread on a field by field basis, ripped, where necessary, and stones and debris would be removed prior to topsoil replacement. After replacement, the topsoil would be stone picked and cultivated, as necessary.
The general trenching method would be modified for road, river, drainage ditch, service, rail and utility crossings. Crossings in these cases would be either open cut (trenched) or trenchless. The crossing methods are described in detail in my assessment.
On completion of pipeline construction, the pipeline would be cleaned and internally checked using Pipeline Integrity Gauges (PIGs). Following pigging, the pipeline would be tested for fitness for purpose. This would be a hydrostatic test in accordance with IS328:2003. Sections of the pipeline would be filled with water, pressurised and held at pressure for a given period. 14,000 cubic metres of water would be required for this purpose and, assuming ten test sections, 1,400 cubic metres would be required for each section. Water would be supplied by water tanker, from the local watermain or abstracted from a river which is not a designated cSAC. Following completion of hydrostatic testing and the discharge of test water, the test sections would be swabbed to remove residual water using specially designed PIGs propelled by compressed air. The separate test sections would then be welded together for a complete length pipeline. The pipeline would then be dried out using super dry air, vacuum drying or other means.
The pipeline construction would call for a peak construction workforce of about 200. Working hours would be 0700 – 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0700 – 1700 on Saturdays.
4.0 THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 2007-2013
Chapter 7 of this Development Plan is entitled “Economic Infrastructure Priority”. Included in this chapter is an energy programme. This would encompass some 8.5 billion euro in investment in energy over the period of the plan. The overall strategic objective of the energy programme will be to ensure security of energy supply nationally and regionally, which is competitively priced, in the long term, while meeting a high level of
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 77
environmental standards. The ability of the economy to perform successfully is noted to depend critically on the supply of adequate, affordable and environmentally sustainable energy. Security of supply is seen as being of paramount importance to ensuring the continued economic development of the country and the spending under the plan would help ensure that objective. Without an expectation and delivery of a secure supply of energy, investment and output of the economy would suffer. Energy policy formulation is noted to be taking place against the background of volatile energy prices, concerns about security of supply and enhanced environmental standards and obligations.
5.0 DELIVERING A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE FOR IRELAND
This government White Paper was published in 2007. It sets out an energy policy framework for 2007-2020, with the objective of delivering a sustainable energy future for Ireland. It recognises that security of energy supply is crucial for the economy and society. There is a need for a reliable access to oil and gas supplies and the infrastructure to import, distribute and store gas and oil. Robust networks and electricity generating capacity are required to ensure consistent supply to consumers and all sectors of the economy. Amongst the underpinning strategic goals set out in the White Paper is ensuring that electricity supply consistently meets demand. Amongst the strategic goals in order to promote the sustainability of energy supply and use are addressing climate change by reducing energy related greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating the growth of renewable energy sources.
Amongst the actions envisaged to ensure that electricity supply consistently meets demand are giving immediate priority to ensuring that generation capacity adequacy margins are improved, taking account of growing demand, through appropriate actions by CER, EirGrid and the power generation sector and overseeing the transformation of the generation portfolio between 2007 and 2013 through the CER/ESB agreement on planned divestment of 20% of the existing ESB conventional plant portfolio by 2010, matched by the provision by independent operators of replacement conventional plant with operational flexibility which can support and complement the significant growth in intermittent wind power generation, while delivering increased capacity, security of supply and competition in support of the economy. (This would have included the Great Island power plant).
6.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS
6.1 The Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008-2014
The greater part of the pipeline route passes through County Kilkenny. It is thus affected by the provisions of the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008-2014.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 77
Chapter 9 of the development plan is on infrastructure and environment. At Section 9.8, it is recognised that the availability of energy is of critical importance to facilitate new development. It is noted that the National Development Plan, 2007-2013 sets out policies for the provision of electricity from both renewable and non-renewable sources. Subsection 9.8.1 states that the planning authority, in support of sustainable development and efficient energy utilisation, supports the infrastructural renewal and development of electricity networks in the region.
Chapter 8 of the development plan is on heritage. Subsection 8.2.1, on designated natural heritage sites of international and national importance notes that the habitats in the county of international and national importance are designated under EU and national legislation. It recognises four categories of designated site, amongst which are Special Areas of Conservation. Table 8.1 lists the designated natural heritage sites of international and national importance in the county. They include the River Barrow and River Nore candidate Special Area of Conservation. Policy H5 is to protect natural heritage sites designated in national and European legislation. Policy H6 is to assess all proposed developments (individually or in combination with other proposals, as appropriate) which are likely to impact on designated natural heritage sites or those sites proposed to be designated. Policy H7 is to consult with the prescribed bodies and relevant government agencies when assessing developments which are likely to impact on designated natural heritage sites or those sites proposed to be designated. Policy H8 is to ensure that any development in or near a designated natural heritage site will avoid any significant adverse impact on the features for which the site has been designated. Policy H9 is to require an appropriate environmental assessment in respect of any proposed development likely to have an impact on a designated natural heritage site, or those sites proposed to be designated.
Subsection 8.2.10, on inland waters, rivers, streams and wetlands, notes that the waterways and wetlands of the county are of great importance in terms of their influence on the landscape, as a wildlife habitat and as an amenity resource. It is noted that the Barrow Navigation System runs along the eastern border of the county with Counties Carlow and Wexford. Policy H48 is to protect and enhance the natural heritage and landscape character of the waterway corridors and wetlands and to maintain them free from inappropriate development.
Subsection 8.3.1 is on Areas of High Amenity. This notes that the planning authority established Areas of Special Control within the county in the 1986 county development plan and that this was continued in the 1994 county development plan. The designation was amended to Areas of High Amenity in the county development plan of 2002. While it is intended that the Landscape Character Assessment would be the main guiding force for the assessment of developments in the county, the Areas of High Amenity are being retained. This is to allow the development of the Landscape Character Assessment policies in an historical policy context. As with all areas of the county, a high standard of design and siting will be required for all development in the Areas of High Amenity. Areas of High Amenity are listed
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 77
in Appendix F of the development plan. Amongst these is the Barrow/Suir Estuary between New Ross and Wexford (sic), bordered by rivers and by road no. 674.
Subsection 8.3.2 of the development plan is on views and prospects. The development plan recognises a need to protect and conserve views and prospects adjoining public roads and river valleys throughout the county, where these views are of high amenity value. The views and prospects to be preserved and protected are contained in Appendix F of the plan and are shown on Figure 8.1. Amongst these are V20 – views south and north over the King’s River between Kells and the Waterford Road and V22 – views over the confluence of the Rivers Suir and Barrow at Snow Hill on road nos. LS7483 from its junction with road no. LP3414 and view from road no. LT74831–7 between road nos. LS7483 and LT74831-9. Policy H52 is to preserve and improve places or areas from which views or prospects of special amenity value exist.
Subsection 8.3.3 is on Landscape Character Assessment. A report on Landscape Character Assessment was prepared in 2003 and is included as Appendix C of the development plan. Four broad categories of landscape unit types are identified, namely Upland Areas, Lowland Areas, River Valleys and Transitional Areas. The pipeline route would pass through all four types.
6.2 The Wexford County Development Plan, 2007-2013
The southern end of the pipeline passes through Great Island in County Wexford. It is thus affected by the provisions of the Wexford County Development Plan, 2007-2013.
Chapter 6 of the development plan is on infrastructure, energy and waste. Section 6.5.0, on river water quality, notes that the EU Water Framework Directive signalled a new approach to water quality management based on river basin management. This assesses water quality and associated factors (including land use) within the basins and formulates integrated and coherent policies based on these. Policy Inf. 25 is to implement the provisions of the River Basin Management Plans (Eastern and South Eastern River Basin Management Plans) in order to protect the environment, public health and the recreational potentials of these water bodies.
Section 6.6.0 of the development plan is on air quality. It is noted that air pollution arising from the burning of fossil fuels is not at present a major problem in the county. Policy Inf. 25 is to protect the ambient air quality of the county through controlling industrial and other emissions by strictly enforcing the provisions of the 1987 Air Pollution Act.
At Section 6.8.0, on energy, the planning authority is supportive of energy efficiency in buildings, wind energy, solar energy, hydro energy, biomass/pellets, anaerobic digestion, geothermal energy, extending the gas transmission network and the undergrounding of electricity transmission lines in visually or ecologically sensitive areas. However, the development plan
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 77
contains nothing that is specifically supportive of (or opposed to) the development of fossil fuelled power stations, which would be facilitated by the natural gas supply.
Chapter 9 of the development plan is on Heritage, Conservation and Landscape.
Section 9.3, on archaeological heritage, recognises this as a unique and special resource. Policy AH1 is to protect and enhance archaeological monuments and their settings. Policy AH2 is to protect the special attributes of the historic landscape, including battlefields, and to facilitate public access to the National Monuments in state care and local authority ownership in the county. Objective AH2 is to ensure that any development either above or below ground, within the vicinity of a site of archaeological interest, should not be detrimental to the character of the archaeological site or its setting and should be sited and designed with care for the character of the site or the setting. Objective AH3 is to seek, within the lifetime of the development plan, to designate archaeological landscapes in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as part of an ongoing landscape appraisal of the county. Such designation would require a variation to the development plan. Objective AH5 is to impose planning conditions in appropriate circumstances requiring professional archaeological supervision of excavations, funding by the applicant of archaeological assessment, monitoring, testing or excavation of the site and submission of a report thereon and preservation of all or part of any archaeological remains on site. Objective AH6 is to seek to include archaeological landscapes as part of an ongoing Landscape Character Assessment of the county.
Section 9.4 is on natural heritage. It notes that natural heritage is threatened by development pressure, human activity and intervention. A sustainable approach requires that the stock of wildlife habitats and species should be protected for the benefit of present and future generations. The more important and unique habitats are subject to national and European Union designation as proposed Natural Heritage Areas, candidate Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas. Policy NH1 is to support the conservation of the abundance and diversity of habitats characteristic of the county and their dependant plant and animal communities and to facilitate and cooperate with national agencies, local and community groups in their protection.
Subsection 9.4.1, on designated sites, notes that a range of different sites have been (or will be) designated under national and EU legislation and under the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. Amongst the candidate Special Areas of Conservation noted is 002162, the River Barrow and River Nore.
Subsection 9.4.4 is on landscape. All aspects of the natural, built and cultural heritage are noted to come together in the landscapes experienced in the county. They are noted to give a sense of place. Identification with particular landscapes may contribute to a sense of wellbeing. The landscapes need to be managed so that change is positive in its effects, so that landscapes which are
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 77
valued will be protected and those which have been degraded are enhanced. The development plan includes a Landscape Character Assessment. Policy L1 is to have regard to the guidance contained in this Landscape Character Assessment.
Appendix 5 of the development plan is on Landscape Character Assessment. The Landscape Character Areas are shown on Map 7 of the development plan. The corridor route is shown to be within the Lowlands – Barrow River Corridor and the South Coast Landscape Character Area. The lowland character area contains predominantly fertile lands with high levels of population and intensive land management (agriculture). The slope and topography in the area occurs in a shallow/gradual transition. Agricultural lands tend to be characterised by extensive use across large fields as a result of the generally low well-trimmed hedges. This character unit may be generally classified as robust to normal, however sensitive areas or landscape factors can be found at specific locations. There are four subdivisions within the lowland character area. These are the north hills and the south hills and the Slaney and Barrow River corridors. The latter are noted to be highly scenic. It is noted that additional vigilance will be required when evaluating planning applications. A number of guidance points are set out in the development plan in relation to this area. Amongst these are encouraging development that will not unduly result in detrimental impacts on the landscape at a local or micro level, as viewed from areas of the public realm, continuing to facilitate appropriate development in a progressive manner that respects the scale, character and sensitivities of the landscape and encouraging development that would not have a disproportionate effect on the existing character of the landscape in terms of location, design and visual prominence.
Section 7.3 of Appendix 5 notes that the coastal areas of the county have a distinctive character that often overlaps abruptly with the lowland character which is abundant within the county. In general, the flat topography and the absence of rock shores mean that the character of the coastal areas is different for only a short distance from the shore. Amongst the policies in the coastal character area is the encouragement of development that would not have a disproportionate effect on the existing character of the coastal environment in terms of location, design and visual prominence and the preservation of any areas that have not been subject to recent or prior development and have retained a predominantly undisturbed coastal character.
7.0 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
7.1 Kilkenny County Council
Kilkenny County Council welcomes the development of the pipeline which it regards as a significant piece of infrastructure within the county. The proposed route, Corridor B, the preferred option is acceptable to the local authority. Apart from the stripping of vegetation during construction and the Above Ground Installation at Castlebanny, which is to be landscaped, the visual impact of the overall installation would be very limited. It notes that
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 77
the crossings of the King’s River, the Little Arrigal and the River Barrow estuary would require Appropriate Assessment.
The local authority notes the provisions of its county development plan in relation to energy supply and natural gas. The development plan identifies Belview Port as a major economic driver for the county, the Gateway and the south-east region as a whole. The port is also regarded as a major location for allowing development and employment in the South-East Regional Planning Guidelines and the Waterford PLUTS. The local area plan for the Ferrybank/Belview area includes, as an objective, the extension of the gas supply to Belview Port. Once the intention to construct the pipeline was announced in August 2010, the Council requested the applicant to examine the cost of providing a spur to Belview. This would be at a distance of 3.5 kilometres and a cost of €4 - €5 million. It would be facilitated in the future by the installation of a connection point on the line now and this would reduce the ultimate cost by €100,000 to €200,000.
The local authority has four main areas of concern in relation to the proposed pipeline. These are:
Proper consultation and provision of information as regards the impact on all stakeholders.
Impact of the proposal on the environment and landscape, including the Special Area of Conservation, as regards river crossings.
Impact on archaeology and heritage.
Crossing of roads and traffic impacts.
The local authority notes the level of consultation and anticipates that there would not be a great level of disruption, that the construction and operation would take place safely and that residual risks to humans would be very low. On environmental impact, the local authority notes from the screening report on the anticipated impact of the proposed trenchless crossings of the Barrow and Nore tributaries, that these would, as a result of mitigation measures, not be significant on the qualifying interest of the cSAC. However, without a full Natura Impact Statement, the local authority remains concerned that in particular, silt release would result from open cut crossings of watercourses, work pits relating to microtunnelling 3-5 metres from the riverbanks and temporary crossings of the rivers. It is recommended that no drilling should take place within any cSAC designation and that no temporary crossings be constructed in any tributary (whether designated or not) if the Board is uncertain of the potential impact of such works on the cSAC.
The local authority notes that the potential effects of the open cut watercourse crossings, for which detailed method statements are to be derived in consultation with Inland Fisheries, either individually or cumulatively, do not appear to have been screened for Appropriate Assessment. Such screening should take place before any decision is reached.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 77
The local authority submits that hedgerow stripping should be kept to a minimum and should not consist of a 36 metre wide strip for the length of the pipeline.
The local authority recommends that a standard condition be imposed in relation to archaeology, noting that no impact on monuments or other archaeology has been identified. The local authority concludes by recommending 15 conditions in the event of approval being granted. These are as follows: -
“Prior to the commencement of the works all access points and haul routes from the public roads shall be agreed with Kilkenny County Council. Considering the nature of the construction traffic accessing the site, it is preferable that temporary access points be provided where possible from Regional Routes or National Routes.
No access to the works shall be permitted from the M9 motorway.
Traffic management plans shall be prepared for each road crossing point and shall be submitted to the relevant Area Engineer for approval.
A method statement shall be prepared for each road crossing and shall be submitted to the relevant Area Engineer for approval.
Should a road closure be required, the statutory notices, as set out in the Roads Act 1993, shall be complied with. Advertising costs shall be the responsibility of the Licensee. The applicant is advised that there are statutory time periods to be complied with when applying for a roads closure.
Where road closures are required the developer shall submit details and agree proposed diversion routes with the relevant Area Engineer.
Where access is to be provided from a local road a pre-condition survey consisting of Level 1 and 2 FWD testing shall be carried out. Where additional road strengthening is required to cater for construction traffic associated with the development, the developer shall carry out these works prior to commencement of works and shall be liable for the cost of same.
Trench Reinstatement details at road crossing shall be agreed with Kilkenny County Council prior to commencement of the development.
Bord Gais shall comply with any additional restoration requirements deemed necessary by Kilkenny County Council Roads Section.
Where the duct is located in the road margin, within one metre of an open roadside drain whose depth below the adjoining public carriageway
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 77
surface is less than 600 millimetres it shall be laid a minimum depth of 900 millimetres below the drain bottom. No duct shall be laid within twice the depth of roadside drains whose depth below the adjoining public carriageway surface is greater than 600 millimetres.
Damage caused to the public road and/or services contained therein as a result of the works, shall be reinstated by Bord Gais to the satisfaction of the Area Engineer. The Bord Gais local supervisor shall arrange a meeting on site with the Road Overseer on completion of the works where pipes, culverts, box shores etc., are to be left open for inspection prior to reinstatement.”
7.2 Wexford County Council
Wexford County Council notes that at a preliminary meeting, the applicant was advised that it would be the Council’s view that the development of the pipeline should be designed to provide connections to the towns in County Wexford.
The local authority quotes from the National Spatial Strategy, the South- Eastern Regional Planning Guidelines and its own development plan in support of the development of the gas network. It is an objective of the development plan to engage with the applicant and other agencies regarding the potential for connecting the main settlements in the county to the national gas network.
The submission notes the Natura Impact Statement/Screening Report in Appendix 11.2 of the EIS, as the development could have impacts on the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC (002162). The NIS/Screening Report states that, as it is proposed to drill the pipe under the river, the drilling works would impact on a small proportion of the total amount of similar habitat at the site and surrounding area. The local authority notes the conclusions of the NIS/Screening Report that provided the mitigation measures are followed, the impact should be low and localised in the short-term and imperceptible in the long-term, that the provision of a temporary pipe would have limited impact on the mudflats and sand flats exposed at low tide, that vibrations would be negligible having regard to the 10-30 metre depth of the pipeline below the riverbed and that there would be no significant deterioration of the habitat’s qualifying species and species of special conservation interest or significance or significant disturbance to these species, so that the integrity of the site would be maintained.
There are no protected structures on or adjacent to the route in County Wexford, but the Barrow Railway Viaduct is a Protected Structure in the Kilkenny County Development Plan. The submission notes there are three sites in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage in the townland of Great Island as well as a number of recorded monuments, and that the proposed development would be clear of these items. It is noted that the route of the pipeline would follow the reclaimed lands surrounding Great Island, thus reducing the possibility of disturbing features of archaeological
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 77
importance, a fact borne out by the test trenches. Nevertheless, it recommends that archaeological monitoring should take place during the construction period.
The local authority has no reservations in relation to public sewerage, surface water, impact on the landscape, impacts on flora and fauna, noise and vibration, air quality, soils and geology, impacts on humans, roads, traffic and rail, provided proposed mitigation measures are implemented. In relation to public water it advises that a public watermain is located in the area designated as Wayleave 127 on Drawing DGE/111/PLE/24. The developer is advised to contact the local authority’s Water Services Section.
In terms of community gain, as the proposed development would impact on the local communities in Great Island and Newtown during the construction period, it is submitted that further benefits should be provided to the local communities in the form of community gain notwithstanding the significant economic gains the proposed development would bring to the south-east region. Planning contribution should be assessed for roads and community facilities as per the local authority’s Development Contribution Scheme, i.e. based on the floor area/footprint of any buildings proposed at the Great Island Above Ground Installation.
The Senior Planner’s Report in the local authority’s submission concludes by recommending six conditions as follows: -
“The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the application, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions. The mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement shall be undertaken except where otherwise agreed with the planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of clarity.
The developer shall pay to Wexford County Council a contribution in respect of works consisting of the provision or improvement of the public roads in the functional area of planning authority. The contribution shall be payable at the commencement of development and the amount shall be € .
Reason: In accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme as provided for under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2006.
The developer shall pay to Wexford County Council a contribution in respect of works consisting of the provision or improvement of community facilities in the functional area of the planning authority. The contribution shall be payable at the time of commencement of development and the amount shall be € .
Reason: In accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme as provided for under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2006.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 77
The developer shall facilitate the planning authority in preserving, recording or otherwise protecting archaeological materials or features that may exist within the site. In this regard, the developer shall -
(a) notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any site operation (including hydrological and geotechnical investigations) relating to the proposed development,
(b) employ a suitably-qualified archaeologist who shall monitor all site investigations and other excavation works, and
(c) provide arrangements, acceptable to the planning authority, for the recording and for the removal of any archaeological material which the authority considers appropriate to remove.
In default of agreement on any of these requirements, the matter shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.
Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation and protection of any remains that may exist within the site.
Management of waste materials during construction, including the removal of materials at the site shall be undertaken in accordance with a Waste Management Plan, which has regard to the relevant statutory requirements and guidelines for such, to be submitted to and agreed with the planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Prior to the commencement of the development details of the layout and elevation of the Great Island Above Ground Installation shall be submitted for the written agreement of the planning authority. This detail shall include proposals to provide the necessary infrastructure to extend the gas network into County Wexford. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed plans.
Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Prior to the commencement of development construction detail showing how the gas pipeline will cross the public water main serving Great Island shall be submitted for the written agreement of the planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed plans.
Reason: In the interest of public health.”
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 77
7.3 South Tipperary County Council
South Tipperary has made a submission in relation to the proposed development. This consists of a summary of the proposed development, including the public consultation which was undertaken. The report concludes by noting that the local authority supports National Spatial Strategy policy that emphasises “that linkages in terms of energy… networks are critically important to allow places and areas to reach their potential and promote balanced regional development” and the 2010 Regional Planning Guidelines which recognise “the expansion of the gas pipeline network to centres of a population throughout the region would provide a significant boost to the economic potential of these areas”.
It is noted that the pipeline is well removed from the functional area of South Tipperary County Council. Accordingly, the local authority supports the gas pipeline project as it would allow conversion of a heavy fuel oil powered station to natural gas, thereby reducing carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxide emissions into the atmosphere.
7.4 The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government
The submission from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht notes discrepancies between Page 15 of the EIS, Table 11.1 and Table 5.12.2 of the Consultation Constraints Report at Appendix 1.2. They, respectively, claim that the proposed corridor would cross two proposed Natural Heritage Areas, no pNHA’s and 1 pNHA.
The Department notes that the initial field survey was carried out in September and October and that this is inadequate for compiling a comprehensive species list of plants and breeding birds. This is recognised in the EIS and, to compensate, a list of breeding bird species expected to be found in the various habitat types is included in Table 11.6. In relation to flora, assumptions are made as to what might occur in certain habitat types and the route is changed to avoid sensitive habitats.
The Department has been unable to locate the three badger sett locations shown on Figures 11.10, 11.7 and 11.20 of the EIS.
The EIS (Section 11.10.1) refers to the derogation for the clearance of vegetation during the bird nesting season, but it fails to advert to the fact that birds’ nests are protected and cannot be intentionally destroyed. Following a survey, should birds’ nests need to be removed, it would be necessary to obtain a licence under the Wildlife Acts, 1976-2010 in order to intentionally destroy them. Interference with badger setts would also require a licence. In the case of trench crossings of watercourses, a licence/derogation would be required, where crayfish or lamprey are present.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 77
The submission notes that Natura Impact Statement Screening Reports have been submitted for the trenchless crossing of the Barrow Estuary and, separately, for the other trenchless crossings of watercourses within the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC. Normally a project as a whole is screened. The submission concurs that as these crossings will be trenchless, no significant impact is likely to result, as long as the applicant adheres to the mitigation measures.
In relation to archaeology, it is noted that the applicant has been in consultation with the National Monuments Service of the Department and a number of mitigation measures have been suggested to the consultants. These are now incorporated in the EIS. Nevertheless, archaeological conditions are recommended in the event of approval being granted, as follows:-
“Detailed archaeological investigation in areas outlined in Table 14.1 of the EIS. (Methodology to be agreed with the DAHG)
Should archaeological material be found during the course of these archaeological works, the archaeologist may have work on the site stopped, pending a decision as to how best to deal with the archaeology. The developer shall be prepared to be advised by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht with regard to any necessary mitigating action (e.g. preservation in situ, and/or excavation). The applicant shall facilitate the archaeologist in recording any material found.
No groundworks for construction or landscaping shall take place within any of the buffer zones outlined in the EIS.
Temporary fencing shall be erected on the boundary of the pipeline route in areas where archaeological buffer zones have been recommended in order to protect known archaeological sites during construction works”
It is noted that the proposed development is within an area of underwater archaeological potential. Accordingly, an archaeological monitoring condition is recommended as follows:
1. “In order to ensure the preservation of underwater archaeological sites and features the applicant is required to engage the services of a suitably qualified archaeologist to monitor all foreshore and riverbed disturbance works associated with the development. It is recommended that the archaeologist be licensed under the National Monuments Acts 1930-2004.
2. Should archaeological material be found during the course of monitoring, the archaeologist shall have work at the location suspended, pending a decision as to how best to deal with the archaeology. The developer shall be advised by the Underwater Archaeology Unit of the National Monuments Service with regard to
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 77
any necessary mitigating action (e.g. preservation in situ, dive and/or geophysical survey or excavation). The applicant shall facilitate the archaeologist in recording any material found.
3. The Underwater Archaeology Unit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht shall be furnished with a report describing the results of the monitoring.”
7.5 The Health Service Executive
The Health Service Executive notes that there is no detail as to how the concerns of the public were addressed in the proposed development.
The location of the construction yard or yards is not indicated and would be left to subcontractors. It is submitted that all construction yards should be agreed with the relevant local authority and be subject to the same controls as any development in the area. It is noted that subcontractors’ construction compounds have been a cause for public health complaints to the Health Service Executive and have given rise to nuisances which are specified in the submission.
There has been no consideration given to the effect downstream of construction activities on the aquaculture industry of the Barrow Nore Súir Estuary. The Waterford Harbour Shellfish Area stretches from the Barrow Railway Bridge to the areas at Creaden Head and Lumsden Bay and is used for the bottom culture of mussels, oysters and clams. It is submitted that the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority should be consulted and all shell fisherman operating in the estuary included in the assessment. Alluvium is likely to be swept downriver during the construction of the crossing. Any release of sediment or other potential contaminants can affect shellfish quality and, in particular, that of mussels. Shellfish can be smothered if an excessive amount of sediment is released and settles on the beds. No Bentonite should be released to the environment. The exact specification of this Bentonite requires to be known.
The EIS notes the soil in the Great Island area to be of the Clonroche series, but the archaeological excavations showed it to be of the Kilpierce series. The latter is poorly drained with a high water table. It is noted that there are other areas with high water tables. Provisions with regard to preserving the integrity of the pipeline in marshy areas are required in all such areas.
The submission notes that the Great Island area sits atop a regionally important aquifer. Most of the drinking water along the route of the pipeline in both counties is derived from groundwater. It is unclear whether the dewatering of trenches in areas where there is a high water table has been assessed with regard to the impact on groundwater.
There appears to be no ground mapping and identification of existing groundwater sources along the proposed route. No details of the construction/lining of the cuttings settlement pit and the slurry containment pit
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 77
at the Barrow River crossing or its potential impacts on groundwater have been submitted.
In terms of human beings, there has been no assessment of the proposed development on Kilmokea House, or house, guesthouse, restaurant, garden and tourist destination. The thickness of the pipe wall close to residences is not specified. While the pipeline may meet IS328-2003 separation distance requirements, this means little to the layman. It is submitted that recent permissions or, even recent developments, have not been considered.
It is submitted that a traffic management plan similar to that fully flagged for the Endesa power plant project should be adopted in the Great Island area where roads are very narrow.
The submission concludes by making a series of specific recommendations based on its earlier findings.
7.6 Inland Fisheries Ireland
Inland Fisheries Ireland require that the inland fisheries resource should not be adversely impacted as a result of the proposed development and that Sections 131, 171 and 173 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Ac, 1959 as amended should be complied with consequent to any works or discharge during works. The standards in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations, 2009 should at all times be complied with consequent on any discharges that may be made during the construction works and the works should comply with the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations, 2011.
From a fisheries standpoint, the main impacts from gas pipe laying across streams and rivers are
Direct loss of habitat due to excavations and machinery operations during the pipe laying process and Adverse impacts downstream due particularly to suspended solids and sedimentation.
The submission notes that salmonids in particular are very sensitive to suspended solids, especially at the egg and early juvenile stages, i.e. October to July for the application site. Macro-invertebrates are also sensitive to suspended solids and such solids can have severe negative impacts on plant life. Contamination at and downstream of the crossing points can occur from lubricating oils, fuels and concrete, the last of which can kill fish and aquatic life by dramatically altering the pH. Upstream and downstream movement of fish and other forms of aquatic life can be impeded with implications for spawning migrations, sport angling and commercial fishing.
Inland Fisheries Ireland is prepared to consider trench type methodologies where waters are of low fisheries value. However, they have identified three
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 77
additional pipeline crossings which require trenchless construction. They have marked these watercourses on a map. They are an unnamed tributary of the River Blackwater east of Mullinavat, another unnamed tributary of the River Blackwater to the northeast of Mullinavat and the Derrylacky River.
The submission strongly disputes the contention that what are some of the most important salmonid waters in the region are only “likely to support fish populations”, as stated at Section 11.7.2.2 of the EIS. Salmonids are, in fact, ubiquitous in these catchments. The Kings River, the Little Arrigle and a tributary of the Little Arigle should not be described as “minor rivers” as they form part of a cSAC. The submission asserts the presence of crayfish in the Kings River. There is no field survey data in the EIS to determine which crossing should or should not be trenchless in the context of the local fish populations. The three additional trenchless crossings requested are no less important than the four proposed. It is understood that a trenchless crossing may not be possible at the Derrylacky River and the Board is urged to explore why this should be so. It is noted that electro-fishing is proposed in place of a trenchless crossing and Inland Fisheries Ireland are prepared to accept this stressful means of temporarily excluding fish only as a last resort and would require the provision of same in the event of trenchless crossings not proving possible at any of the three additional crossings. Unless undertaken by trenchless technology, none of the three additional watercourses should be crossed during the period July-September inclusive.
The submission continues by recommending 10 specific mitigation measures.
In relation to temporary crossing structures over rivers and streams, it is required that these should be effectively bridged prior to commencement of works. Such crossings should be designed to provide for passage of fish and macro invertebrates, the requirement to protect critical fish habitats and to prevent erosion and sedimentation. The preferred solution in this regard would be a total span “Bailey Bridge” type structure. The use of natural fords or the creation of artificial fords is not acceptable. Should the Board be disposed to grant approval, total span structures should be required for all three additional crossings for plant and machinery.
Where crossings of lesser watercourses are required for plant and machinery, the Board is requested to specify detailed requirements by way of condition, if it is disposed to grant approval.
Finally the submission requests that should the Board be disposed to grant approval for this development, it should impose appropriate conditions in relation to the prevention of invasive species which might well be imported on boats, ropes, bouys, diving and water safety equipment, etc.
7.7 The National Roads Authority
The National Roads Authority notes that trenchless techniques are to be used for pipeline crossings of motorways and national roads. However, insufficient detail has been provided on drawings BG111/7/RDX/12 and
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 77
BGE/21/RDX/31. The pipeline depth below these roads must be agreed with the NRA and Kilkenny County Council. All access chambers, etc. should be outside both road reservations.
It is essential that the pipeline design should not compromise the construction of the future N25 Waterford-Glenmore Scheme. A condition should be imposed requiring consultation with the NRA and Kilkenny County Council to agree detailed specifications for the proposed pipeline in relation to the N25 scheme. It is pointed out that the upgrading of the N25 between Waterford and New Ross is an objective of the current county development plan and also features in the Regional Planning Guidelines for the South East Region, 2010- 2022.
The Authority expresses satisfaction with the scope of the assessment contained in the Environmental Impact Statement in relation to the traffic implications of the proposal on the road network.
7.8 Iarnród Éireann
Iarnród Éireann requires that all crossings should cross the railway at an angle of 90º to the railway line with a tolerance of 5º either way. They should be undertaken by trenchless methods, including that under the Waterford/New Ross line. The required depth of each pipe should be 4.3 metres under sleeper level (4.7 metres below rail level) for the wayleaves under the Kilkenny - Waterford and Waterford-Rosslare lines and 2.5 metres below rail level on the Waterford-New Ross line. Iarnród Éireann reserves the right to excavate down to 2 metres below rail level without reference to the applicant and should this not be acceptable to the applicant, they should review the proposed depth of the pipeline. No works may be undertaken from the railway line and existing unmanned level crossings may not be used, including those on the Waterford-New Ross line.
Apart from the foregoing, Iarnród Éireann has additional legal and administrative requirements.
7.9 An Taisce
An Taisce take the view that Route Option C, passing closer to New Ross would have been preferable to the preferred route. It is noted that the general thrust of the South East Regional Planning Guidelines, at Section 5.4, is to call for a distribution that would benefit the Wexford towns. It is submitted that the chosen route should run from the Castlebanny AGI directly to New Ross, crossing the river under the proposed Inner Relief Route road bridge and passing around the back of Slieve Coillte where a secondary hub could allow supplies to New Ross, to mid-County Wexford and to Wexford town.
The proposed alignment has been carried insensitively around the early monastic and Viking settlement at Kilmokea. It is submitted that by passing through the foreshore area below the main site at Kilmokea, it would wreck any remains (small docks, beached craft, waterside structures, middens, etc.)
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 77
that might lie under the soil. At Kilmokea itself, outlying shrines and tombs could be destroyed. There were once considerable earthworks in the vicinity of the power station itself.
It is submitted that the obvious disruption and danger to the famous Kilmokea gardens, with its remains of medieval water power arrangements does not appear to have influenced the applicant’s decision.
7.10 The Health and Safety Authority
The Board requested that The Health and Safety Authority provide technical advice in relation to this planning application. On 26th March 2012, the HSA wrote to the Board advising, inter alia, that it did not advise against the granting of planning permission in the context of Major Accident Hazards.
7.11 The Commission for Energy Regulation
In accordance with Section 182C(9) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010, the Board requested the Commission for Energy Regulation to make observations in relation to the proposed development and any safety or operational matters, including any relevant safety advice or specific recommendations which it considered appropriate. The Commission was requested to respond not later than 20th January 2012. In the event, the Commission responded after this date, their response was returned and they were written to again, seeking their observations. They duly responded on 8th February 2012 stating that they would not be resubmitting their original submission, given that they had said that they had no observation in their letter dated 25th January 2012.
8.0 THIRD PARTY OBSERVATIONS
Four letters have been received by the Board in relation to this application. They are from or on behalf of the Great Island Generating Station Concerns Committee, Liam Knox, John Barron and Donal Gorey.
8.1 The Great Island Generating Station Concerns Committee
This observation takes the form of a multi-signatory objection from persons with addresses given variously as Newtown, Kilmokea and Great Island.
It is claimed that the chosen route is too close to the houses in the area and that this would cause a risk to health and safety. There is another route available across lowland where there are no houses.
8.2 Liam Knox
The observer has an address at Ballybaring, Slieverue, County Kilkenny.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 77
The observation claims that the pipeline would be within approximately 50 metres of the observer’s home. The observer has concerns about its implications for his privately owned drinking water supply. He seeks assurances from the applicant in this regard. The observer also expresses concerns in relation to the valuation of his property. Finally, he expresses concerns in relation to the traffic generation on the local road system and on adjacent farmland.
8.3 John Barron
The observer has an address at Sheepstown, Knocktopher, County Kilkenny. He is a dairy farmer and has leased the lands owned by Mr Donal Gorey. This is solely for the purpose of increasing his dairy herd and establishing a viable income for his family. He claims that under the Bord Gáis proposal he would now find himself in conflict with the European Nitrate Directive which means that he would be restricted in expanding his herd. He has been unable to find a replacement for the lands which would be lost to the applicant. Consequently, he objects to the proposed development.
8.4 Donal Gorey
The observer has an address at Baysrath, Knocktopher, County Kilkenny. He is the owner of the lands leased to Mr John Barron. Following the severing of his lands by the motorway and compensation for this severance, he was obliged to undertake a complete reclamation of five fields to the east of the new motorway alignment, as indicated on a map with the observation. It has taken three years to bring these up to a productive and agriculturally viable level. He fears he will again lose productive land as a result of the gas pipeline.
Originally the pipeline was to have followed a more easterly route at this location, as indicated on a map lodged with the observation, but this was changed as it emerged that it was possible that two fields, designated B6 and B7 on the map, might become part of a Special Area of Conservation. A further possible routing, designated A3 runs through lands close to the motorway in the ownership of the County Council and no explanation has been offered as to why these could not be used. There was no consultation on these changes. The observer also objects to the fact that he has no knowledge of the routing other than the part that passed through his land. It is unreasonable that the route should have been realigned just on the possibility of SAC designation.
9.0 THE ORAL HEARING
An oral hearing in relation to this application and compulsory acquisition order was held on 3rd and 4th April, 2012. An electronic recording of the hearing is available. During the course of the oral hearing, an observation from Eoin and Martina Griffin, the owners of a racehorse training stables at Beacon Hill, Ballyrowragh, Slieve Rue, County Kilkenny, objecting to both
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 77
the application and acquisition order, was withdrawn. The concerns of Liam Knox had been settled prior to the hearing. The only outstanding objection to the compulsory acquisition order was that of Mr Donal Gorey.
The salient points of the oral hearing are referred to in my assessment.
10.0 ASSESSMENT
A number of issues arises in assessing this application. These issues are considered under the relevant side headings which follow.
10.1 Environmental Impact Assessment
Section 182C of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as inserted by Section 4 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006 requires that “where a person (hereafter referred to in this section as the “undertaker”) intends to carry out a strategic gas infrastructure development (hereafter referred to in this section and Section 182D as “proposed development”) the undertaker shall prepare or cause to be prepared –
an application for approval of the development under Section 182D, and an environmental impact statement in respect of the development,
and shall apply to the Board for such approval accordingly, indicating in the application whether the application relates to a strategic upstream gas pipeline or a strategic downstream gas pipeline”.
Under Section 182C, a gas pipeline must come within the definition specified in Section 2(i) of the 2000 Act, as amended by Section 6 of the 2006 Act. The amendment defines a strategic downstream gas pipeline as meaning “any proposed gas pipeline, other than an upstream gas pipeline, which is designed to operate at 16 bar or greater and is longer than 20 kilometres in length”. Strategic gas infrastructure development is defined as meaning “any proposed development comprising or for the purposes of a strategic downstream gas pipeline or a strategic upstream gas pipeline and associated tunnels, buildings and installations, whether above or below ground, including any associated discharge pipe”.
Following completion of the pre-application procedures, the Board confirmed that the proposed development constitutes strategic infrastructure.
A two volume environmental impact statement has been submitted with the application. The first volume consists of the written text, including appendices. The second volume consists of a series of figures, many of them consisting of maps and aerial photographs.
Volume 1 of the EIS consists of a non-technical summary, followed by the main text and then the appendices. The main text is subdivided into 17 chapters as follows:-
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 77
1. Introduction 2. Background to the project and alternatives 3. Project description 4. Construction activities 5. Planning and policy context 6. Human beings 7. Roads and traffic 8. Air quality and climate 9. Noise and vibration 10. Landscape and visual 11. Flora and fauna 12. Soils and geology 13. Surface water and groundwater 14. Archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage 15. Material assets 16. Cumulative impacts, other impacts and interactions and 17. Summary of impacts and mitigation measures.
The appendices are as follows:-
1.1 Letter from An Bord Pleanála confirming that pipeline development constitutes SID
1.2 Copy of Consultation Constraints Report
1.3 Copy of the Project Information Brochure
1.4 Copy of the Code of Practice between Bord Gáis and the Department of the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands
2.1 Location of Alternative Routes
11.1 NRA publication Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes
11.2 Natura Impact Statement Screening Report for trenchless crossing of the Barrow Estuary
11.3 Natura Impact Statement Screening Report for trenchless crossings of watercourses within River Barrow and River Nore cSAC (other than the Barrow Estuary crossing)
11.4 Other site synopses
14.1 Catalogue of Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Sites
14.2 Files of the Archaeological Survey of Ireland – Kilkenny
14.3 Topographical Files of National Museum of Ireland
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 77
14.4 Excavations Bulletin
14.5 Wading and Metal Detection Report of rivers crossed
14.6 Report of the Intertidal Survey of Barrow Estuary
14.7 Geophysical Survey Report
The EIS contains the information which it is required to contain under Article 94 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001. It includes a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development including, in many cases, as chapter headings, the items specified at Paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 6 of the Regulations. The Regulations specify these as
Human beings, fauna and flora Soils, water, air, climatic factors and the landscape, Material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage and the cultural heritage and The interrelationship between the above factors.
The direct and indirect effects of the project on the environment are identified throughout the EIS. They are summarised in Tables 17.1 and 17.2 which I copy below.
Table 17.1
Source / Scale of Effect Control and Mitigation Environmental Consequence Significance Level
Site Clearance and Preparation
Fencing of working width A construction environmental Moderate Temporary Stripping and stockpiling topsoil management plan will be prepared and implemented with increase in traffic Importation of plant and the objective of keeping in the vicinity of equipment disruption and nuisance to a the construction Vehicle and plant emissions minimum. The plan will have route regard to the guidance Temporary change in Disturbance of surface water contained in the handbooks the appearance of the regime published by the Construction Route Industry Research and
Information Association (CIRIA)
in the UK, UEnvironmental Good
Practice on Site CIRIA 2005, and
Control of Water Pollution from
Linear Construction Projects –
Technical Guidance CIRIA 2006.
Construction traffic management plan Dust Control Measures
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 77
Source / Scale of Effect Control and Mitigation Environmental Consequence Significance Level
Wheel wash and mud control
measures at specific locations
Measures for control of rainwater runoff Measures for storage of fuels, etc. on site
Generation of Waste Construction waste, sanitary Construction Waste Slight waste and domestic-type waste Management Plan to Residual waste will Excess excavated material and minimise waste generation displace landfill space
spoil
Site Tidiness Untidy Site A regular programme of site Slight Temporary Litter tidying will be established to ensure a safe and orderly site. intermittent increase
Food waste will be strictly in noise levels during construction phase controlled.
Surrounding roads used by vehicles to access to and egress from the site will be cleaned regularly using an approved vacuum type mechanical road sweeper. Road edges will be cleaned using a hand broom with controlled damping. In the event of any solid waste escaping from the site, it will be collected and removed to storage on-site, and disposed of in the normal manner. Visual Impact Stripped topsoil and excavated Limits of construction activity Moderate, Temporary area will be a contrasting colour will be adequately fenced-off in with pasture for a short period order to avoid damage or Temporary impacts of time. disturbance to landscape during construction New temporary linear feature elements outside of minimum activities area required for such works. across the landscape. Construction works will proceed Removal of trees and shrubs on in a controlled and orderly pipeline route manner. Temporary offices and welfare Significant and ecologically facilities important flora will be avoided
where feasible. A high standard of reinstatement of pasture and
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 77
Source / Scale of Effect Control and Mitigation Environmental Consequence Significance Level hedgerows is planned.
Traffic Increase in traffic due to Road crossing methods will be Imperceptible construction agreed with the relevant local No long term residual authorities impact on the local road network Construction of road crossings A detailed construction phase traffic management plan will be produced as part of the contractual agreements for the construction of the pipeline. This traffic management plan will be agreed with Kilkenny and Wexford County Councils before implementation, and will take account of local requirements. Insofar as practical, construction traffic will be restricted to National and Regional class roads. Noise and Vibration
Earthworks plant and equipment Noise generation during the Slight, Temporary No significant construction phase will be Construction plant and residual noise and managed in accordance with equipment vibration impacts BS 5228 Noise and Vibration predicted. Construction traffic Control on Construction and
Rock breaking, or blasting if Open Sites required (it was stated at the oral hearing that no blasting would be required)
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 77
Source / Scale of Effect Control and Mitigation Environmental Consequence Significance Level A construction environmental Imperceptible Emissions from construction management plan will be Localised and plant and vehicles prepared and implemented temporary decrease Dust from movements on site in with the objective of keeping in air quality in the dry weather disruption and nuisance to a vicinity of vehicles minimum. The plan will have and plant, but well regard to the guidance within Air Quality contained in the handbook Standards. published by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) in the UK, Environmental Good Practice on Site CIRIA 2005. and Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects – Technical Guidance CIRIA 2006. Construction traffic management plan Plant and vehicles regularly serviced to minimise emissions Dust Control Measures
Climate Greenhouse gas emissions from None required Negligible No perceptible construction plant and vehicles impact predicted
Soils and Geology Compaction of topsoil A construction environmental Imperceptible Localised and management plan will be temporary decrease prepared and implemented in air quality in the with the objective of keeping vicinity of vehicles disruption and nuisance to a and plant, but well minimum. The plan will have within Air Quality regard to the guidance contained Standards. in the handbook published by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) in the UK, Environmental Good Practice on Site CIRIA 2005 and Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects – Technical Guidance CIRIA 2006. Construction traffic management plan Plant and vehicles regularly serviced to minimise emissions
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 77
Source / Scale of Effect Control and Mitigation Environmental Consequence Significance Level Dust Control Measures Surface Water and Groundwater Leaks and spills of fuel or A construction environmental Negligible No significant lubricant from plant and management plan will be impact predicted equipment prepared and implemented Siltation and turbidity at open- with the objective of keeping disruption and nuisance to a cut watercourse crossings minimum. The plan will have regard to the guidance contained in the handbook published by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) in the UK, Good Practice on Site CIRIA 2005and Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects – Technical Guidance CIRIA 2006. Construction traffic management plan Dust Control Measures Wheel wash and mud control measures Measures for control of rainwater runoff Measures for storage of fuels, etc. on site Flora and Fauna Potential impacts on the River A construction environmental Neutral to Moderate Barrow and River Nore cSAC management plan will be No significant Habitat removal prepared and implemented with the objective of keeping impacts are Siltation and turbidity at open- disruption and nuisance to a predicted. cut minimum. watercourse crossings The plan will have Siltation and turbidity during regard to the guidance contained in the handbook installation and removal of published by the Construction fluid return line for trenchless Industry Research and crossing of Barrow Estuary Information Association Short term disturbance may (CIRIA) in the UK, Good occur to roosting waders. Practice on Site CIRIA Potential impact on badger 2005and Control of Water Pollution from Linear feeding areas Construction Projects – It is likely that there will be Technical Guidance CIRIA short term disturbance to birds 2006. as a result of hedgerow removal Crossings of large during construction. watercourses (excluding the
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 77
Source / Scale of Effect Control and Mitigation Environmental Consequence Significance Level Derrylacky River), watercourses designated as cSACs (excluding the small stream which is a tributary of the River Arrigal), motorways, national roads and rail lines will require trenchless construction methods. Buffer zones will be established prior to construction of watercourse crossings, Appropriate Assessment screening has been undertaken. The pipeline has been routed to avoid the high value Rich Fen and Flush habitat Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise disruption of badger feeding. During construction, the passage of badgers to either side of the pipeline route will be facilitated. All badger setts will be resurveyed prior to commencement of construction. Generally, trees that are to be removed during construction are not of sufficient age or structural diversity to be of sufficient value for bat roosts.
Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Potential impact on archaeological There are no recorded No significant sites and on architectural and archaeological sites within the impacts predicted. cultural heritage pipeline corridor. No predicted Potential short term visual There are no protected impacts on any impact on Kells Priory, a structures or buildings listed recorded National Monument in the NIAH within the pipeline archaeological Potential removal of townland route. sites. boundaries Wading and metal detection No predicted surveys were undertaken under impacts on any licence of the four rivers and protected nine streams to be crossed by structures or the pipeline route. buildings. An intertidal survey of the Short term Barrow Estuary was temporary visual undertaken at the location of impact on Kells
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 77
Source / Scale of Effect Control and Mitigation Environmental Consequence Significance Level the trenchless crossing points. Priory during An underwater survey of construction. Barrow Estuary crossing will be undertaken prior to commencement of construction. A detailed methodology for the Barrow Estuary crossing will be sent to the Underwater Archaeology Unit of the NMS, DAHG, prior to construction. Archaeological monitoring of the watercourse crossings will be undertaken. All archaeological mitigation works will be undertaken in compliance with the provisions of the National Monuments Acts 1930-2004 and the Code of Practice agreed between Bord Gáis and the DAHG. All topsoil stripping will be monitored by a suitably qualified archaeologist, under licence to the National Monuments Service at the DAHG. Archaeological testing at three potential archaeological sites will be undertaken prior to commencement of construction. Areas within 10km of the Barrow Estuary crossing will be rewalked prior to commencement of topsoil stripping. In the event of archaeological material being uncovered, consultation will take place with the National Monuments Service and the National Museum of Ireland to decide on and appropriate course of action. All townland boundaries will be recorded in advance of their removal.
Human Beings Construction jobs None required. Moderate, Short term, Beneficial
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 77
Table 17.2
Source / Scale of Control and Mitigation Environmental Effect Consequence Significant Level Landscape and Visual 14 metre wayleave must be kept None required Slight clear of trees and buildings Route of pipeline will be permanently visible in AGI will be a permanent areas of forestry feature on the landscape. Noise and Vibration There will be no noise or None required No significant impacts are vibration emissions from the predicted. Imperceptible. operating pipeline. Noise emissions from the AGI will be very low. Air Quality Possible occasional controlled None required Imperceptible/Slight emissions of natural gas from No significant impacts are AGI sites, in accordance with predicted operations procedures Material Assets Extended gas infrastructure. None required Moderate Beneficial/Slight Planting and development Adverse limitation on permanent New gas infrastructure. wayleave Restrictions on tree planting and building may have local slight adverse impacts on individuals
Of the effects identified throughout the EIS, just three are recognised as significant, even without mitigation. These are dust generation during the construction phase, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions as a result of the changeover of the Great Island Power Station from oil to natural gas and the visual impact of the Above Ground Installation at Castlebanny.
The interactions between the factors listed in Section 171A of the Planning and Development Act, as amended by the Planning and Development Amendment Act, 2010, are covered at Section 16.6 of the EIS. The loss of hedgerows and trees would have an impact on the both the landscape and on flora and fauna. The construction of the pipeline would affect soils and geology and surface water and groundwater. Noise and vibration could have an effect on human beings and flora and fauna. Any deterioration in air quality could affect human beings and flora and fauna. The archaeological mitigation measures of test trenching and excavation, if required, have the potential to result in silt laden run-off entering surface waters which could have an effect on ecology.
Section 16.6.1 of the EIS considers indirect effects. It is noted that the proposed development would lead indirectly to job provision in that it would
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 77
provide fuel for the power station at Great Island which, in turn, would provide power for industry resulting in the provision of job opportunities. The construction and operation of the proposed development is not expected to have a significant effect on property values in the vicinity of the pipeline route.
Overall, I consider that the EIS is correct in its conclusions regarding the low likelihood of significant long term effects resulting from the proposed development. The most notable long term effect would appear to be visual, insofar as those limited areas where the pipeline route would pass through woodland would not be replanted with trees. I conclude that the residual effect of the proposed development would be acceptable.
While I consider that the EIS is generally comprehensive, it appears to suffer from having being completed too far in advance of lodgement of the planning application. A submission at the oral hearing, i.e. that of Mr Vincent Murphy, field ecologist for the applicant indicated that it was written in 2010, i.e. a year or even more before the lodgement date on the 21st November 2011, although there are references to later dates in the text. Since then, the Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations, 2011 have been introduced. The EIS refers to the non-availability of conservation objectives for the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC, whereas these, in fact, appear to have been published on 19th July 2011. The most serious shortcoming would seem to relate to the failure to include any reference to the notable impact the proposed development would have on the horse training stables of Eoin and Martina Griffin at Beacon Hill, in the townland of Ballyrowragh. This is despite the fact that discussions had been on-going with the Griffins since at least early 2011 and their property was visited on two occasions, 28th March 2011 and 17th August 2011 by an equine veterinary surgeon on behalf of the applicant. This is referred to further in the section entitled “Material Assets” in this assessment. Commenting on this shortcoming towards the end of the oral hearing, Mr Paul Gallagher, Senior Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, referred the Board to two High Court decisions, namely Klohn versus An Bord Pleanála [2008] i.e. HC1011, [2008] 2 ILRM435 and Hands Across the Corrib Ltd. versus An Bord Pleanála [2009] i.e. HC600. The judgements in these cases essentially support the view that environmental impact assessment is an on-going process. In the latter case Birmingham J. held that “in many ways its function is to set the agenda and define the parameters for what is to follow”. In the present instance, the shortcomings in the Environmental Impact Statement have been corrected and in particular those in relation to the Griffins. I consider that the Environmental Impact Statement should be accepted on this basis, but I would be concerned that the submission of an incomplete Environmental Impact Statement, to be perfected later, was to become the norm.
10.2 Appropriate Assessment
Article 6(3) of the European Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) states “any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 77
assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of Paragraph 4, the competent national authority shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, having obtained the opinion of the general public”. In the case of the present application, just one European site would be likely to be affected by the project namely the River Barrow and River Nore candidate Special Area of Conservation (site no. 002162). Eleven plant and animal species and 11 habitats are identified as of qualifying interest in the Conservation Objectives for this SAC published on 19th July 2011.
The Environmental Impact Statement contains Natura Impact Statement Screening reports for the trenchless crossing of the River Barrow estuary (Appendix 11.2) and for three other trenchless crossings of watercourses within the cSAC (Appendix 11.3). This approach is unusual as it is normally the case that such reports are carried out for a project as a whole, rather than separately for selected components of the project. This fact was highlighted in the report received from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. At the oral hearing, the applicant explained that this had arisen out of the fact that Natura Impact Statement Screening had already been carried out in respect of the River Barrow crossing in connection with the foreshore licence which had been applied for earlier. In my view, the approach adopted, while unusual, is acceptable in this instance as the river crossings are the only places where the proposed development could reasonably be expected to have any effect on the cSAC as the pipeline crosses the watercourses at or approaching right angles and, accordingly, distances itself thereafter.
The report for the crossing of the River Barrow Estuary notes that the crossing would be constructed at a minimum depth of 10 metres beneath the bed of the river. It might require to be constructed to a depth of 20-30 metres beneath the river in places, but this would be confirmed following detailed design. The crossing would take approximately 2-3 months to complete. A temporary 8 inch polyethylene fully welded pipeline would be laid across the bed of the estuary in line with the main pipeline to facilitate the return of bentonite drilling fluid for cleaning and recirculation. This too would be in position for 2-3 months.
Measures described as “mitigation measures” are included. The land-take area would be clearly fenced in a manner visible to machinery operators prior to the commencement of works. The drill sites and all associated activity would be located a minimum of 50 metres from the landward boundary of the cSAC. Noise from equipment and machinery would comply with the relevant regulations and guidelines. Recommendations for “best practice” procedures for construction works likely to affect surface waters (SEPA et al, undated; SEPA 1996; DMNR, 1998, CIRIA 2001) would be followed. A detailed waste management plan would be developed to cover spillage of contaminants such as bentonite, oil and general construction waste. Drilling works would not be carried out in the main wintering period for birds on the mudflats. Care would be taken when installing the fluid return line on the riverbed and
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 77
method statements would be drafted in agreement with Inland Fisheries Ireland and other relevant authorities for installation and removal. Potential flooding with associated introduction of high levels of silt into the estuary would be minimised through limiting temporary storage of material above ground, immediate removal/disposal of surplus material offsite, provision of drainage within soil bunds and the avoidance of direct discharge of surface water from any temporary impervious area to nearby watercourses without attenuation. A detailed pollution control plan, emergency response plan and method statements would be drafted in agreement with Inland Fisheries Ireland and other relevant authorities. Excavated material would be stored separately and reinstated as soon as possible. Post construction, any habitats removed would be reinstated. Construction would take place predominantly during daylight to minimise disturbance of roosting birds or feeding nocturnal mammal species.
Some of the measures described as “mitigation measures” should not be described as such. They are clearly an integral part of the proposed development. These primarily relate to a description of the construction and laying of the bentonite drilling fluid return pipe and the abstraction of water from the River Barrow for the mixing of the bentonite drilling fluid and for hydro-testing the underground pipeline.
The report concludes that the drilling works would impact on only a small portion of the total amount of similar habitat at the site and surrounding areas. Provided mitigation measures are effectively implemented, the impact should be low and localised in the short-term and imperceptible in the long-term.
The provision of a temporary pipe would have a limited impact on Annex I habitats, namely “mudflats and sand flats not covered by seawater at low tide,” “Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)” and “estuaries”. The impact would be localised in the short-term and imperceptible in the long- term. The gas pipeline would be 10-30 metres in depth below the river and vibrations would be negligible and would not affect the riverbed. There would be no significant discharge of silt or chemicals.
The works would not cause significant deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species and species of special conservation interests or significant disturbance to these species so that the integrity of the site would be maintained. No significant cumulative impact is envisaged. There would be no significant habitat loss and, provided the mitigation measures are effectively implemented, the impact should be low and localised during the construction period. Post-construction impacts would be imperceptible.
In relation to the three other rivers within the cSAC which are to be crossed by trenchless crossings, namely the King’s River, the Little Arrigle River and the tributary of the Little Arrigle River, it is noted that a field survey indicated that the tributary watercourse, included within the cSAC boundary, is actually relatively small and insignificant. To the north of this there is a larger stream which is not included within the cSAC boundary, although it discharges into the cSAC. The National Parks and Wildlife Service requested that the larger
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 77
watercourse should be considered as part of the cSAC and that the crossing methodology should be designed to take this into account. It seems that the smaller drain which is included within the cSAC was confused with this larger tributary in a mapping error. Accordingly, it is intended to cross the larger tributary using trenchless methodology and to use a standard open cross cutting technique for the small drain which is claimed to be of minor ecological value. This last mentioned crossing would be constructed in the summer.
As in the case of the crossing of the River Barrow, it is noted that no specific conservation objectives are available on the NPWS website for this cSAC. The generic objectives are to avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species and species of special conservation interest or significant disturbance to these species, thus ensuring the integrity of the cSAC is maintained and to ensure that for the qualifying species and species of special conservation interest the population of the species as a viable component of the site, the distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species and the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species are maintained.
Site inspections were carried out during September, October and December 2010 and in March 2011. Habitats were recorded in accordance with “A Standard Methodology for Habitats Survey and Mapping in Ireland” (Heritage Council, 2005) and these are included in the report. It is noted that no listed rare or threatened floral species were recorded on or in the vicinity of the site. None of the habitats recorded is included in the list of qualifying habitats for the cSAC, but as all of them occur within the SAC they are considered to be of International value A in accordance with the evaluation scheme in the NRA publication “Guidelines for assessment of ecological impacts of National Road Schemes”.
The report notes that the primary qualifying Annex I habitat at risk from deterioration in water quality is “watercourses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis” and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation. Three possible types of trenchless crossing are envisaged, namely directional or horizontal directional drilling, pipe ramming and micro-tunnelling. These three methods are described in the report and a description is included in the section on “Watercourse Crossings” in this assessment. In relation to the primary qualifying Annex I habitat it is held that as the crossings would be trenchless and having regard to the specified mitigation measures, no significant impact on this habitat is envisaged. Similarly, there would be no significant impact on other qualifying Annex I habitats which are largely estuarine or terrestrial. In the case of all three river crossings a minimum buffer zone of 10 metres is recommended on either side of the watercourse. The following “mitigation measures” are set out in the screening report at Appendix 11.3 of the EIS.
Control of Pollution to Surface Waters, Subsurface soils and Groundwater
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 77
The Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) guidance on Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects (Murnane, Heap and Swain 2006) would be referred to insofar it is relevant to the proposed construction activities.
Silt traps/settling ponds/topsoil and grass margin between works site and rivers would be used to control surface runoff as required.
There would be no direct discharges to surface waters, subsurface soils and groundwater during the construction phase of the project.
The pipeline construction works would be undertaken in the summer months, when water levels are lower, and the land is drier.
An Environmental Management Plan would be implemented during the construction of the river crossings.
In the event of spillage of any polluting substance and/or pollution of a watercourse, Kilkenny County Council and Inland Fisheries Ireland shall be notified immediately.
All fuels and oils and other chemicals used in the execution of the works shall be stored in secured bunded areas, well away from the cSAC. Particular care shall be taken during the refuelling and maintenance of plant equipment to avoid spillage. Refuelling would not be permitted in the vicinity of the cSAC. Machinery would be kept in good working order.
All dewatering flows would be passed through settlement ponds or tanks to remove sediment, in order to minimise any potential environmental impacts. Possible siltation from excavated soil would be prevented by siltation traps.
All domestic effluent, generated on site, would be held in appropriate portable toilet facilities, prior to treatment off site. These facilities would not be located in the vicinity of the cSAC.
If there are periods of excessive rainfall, work would stop and machinery would be stored appropriately to prevent runoff from the site reaching surface water, subsurface or groundwater.
Water supplies fed by springs or wells used for farming purposes would be surveyed and monitored. The protection or reinstatement of land drains would be agreed in advance between the applicant, the pipeline contractor and the landowners/occupiers
The land take area would be minimised at the river crossings to prevent incidental damage and increased surface water runoff. The land take area would be clearly fenced in a manner visible to machinery operators. All workers on site would be informed of the importance of remaining within the designated land take area and would be made aware of the importance of the cSAC.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 77
Control of Noise
Equipment and machinery would be well maintained and silenced exhausts and acoustic covers would be used where appropriate. The effects of noise generating activities, such as pipe cutting, would be limited in the vicinity of noise sensitive locations.
Construction equipment and plant would comply with current good practice in construction noise control is to demonstrate compliance with the National Roads Authority Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Roads Schemes (NRA 2004).
General mitigation measures
The contractor would follow detailed method statements and management plans relating to all activities that entail significant risks to the environment. In particular, the contractor would be required to prepare detailed method statements for the construction of the river crossings. The method statements would be agreed with the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
The working area around ecological sites, hedgerows and treelines would be kept to a minimum to reduce the area or length of these sites or habitats that would be lost. The working area would be defined at the outset by the erection of fencing to define the limits of site works. Under the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000, breeding birds are protected by prohibiting the clearance of hedgerows and ditches during the period 1st March – 31st August. However there is an exemption for construction works. Removal of trees/hedgerows during this period would be avoided where possible.
Habitats that are damaged and disturbed would be left to regenerate naturally or would be rehabilitated and landscaped, as appropriate, once construction is complete. Disturbed areas would be seeded or planted using appropriate grass or species native to the areas. Where possible any hedgerows disturbed during construction would be replanted using a suitable mix of native species.
The report concludes that the three watercourses forming part of the designated cSAC would be crossed using a trenchless crossing technique involving drilling beneath the watercourses. While the construction of the proposed river crossings would directly impact on terrestrial habitats within the cSAC boundary, these are of low to moderate local value and the long- term impacts would not be significant overall. Provided the proposed mitigation measures are effectively implemented, the works would impact on only a small fraction of the total amount of similar habitat at the site and surrounding areas. The adoption of trenchless crossings and the implementation of standard mitigation measures for non-designated crossings would prevent any significant impact on water quality and thus would not impact on important Annex II species or Annex I habitats which are listed as of qualifying interest for the cSAC. No significant habitat loss would occur as a result of the proposed development and provided the mitigation measures are
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 77
effectively implemented, the impact should be low and localised during the construction period. Post-construction impacts should also be low and of minimal to no impact on the surrounding environment. The final conclusion is that given the low risk of significant impacts a Stage 2 appropriate assessment is not considered necessary.
As noted earlier, in my view, while the approach taken in relation to appropriate assessment is unusual in carrying out Natura Impact Statement Screening in respect of the watercourse crossing elements of the proposed development, only, and, furthermore, carrying these out separately in respect of the Barrow and the other cSAC watercourses, I consider, nevertheless, that this is a valid approach. It appears that the Barrow was separated from the other watercourses on the basis that Natura Impact Statement Screening had already been carried out in relation to a Foreshore Licence application. As noted by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in a verbal submission at the oral hearing, where mitigation is necessary to ensure that there are no significant effects on a European site, it would be normal to go through a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment and produce a Natura Impact Statement, rather than just a screening statement. However, most of the “mitigation measures” put forward can be regarded as good practice and, as such, to constitute an integral part of the project itself. Other “mitigation measures” as noted earlier, i.e. those in relation to the bentonite return line and the abstraction of water from the River Barrow should more properly be regarded as a fundamental part of the project itself. In my view, the critical factor in relation to the trenchless crossings is that they would commence well back from the riverbanks and that the pipeline would pass at a considerable depth below the bed of the affected watercourses. Accordingly, I feel it is reasonable to conclude that on the basis of the information available, which I consider adequate in order to issue a screening determination, that the proposed development, individually and in combination with other plans or projects would not be likely to have a significant effect on any European site and, in particular, the River Barrow and River Nore candidate Special Area of Conservation (Site no. 002162), in view of the site’s conservation objectives and an appropriate assessment and submission of a Natura Impact Statement is therefore not required.
10.3 Alternatives
Alternatives are covered at Chapter 2 of the EIS.
The fundamental alternative of the “do nothing option” is dismissed on the basis that the new 430 megawatt Great Island CCGT Power Plant could not operate without a gas supply.
Practical alternatives are limited to the pipeline routing and the location of the Above Ground Installations (AGIs).
Three alternative routes were initially identified and evaluated. These are shown on Figure 2.1 and in Appendix 2.1 of the EIS. All the pipeline routes commence from locations on the Cork to Dublin gas pipeline. Corridor A, the
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 77
most southerly option, would have run from the Gurteen AGI near Mullinahone in County Tipperary in a southeasterly direction to Great Island. Corridor B, the chosen route, runs from the Baunlusk AGI close to Grange in County Kilkenny south-southeast to Great Island. Corridor C, the most northerly option, would have run from an off-take point east of the Baunlusk AGI, again in a south-southeast direction to Great Island. Corridor A was rejected on the basis of significant construction difficulties in the first 20 kilometres, owing to poor ground conditions, a high water table and sloping terrain at high elevation at Carricktriss Gorse, at over 300 metres. Corridor C was rejected on the basis that it would have encountered significant construction difficulties along its length, including an area north of the River Nore crossing near Thomastown with steep slopes. There would have been further steep inclines/undulations and poorly drained ground conditions for a 13 kilometre section south of Inistioge, including Mount Alto at 275 metres. It would have involved two crossings of the River Nore, a cSAC, at Bennettsbridge and Thomastown. Following a longer crossing of the River Barrow the pipeline would have encountered an area of poorly drained land with a high water table for a distance of about 1 kilometre. The chosen route, Corridor B, is noted to have less major construction difficulties than the other two corridors, with generally gradual slopes and well drained soils. A sub- option of Corridor B was also considered. This was Corridor B1 which diverged from Corridor B about 7 kilometres north of the proposed River Barrow crossing and went on to cross the River Barrow estuary at Dollarpoint about 2 kilometres upstream of the chosen crossing point at Ferrypoint. However, the crossing point at Dollarpoint would have given rise to difficulties with the trenchless crossing technique by comparison with the chosen route. It would also have resulted in a longer pipeline.
Four possible locations for the intermediate AGI were considered. They are indicated at Figure 2.2 of the EIS. Two of these were approximately 20 kilometres along the pipeline route, while the other two were approximately 23 kilometres along the route. The four sites were assessed in terms of location, layout, ecology/human environment, safety and existing infrastructure. On location, it is noted that all four potential sites were located, as required, about mid-way along the pipeline. However, one of the sites was just 50 metres away from the nearest dwellinghouse. Site 2, i.e. the ultimately chosen site, was considered to be the best in terms of layout due to its proximity to the N9 for ease of access and its visually sheltered location. In relation to ecology/human environment, again Site 3, i.e. that within 50 metres of the nearest dwellinghouse, would have the greatest impact arising from noise during its construction and possible, very occasional, venting during its operation. In terms of safety, two of the sites are located on straight sections of the N9 with good sight lines, while the other two are on quiet minor public roads. All are in rural farmland settings so that in the highly unlikely event of ignition occurring during venting, danger would be extremely low. Just one of the sites, i.e. Site 4, the most southerly option might be at risk from flooding due to its low-lying situation and nearby evidence of poor drainage conditions.
With reference to existing infrastructure it is noted that none of the sites would interfere with existing ESB overhead wires. However, Sites 1 and 2, i.e. the
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 77
two more northerly sites, would be in close proximity to existing 10 to 20 kV single phase electricity supplies.
Following evaluation under these five headings, the site at Castlebanny (Site 2) was chosen as being the optimum location for the AGI.
On alternative technologies, the EIS holds that there is no other technically and commercially viable means of supplying the power plant with natural gas. On alternative construction methods, it is stated that the proposed means of laying the pipeline is a well-established and standardised methodology.
During the course of the oral hearing, it was explained that the width of each route corridor was selected at 1 kilometre to allow for route refinement within the corridor. The route corridors pass around major obstacles such as hills and mountains, areas of poor ground and forestry, towns and villages and environmentally sensitive areas. The extent of these constraints, located between the route corridors, limited the viability of alternative corridors crossing between or linking the main identified corridors. It was also explained that the River Barrow estuary crossing presented a significant engineering constraint during the detailed route design process as it would be necessary to install the pipeline trenchlessly under the river, without impacting the candidate Special Area of Conservation. The length of the trenchless crossing would be approximately 1 kilometre and would require the prefabrication of a 1 kilometre long pipe section that would be pulled, via a single continuous insertion process into a small tunnel drilled under the river. Prior to insertion, the prefabricated pipe section would be positioned on land and extend for 1 kilometre directly back from the western riverbank, along the pipeline route and in line with the trenchless crossing orientation. High voltage overhead powerlines and residences would prevent this process on the eastern bank of the river and accordingly, this “fixed” the pipeline route at a point approximately 1 kilometre west of the Barrow estuary.
Having regard to the foregoing, I consider that the chosen pipeline route, i.e. Corridor B appears reasonable. I note and accept also that there is little or no scope for deviation from the chosen basic alignment, given the constraints that exist on either side of this alignment.
10.4 Watercourse Crossings
Where the gas pipeline is required to cross rivers or streams, this may be achieved through the adoption of either a trenched or open cut crossing technique or by a trenchless crossing technique.
Section 4.4.12.1 of the Environmental Impact Statement explains two methods for carrying out open cut watercourse crossings. I quote it almost verbatim below.
The first method, used generally for small watercourses, would be by means of an open cut trench constructed with hydraulic excavators. Typically, the
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 77
watercourse would be dammed, and the water pumped around the dam for the duration of the work. Details are as follows:
The site would be prepared by stripping the topsoil from all areas adjacent to the riverbanks and ramping the banks down to riverbed level. The stripped topsoil would be stacked separately from the subsoil within the working area.
Excavation of the riverbed would then proceed. The excavated material would be stored adjacent to the trench, within the working area. The prefabricated pipeline section would then be installed in the trench and checked to ensure that a minimum cover of 1.6 metres exists below the clean hard bed of the watercourse and the top of the pipe. To prevent the pipeline from rising as a result of buoyancy, a concrete coating may surround the pipeline. Concrete slabs may be placed over the pipe for protection.
Initial backfilling and final reinstatement would take place using the excavated sediment.
The riverbed and banks would be reformed to their original profile to the satisfaction of the local authority, Inland Fisheries Ireland and the landowner. Any surplus excavated material would be removed from site to an approved disposal facility.
The second method, open cut trenching is an alternative to the foregoing in- river work. Water flow would be maintained by diverting the river away from the proposed crossing location. Details are outlined below:
The site would be prepared by stripping the topsoil from areas adjacent to the watercourse crossing and storing it within the working area. Suitably sized flume pipes would be installed in the watercourse close to the proposed crossing, ensuring continuity of the running strip.
The temporary watercourse diversion would then be excavated, and flumed if necessary. Dewatering and trench supports may be used to facilitate safe excavation. If pumps are used, the discharge hose would be directed through a filtering medium to limit silt carry over, before the pumped water would be allowed to percolate back into the watercourse.
The original watercourse would then be dammed at both sides of the proposed crossing, creating a dry zone for trenching operations. The watercourse bed would then be trenched in the normal manner. The prefabricated pipeline section would then be installed in the trench and checked to ensure that a minimum cover of 1.6 metres exists below the clean hard bed of the watercourse and the top of the pipe. To prevent the pipeline from rising as a result of buoyancy, a concrete coating may surround the pipeline. Concrete slabs may be placed over the pipe for protection.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 77
Initial backfilling would take place using excavated subsoil free of large stones or other deleterious material. Final reinstatement would use the stored river bed materials.
The riverbanks would then be reformed to their original profile to the satisfaction of the local authority, the Inland Fisheries Board, and the landowner. Final riverbank reinstatement may require the importation of local large stones or rocks to stabilise the banks and prevent erosion. Any surplus excavated material would be removed from the site to an approved disposal facility.
During the course of the oral hearing, the applicant noted that the open cut installation method involves the least risk in terms of personnel safety and constructability when installing the gas pipeline under smaller watercourses. This is especially the case when challenging ground conditions or steep slopes and embankments are encountered. This method also has a shorter overall construction duration and cost for smaller watercourse crossings compared to trenchless techniques which were noted to require significant site establishment works to safely carry out the crossing and install the pipeline.
In relation to trenchless watercourse crossings, Section 4.4.12.2 of the EIS notes that some watercourses such as the Barrow Estuary, the Kings River and the Little Arrigal River are part of the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC and, in order to minimise environmental impacts, merit a trenchless crossing. It was agreed with the National Parks and Wildlife Service that the small designated stream which is a tributary of the River Arrigal would not require trenchless crossing methodology. The trenchless pipeline crossing technique to be adopted for the Barrow Estuary would be Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD). The estuary would be crossed between Ballinlaw in County Kilkenny and Ferry Point in County Wexford. The bank-to-bank width is approximately 650 metres and the maximum water depth varies between 1 and 4 metres. Two construction working areas would be required for the Barrow Estuary crossing, one on each bank of the Barrow. The drill rig side working area would be located on the eastern side of the Barrow Estuary, and the pipeline pull side working area would be located on the western side of the Barrow Estuary.
Rig Side Working Area:
The rig spread would require an area approximately 30m wide and 50m long. This area would extend away from the entry point, although the entry point would be at least 3m inside the site boundary. Since many components of the rig spread have no predetermined position, the rig side working area might be made up of smaller irregular areas. A typical layout of a rig side working area is illustrated in Figure 4.9 Typical Layouts of Drilling Side and Pipe Side Working Areas.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 77
Pipeline Pull Side Working Area
Sufficient space would be provided in the pipeline pull side (western side of Barrow) working area to fabricate the gas pipeline into one string which would assure that during the pullback the pipe can be installed in one continuous operation.
Barrow Estuary Crossing Site Specific Construction Working Area Layout:
The drilling of the pilot hole would progress from the eastern side to the western side. The gas pipeline would be pulled from the western side to the eastern side through the reamed pilot hole and inserted under the river. Prior to final insertion of the gas pipe, the crossing pipe string would be fully welded together and the pipeline would be laid out extending back from the entry point. The layout and design of the pipeline route approaching the western pipeline pull side would be of sufficient length and correct orientation to accommodate the fully welded pipe string. This would ensure the pipe string can be pulled into the drill tunnel in a single operation.
Ahead of construction, the construction working areas at either side of the crossing would be surveyed and pegged out in consultation with the landowner/occupier. The working areas would be located a minimum of 50 metres from the cSAC.
Following topsoil stripping, depending on ground conditions, both the rig side and pipeline pull side work areas may need to be levelled and hardcored in order to provide a secure workable hardstanding and access for the drilling processes and for the machinery, equipment and materials to construct the pipeline and crossing
Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) would be used for the crossing of the Barrow Estuary to minimise disturbance to the river itself, including the estuary banks and estuary bed. Directional crossings have the least environmental impact of any alternative pipeline construction method.
The engineering advantages of using HDD for the pipeline crossing of the Barrow Estuary are as follows:
Provision of maximum depth of cover under the Barrow Estuary, thereby providing maximum protection and minimising maintenance costs.
Minimal disruption to river traffic as a result of the proposed development.
A short construction duration,
Equipment associated with the HDD drilling operation would be located entirely on land on either side of the estuary a minimum of 50m from the cSAC. However, a drilling fluid return line would be
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 77
temporarily installed along the bed of the estuary on line with the route of the main pipeline.
The pipeline crossing technique would involve drilling a pilot hole to match the intended profile of the pipeline. Whilst drilling, the line of the pilot hole would be tracked and controlled using a transmitter in the drill head. By tracking the depth, position and pitch of the drill head the operator would be able to accurately steer the line of the drilling operation. The drilling operation would be lubricated using environmentally-inert bentonite slurry. A typical HDD drill rig and pilot hole string bit is depicted in Figure 4.6 - Typical HDD Drill Rig and Pilot Hole String Bit.
It is intended to construct the crossing by installing the pipeline at a depth of approximately 10-20m below the river bed level. However this cover depth would be confirmed during the detailed design and following a detailed geotechnical assessment. Nevertheless, it is considered likely that a minimum cover depth of 10 meters would be required. Figure 4.7 - Typical Ground Entry Inlet Point and Drilling of Pilot Hole depicts a typical ground entry inlet point for a drill rig. The basic components of a horizontal directional drilling system include:
Drill unit Guidance system Drilling fluid system Drill pipe and downhole tools, including bits and back reamers Drilling fluid mixing or recycling system.
A pilot hole approximately 311mm in diameter would be drilled beginning at a prescribed angle from horizontal and would continue under and across the Barrow Estuary along a design profile made up of straight tangents and long radius arcs. A typical pilot hole is shown in Figure 4.7.
The directional control would be brought about by a small bend in the drill string just behind the cutting head. The pilot string would not be rotated except to orientate the bend. If the bend is orientated to the right, the drill path would then proceed in a smooth radius bend to the right. The drill path would be monitored by an electronic package housed in the pilot drill string near the cutting head.
Once the pilot hole is complete, the hole would be enlarged to a suitable diameter for the gas pipeline. This would be accomplished by “pre-reaming” the hole to successively larger diameters, initially to 457mm in diameter and then to 559mm- 610mm in diameter. Generally, the reamer is attached to the drill string on the bank opposite the drilling rig and pulled back into the pilot hole. Joints of drill pipe are added as the reamer makes its way back to the drilling rig. Additional bentonite drilling fluid would be pumped into the hole to maintain the integrity of the hole and to flush out cuttings. Typical pre- reaming procedures are shown in Figure 4.8.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 77
Pullback
Once the drilled hole is enlarged, the gas pipeline would be pulled through it. The pipeline would be prefabricated on the bank opposite the drilling rig. A reamer would be attached to the drill string, and then connected to the pipeline pullhead via a swivel. The swivel would prevent any translation or the reamer’s rotation into the pipeline string, allowing for a smooth pull into the drilled hole.
The drill rig would then begin the pullback operation, rotating and pulling on the drill string and once again circulating high volumes of drilling slurry. The pullback would be continued until the reamer and pipeline break ground at the drilling rig. Typical pullback procedures are shown in Figure 4.8.
Drilling Fluids
Drilling fluids are commonly called drilling mud or slurry. Drilling fluid would be mixed on the surface and pumped down the drill string. The drilling fluid would come out at the drill bit and would be either left in the annulus of the bore hole or circulated back to the surface. Drilling mud is a mixture of water and premium bentonite. Bentonite is a nonhazardous material. Bentonite (in powder form) would be delivered in one-tonne bags which would be stored on site.
The main purposes of the HDD drilling fluids would be:
To establish and maintain the borehole integrity, To transport drill cuttings to the surface, To remove the build-up of cuttings on the drill bits, To reduce the friction between the drill string and the bore-hole wall, To stabilise the bore hole, especially in unconsolidated soils, To provide hydraulic power to downhole mud motors if used, Drilling fluid recirculation would be utilised to minimise material and water usage. This process would continuously circulate the drilling fluid in a closed system that would remove the suspended drilled material contained in the fluid as it returns from the drill hole and pumps the cleaned fluid for reuse back to the drill hole. Exhaust fluid or separated drill material would be collected; safely stored and suitably disposed of.
HDD Drilling Fluid Return Line
During pre-reaming, the drilling fluid would not return through the drill tunnel but would exit on the opposite side of the crossing from the drill rig into the reception pit. It would be necessary to return the HDD drilling fluid to the drill rig side of the crossing for cleaning and recirculation. The options for the method of returning the HDD mud to the rig side are to either transport it by road tankers through New Ross or to pump it via a temporary HDD fluid return line which would be installed across the bottom of the estuary.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 77
The option of transporting by road was considered unlikely to be viable due to the quantities involved, therefore the drilling fluid would be returned via a fluid return line. The drilling fluid return line would comprise a 200mm polyethylene fully welded pipeline. The pipeline would be prefabricated on land on the HDD pipe pull side (opposite to the drilling side) into a continuous string and orientated to align with the HDD crossing horizontal profile. Pneumatic leak testing of the pipeline would be completed to confirm soundness of the pipe joints. The pipe string would then be filled with water. A cable winch would be installed and secured on the HDD crossing drill side and connected to the prepared drilling fluid return line on the opposite side. This pipeline would then be winched across the river, and, to aid movement off land, can be suspended on rollers. Due to the relative density of the pipeline polyethylene construction material it would still float on the river surface, even though flooded with water. Construction personnel would then navigate across the river in boats and attach weights to the pipe, starting at one end and progress to the opposite end to attach weights and sink the pipeline onto the river bed. The weights would typically be heavy duty man-made- fibre woven sand filled bags attached by web construction straps onto the pipeline, or alternatively concrete weight collars would be bolted to the pipe.
Once the flooded pipe is installed onto the river bed a hydrostatic pressure test would be completed to prove the integrity of the installed pipeline prior to operation. The pipe would then return drilling fluid safely and efficiently from the reception pit across the river to the launch pit until the HDD operation is completed. Post HDD completion, the drilling fluid remaining in the pipe would be removed prior to removal of the pipe from the river. This would be achieved by propelling foam “pigs" through the pipeline using water. The pigging would continue until all of the drilling fluid is removed from the pipe, collected and disposed of before removal and dismantling of the pipe. After the pipeline has been cleaned and flooded with clean water, divers would remove the sandbag or concrete weight collar attachments and float the pipeline to the river surface whereupon it would be winched on land, dewatered, disassembled and removed offsite.
The expected duration for installing the pipeline on the riverbed would be one full working day and a similar duration to remove the pipe from the riverbed at the end of the HDD operation. The installation and removal processes would be coordinated with the New Ross Port Authority to minimise or avoid impact on river traffic. In addition, a Notice to Mariners would be issued, as required.
The fluid return pipe, while a temporary installation, would be designed and constructed to proven industry standards, similar to those utilised extensively throughout the country by Bord Gáis to construct the distribution network and safely distribute natural gas to homes. As an example of the robustness and durability of the pipe material, it should be highlighted that polyethylene pipeline, installed underground via HDD, would subject the pipeline to much greater stress than that which would be encountered while winching it across the Barrow estuary and floating it across the water surface. The installation of this pipeline would be completed by a competent HDD contractor with proven experience in successful completion of HDD projects of this scale, utilising
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 77
similar methodologies. Bord Gáis Networks have stringent contractor pre- qualification procedures in place to vet and select suitable pipeline contractors.
The design and installation methodology would be agreed with and approved by the relevant authority prior to construction. The fluid return line would be in place for only the duration of the HDD works which would be 2 – 3 months. The drilling operations would require an initial once-off supply of 3 approximately 100m of water for mixing the bentonite drilling slurry, and 3 would subsequently require a further of 200m of water. This temporary water supply could be sourced from the public potable supply.
The relevant authorities would be consulted about abstraction and the necessary consents would be obtained before commencement of work.
For the three other rivers which would be crossed using trenchless methodology, two other possible methods are set out in the Wading and Metal Detection Surveys for the Kings River and for the tributary of the Little Arrigle River at Appendix 14.5 of the EIS. These two further methods are Pipe Ramming and Microtunnelling.
Pipe ramming is explained as basically consisting of ramming a steel pipe through the soil by using a device, generally air-powered, attached to the end of the pipe. In this method, the tool does not create a borehole; rather, it acts as a hammer to drive the pipe through the soil. This method can be used for installation of gas pipelines under roads, highways, railroads and rivers.
This method is effective for installing medium to large diameter pipes. The versatile pit sizes, varying lengths of pipe that can be installed, and the ability to handle almost all types of soil conditions make this method a practical and economical method for installing pipes. This method does not require any thrust reaction structure, as the ramming action is due to impulses induced in the pipe by the percussion tool.
Microtunnelling is explained as meaning remote controlled pipe-jacking for diameters less than or equal to 90mm which require non-worker entry tunneling machines or “for larger diameter pipes and worker entry pipes”. Microtunnelling machines are laser guided remotely. They have the capability to install pipelines on precise line and grade. In this case the gas pipeline is installed into the larger diameter pipe installed by microtunnelling. The process uses a closed-face tunnel boring machine and can be used on a wide range of soil conditions. Applicable soil types range from highly unstable to very firm materials. The microtunnelling boring machine will have difficulty in soils with boulders with sizes greater than 20 to 30 percent of the machine diameter, and there are problems caused by obstructions, such as old manmade structures
During the course of the oral hearing, it was explained that any of the three trenchless methodologies might be adopted. It is quite probable that, depending on the circumstances at the individual watercourse, just one of these methods was likely to emerge as clearly preferable.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 77
The principal and strongest objections to the use of trenched or open cut crossing methods for some of the watercourses have come from Inland Fisheries Ireland. In its submission to the oral hearing, it noted that following examination of the approximately fourteen proposed crossing locations (excluding minor drainage ditches and smaller watercourses) as detailed in the Consultation Constraints Report dated July 2010, IFI advised the applicant that seven crossings should be by way of trenchless construction. The applicant responded by initially indicating that all but one of these seven crossings would be executed by trenchless methodology. Only the Derrylacky River would need a trenched or open cut crossing. However, it is now proposed that there would only be four trenchless crossings. IFI claim that the three other rivers, including the Derrylacky, are just as important as those included in the cSAC, particularly in terms of their brown trout populations. They confirmed their request in their letter of observation to the Board that it should be a condition of approval that these three rivers be crossed by trenchless means.
At the oral hearing, the applicant noted that at the Derrylacky River, the land to the north of the riverbank is relatively flat for a distance of about 30 metres after which the gradient rises quickly. On the south bank, the land rises steeply. This “valley” extends for a significant distance upstream and downstream of the pipeline location.
Beneath the river there is strong sandstone to a depth of 5 metres. Owing to the slopes on either side of the river, HDD pits would need to be in excess of 100 metres apart. It would result in an extremely long, deep and expensive trenchless crossing under this 5 metre wide watercourse. Pipe ramming or microtunnelling would involve the construction of access pits. On the southern bank of the river this would involve the removal of a very significant quantity of overburden or the construction of a 10 metre deep pit.
A trenchless crossing at this location would be very difficult with extra deep excavations, significant earthworks and restricted access for personnel and construction equipment. It was thus deemed not feasible and a trenched approach was adopted.
In the case of Watercourse Crossing 06, i.e. the more northerly of the two additional watercourses to the northeast and east of Mullinavat identified by Inland Fisheries Ireland, the applicant noted at the oral hearing, that the land to the north of the riverbank is relatively flat and the gradient rises as it extends back from the southern bank. Ground conditions consist of firm grey sandy clay with some gravel, cobbles and many boulders. It was submitted that the use of HDD at this location would result in an excessively long and deep trenchless crossing in order to affect the crossing of this 3 metre wide watercourse. It would involve excessive effort, time and expense by comparison with the open cut technique. Pipe ramming or microtunnelling would entail the construction of access pits on either side of the river, 6 metres deep, 10 metres wide and up to 15 metres in length. They would require around the clock dewatering. Works could be on-going for up to four weeks. A trench crossing would take just 3 or 4 days. The use of the isolated open cut
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 77
technology would minimise or eliminate the impact of disturbed sediment and silt. The watercourse would be returned to normal flow conditions in a very short period of time. The advantages of the trench method are summarised as minimising health and safety risks to construction personnel, minimising the impacts from construction plant and activities and facilitating the least cost technically optimum solution.
In relation to Watercourse Crossing 07, i.e. the more southerly of the two river crossings identified near Mullinavat, again the land to the north is noted to be relatively flat and the gradient to rise from the southern bank of the watercourse. Ground conditions consist of stiff, brown, slightly sandy gravelly clay with some sub-angular cobbles to a finished depth of 4 metres. The disadvantages of a trenchless crossing by comparison with a trenched crossing would be the same as in the case of Watercourse Crossing 06.
The foregoing information had been relayed to Inland Fisheries Ireland in a letter dated 1st March 2012, in response to their observation. The observer explained at the oral hearing that it was decided not to react to this letter, as it was known that an oral hearing was scheduled.
In response to questioning from the observer, the applicant confirmed that while the three watercourses in contention had not been surveyed, it was recognised that there was a high likelihood of the presence of Annex II species. However, it was felt that these watercourses, being non-designated, would have a C rating – “high value, locally important” or a D rating – “moderate value, locally important” as set out in the National Roads Authority’s “Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Roads Schemes”, which is a widely used and respected classification scheme, despite the fact that the present project is not a road. The applicant determined that the impact, allowing for mitigation would be moderate to minor negative and in that context it was happy that these watercourses could be crossed using trenched methodology. A cSAC is of international importance and hence the difference in approach, despite the fact that some of the watercourses are no larger than those to be crossed using trenched methodology.
In my view, the distinction drawn between those watercourses which are designated as part of the Barrow and Nore cSAC and those which are not, despite containing Annex II species is of critical importance. Inland Fisheries Ireland indicated that electro fishing to remove fish from those stretches of watercourses which would be affected by open trench crossings was highly stressful to the fish populations and occasionally resulted in death, a fact accepted by the applicant. Nevertheless, the observer indicated that should it be the case that the Board would decide in favour of the trenched crossing they would cooperate with the removal of fish. I consider that the imposition of a requirement to adopt trenchless methodology in the case of the three additional watercourses would be unduly onerous and that these watercourses could be crossed satisfactorily adopting the isolated open cut methodology to minimise or eliminate the impact of disturbed sediment and silt.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 77
The applicant agreed at the oral hearing that the three important fisheries watercourses identified by Inland Fisheries Ireland namely the Kings River, the Little Arrigal River and the tributary of the Little Arrigal River (Watercourse Crossing 03) would, as requested by the observer, be crossed by total span bridge structures during the construction period. The applicant was willing to comply with the 10 conditions specified in the submission from the observer.
Apart from the concerns raised by Inland Fisheries Ireland, in relation to watercourse crossings, the Health Service Executive felt that no consideration had been given to the effect downstream of the crossing of the Barrow Estuary on the aquaculture industry below the Barrow railway bridge. Following their observations to the Board, a meeting was scheduled with the applicant and the minutes of this meeting are quoted in a submission from the observer which was presented at the oral hearing. In response to the observation from the HSE, it was indicated that no release of bentonite to the estuary was envisaged but, nevertheless, a risk assessment for an accidental release had been completed. It was noted that bentonite is a naturally occurring inert clay and allowing for natural mixing, dispersion, dilution and settlement over the 2 kilometres between the pipeline crossing and the closest point of the designated shellfish area, no significant effects on the commercial mussel farming activities were predicted either directly on the mussels as an animal or in the form of accumulations within them which could render them unsafe to eat. In response to continuing concerns from the HSE, it was confirmed at the oral hearing that the bentonite would be of a grade suitable for use in an aquaculture area.
The HSE noted that a risk assessment of the impacts of trenchless crossing on shellfish farming had not been included in the EIS. At the meeting the observer was advised that aquaculture had been included as part of a Foreshore Licence application. The HSE had not seen this assessment but the applicant advised that the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency was satisfied with the information. This was confirmed by the applicant at the oral hearing and, as no significant impact was forecast, it had not been included in the EIS.
At the oral hearing, the HSE noted that as well as the bentonite issue, there was likely to be some alluvium on the riverbed which might be disturbed and swept downstream. Likewise, sediment from the banks and mudflats or dewatering of trenches, effluents, spillages or wheel washings could be released to the watercourse upstream of the shellfish harvesting area. In response, the applicant noted the enormous dilution which would be afforded by the river estuary and considered that the impact would not be significant. In response to a question at the oral hearing as to whether the drilling fluid return line could be sunk using the weight of the contained bentonite, alone, rather than relying on a series of weights and thereby reducing the disturbance likely to occur on the riverbed, it was stated out that it was felt that this would not be sufficient.
In its observation to the Board, the HSE considered that a more detailed assessment of the drilling operations at the River Barrow crossing should be
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 77
carried out to prevent, inter alia, pollution of the river water. At the meeting, the applicant confirmed that the construction contractor would be required to ensure and demonstrate that potential contaminants are contained and controlled. The cutting settlement pit and the slurry containment pit at the Barrow crossing would be designed and constructed so that there would be no pollution of soils, groundwater or surface water. The employment of good construction management practices would serve to minimise the risk of pollution of soil, stormwater runoff or ground water. At the oral hearing, the applicant agreed with the HSE recommendation that a commitment be made to require a hydro-geologist to contribute to the contractor’s method statements to ensure that potential hydrogeological issues are addressed for the crossing.
10.5 Material Assets
Section 15.3 of the Environmental Impact Statement, on land use and property, states that the lands would be reinstated on completion of the pipeline works to agreed standards. Agricultural land and land drains in the area would be temporarily affected by the construction works which would require a 36 metre wide strip of land (working width) along the pipeline route. This would be fenced off and unavailable to the farmer or landowner for the duration of the construction phase. The proposed pipeline would result in a 14 metre permanent wayleave wherein construction of buildings and planting of trees would not be permitted. Section 15.9 of the Environmental Impact Statement, on mitigation measures, notes, inter alia, that land drains would be reinstated once work is complete. Temporary fencing would be offered to landowners for reuse on completion of the construction. Section 15.10, on residual impacts, states that since the affected land areas would be reinstated to preconstruction conditions there would be no significant adverse effects on material assets in the area.
Despite the foregoing assurances, the proposed development has given rise to continued objections from three parties, namely Mr Donal Gorey and Mr John Barron, the owner and farmer, respectively, of lands straddling the M9 motorway at the point where the gas pipeline is intended to cross the motorway and the Great Island Generating Station Concerns Committee, residents of Newtown, just north of the power station.
In a submission to the oral hearing, it was explained that the Barron family had lost 6.433 hectares, or 22% of their holding, further south along the motorway as a result of the motorway CPO. While they were unable to lease additional lands immediately adjoining their holding, they succeeded in leasing approximately 26 hectares from Donal Gorey for a period of seven years commencing in 2010. This allowed them to continue their intensive dairy operation. They installed farm roadways and paddocks on the leased land and reseeded it. The submission notes that the area of ground affected by the gas main would be out of production for at least 2 years. An area of ground to the east of the motorway between the proposed wayleave and the motorway would be out of production while the gas main is being installed. The implication is that the herd size would need to be reduced by up to 10%. The newly installed farm roadway would need to be rerouted temporarily in
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 77
order to allow the grazing of the retained lands. There would be implications in terms of the Nitrate Directive which could mean that stock numbers might have to be further reduced. There would be a loss of available land for the production of winter feed and this might need to be sourced externally. The ability to increase the output/production from the dairy herd in the new post quota situation would be seriously curtailed. There would be a loss of income and an increased risk of disease and associated problems with the herd.
It is submitted that the pipeline could be rerouted through the leased land so as not to have to acquire a wayleave on the observers’ lands on the western side of the motorway. Alternatively, the pipeline could be rerouted through the leased land on the west side of the motorway so as to have a much reduced impact on the grazing area available for the dairy herd.
It is felt that the parties have already suffered considerably as a result of the land-take for the motorway and are now expected to suffer again.
The applicant’s response to these observers, presented at the oral hearing, states that the preferred preliminary pipeline route shown at public presentation meetings in October 2010 was routed through an area of poor ground to the east of the M9 motorway. This had been based on vantage point, engineering and environmental desktop studies. Subsequent walkover surveys identified this area as fen and flush, as shown in Figure 11.10 of Volume 2 of the EIS and described in Section 11.3.5.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS. This section of the EIS notes that following discussions with the National Parks and Wildlife Service it was determined that the area might be designated in the future due to the presence of Annex I habitats “alkaline fens (7230)” and “calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (7210)” and the possible presence of the priority habitat “petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) (7220)”.
Route option A3, as identified by the observers, and described as traversing lands owned by Kilkenny County Council was located on the western edge of the fen. However, on closer examination, it was deemed not possible to construct the pipeline on this route without seriously impacting the fen and the fen compensatory fields (a reference to fields which were left fallow and poorly drained in order to compensate for an area of fen lost to the motorway).
Another route option, not mentioned in the observations, adopted an alignment to the east of the county road at Knockadrina, avoiding the fen, but this included two crossings of a local road in quick succession and was in close proximity to a number of existing houses. Its close proximity to an abandoned quarry, the houses and the additional road crossings and the potential for future development in this area led to the rejection of this rerouting option.
The chosen route adopts an alignment to the west of and in parallel with the M9 motorway. It had approximately the same length as that to the east of the county road and again completely avoids the fen without the additional disadvantages of the route to the east of the county road. The chosen route
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 77
was aligned as close as possible to the western edge of the motorway while avoiding the badger sett shown in Figure 11.10 of Volume 2 of the EIS.
During consultations with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, it was determined that this area was potentially suitable for designation within the Natura 2000 network as a Special Area of Conservation or, under national legislation, as a Natural Heritage Area. While there is no timeframe at present for such designation, it was held that this area is supported by a complex hydrological regime and supports important Annex I habitats which could be negatively affected by construction works.
While reference was made, on behalf of the applicant to the provisions of Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) the area of fen and compensatory fields through which two of the earlier alternative alignments would have passed, though containing Annex I habitats, are not in a Special Area of Conservation. Accordingly, the applicant would not be in breach of the Directive in adopting either of these options. On aerial photographs from 2005 and earlier, the two compensatory fields are clearly in agricultural use, either as grass or tillage. The two fields are identified in pink hatching on two drawings presented on behalf of the applicant at the oral hearing. I noted during the course of my site inspections that they are now clearly poorly drained with extensive rush growth and what appears to be a circular pool towards the northeastern corner of the southern of the two fields. In my view, the adoption of the alternative alignment through the calcareous fen and the developing compensation habitat could be seriously detrimental to their essential characteristics and the same would apply to the preliminary routing. I consider that having regard to the general overall alignment of the preferred option, the applicant was correct in choosing the detailed alignment at this location. The observers, particularly Mr Barron will undoubtedly suffer a loss which is particularly unfortunate having regard to the disruption already caused so recently by the construction of the M9 motorway. However, as noted in the applicant’s response, this would be largely temporary in nature for a period of about two years. As recognised by the applicant, these are all matters of compensation which, in the absence of agreement can be referred to arbitration under the Gas Act for final determination by an official arbitrator.
In their observation to the Board, the Great Island Generating Station Concerns Committee expressed concern that the route chosen is located too close to residents of the area and they fear for their health and safety. They state that another route is available across lower land where no residents’ houses are located. It emerged during the oral hearing that the prime concern related to the proximity of the pipeline to a group of houses in the townland of Newtown approximately 1 kilometre north of the Great Island power station. It was alleged that the pipeline would be just 75 metres from the closest of these houses. The applicant claimed at the oral hearing that additional meetings had taken place between themselves, the landowners and the residents’ representatives and that the chosen route was the outcome of an agreement reached on 20th December 2010, following which wayleave consents were received for this section of the pipeline. It was claimed that the selection of this route was constrained by the existing houses to the west (i.e.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 77
those of some of the residents) poor ground conditions situated to the east and numerous high voltage overhead power lines. The ground conditions were confirmed by site investigations completed during the detailed routing phase. Trial pits were carried out in the low lying land to the east of the proposed route in the vicinity of the existing large drainage ditch shown at Figure 11.21 of Volume 2 of the EIS. Trial pits revealed soft, brown/grey mottled, slightly sandy silt to soft, grey sandy silt at depth, coupled with rapid water ingress at 1.9 metres below ground level. Such conditions would have proved onerous where the pipeline had to be installed extra deep under existing surface drains. The result would have been difficult working conditions requiring non- standard construction methods with the possibility of greater risks to the health and safety of the construction personnel. These constraints, especially the poor ground conditions led to the choice of the present route following discussions with the representatives of the residents and local landowners.
Responding to continued concerns at the oral hearing, the applicant stated that the pipeline was designed in full compliance with IS328 - 2003. For a pipeline of the size and wall thickness proposed, the standards implied, inter alia, a minimum clearance distance of 45 metres to the nearest residence. It was confirmed that the distance to the nearest residence at this location was 75 metres. While the applicant held that the level of risk was negligible, this did not satisfy certain representatives of the Concerns Committee who continued to fear for their safety in the event of an explosion. It was not accepted either that the route now proposed was that shown at the meeting on 20th December, 2010 at which representatives of the residents were present and allegedly claimed to be representative. It was explained by the applicant at the oral hearing that safety in this regard was ultimately a matter for the Commission for Energy Regulation.
In my view, the proposed development more than meets the separation distance specified for a pipeline of its type under IS328 - 2003. The applicant has highlighted the difficulties which would arise in realigning the pipeline further east. When complete and the ground is reinstated, I do not consider that the proposed alignment would be injurious to the amenities of the nearby residential properties at this location and that it would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
During the course of the oral hearing, a brief of evidence was presented in relation to route selection. It notes the initial selection of three alternative route corridors and that these were then refined by engineering and environmental desktop studies and vantage point surveys that identified the routing constraints with the aim of avoidance, where possible, of areas of, inter alia, community impact. Although it does not show on the Ordnance Survey aerial photographs from 2005, the circular gallop associated with the racehorse training stables at Beacon Hill, Ballyrowragh, Slieve Rue is blatantly obvious in the Google Earth aerial photograph from 2009. The proposed routing of the pipeline to the west and south of the racehorse training stables and associated gallops was the subject of an observation to the Board on behalf of its owners Eoin and Martina Griffin. However, the observation, effectively an objection, was withdrawn during the course of the oral hearing
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 77
and consequently is no longer available for consideration by the Board. This withdrawal followed a private agreement between the applicant and the observers agreeing to a range of measures to overcome the concerns of the observers.
Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the observation, the Board will note that despite the fact that the racehorse training stables are scarcely mentioned in the Environmental Impact Statement (just two references to “an equestrian centre” at Section 3.2.21), it emerged at the oral hearing that minimisation of the impact of the construction of the pipeline on the stables had, in fact, received considerable attention. For Route B the preliminary alignment would have passed to the north of the stables, but would have also passed through the field to the north of the stables and directly through the long inclined gallop bounding this field to the southeast and northeast. A second option considered was a variation on the preliminary routing adopting an alignment between the long inclined gallop and the stables. This would have avoided the training gallop, but it reduced the distance from the pipeline to the stables and would have required horses traversing the pipeline construction spread on their way to and from the inclined training gallop. A third option adopted an alignment to the south of the stables and between the stables and the circular horse training gallop. This route would have been in close proximity to the stables and would have dissected the landholding and required horses traversing the pipeline construction spread on their way to and from the circular gallop. A fourth option took an alignment to the west of the stables and west and south of the circular training gallop. However, this would have been constrained by an existing badger sett in the field to the south of the circular training gallop. The final option, the selected optimum route, aligned the pipeline further west and south from the circular training gallop and to the south of the badger sett. The distance from the pipeline to the circular training route was significantly increased. The option of moving the route even further from the circular training gallop was constrained by the presence of severe side slopes to the west, a coniferous plantation to the south and the required alignment with the Barrow Estuary crossing.
The applicant employed an equine veterinary surgeon, Mr Michael Sadlier, to examine and report on the impact that the proposed gas pipeline would have on the Beacon Hill racehorse training stables. He visited the site on 28th March 2011 and 17th August 2011 and was accompanied by the owner, Mr Eoin Griffin. He formed the opinion that the construction of the gas pipeline could significantly impact on this race training establishment at the circular gallops and at the stables. In a report, made available at the oral hearing, Mr Sadlier notes that Mr Griffin’s primary concern was the effects that noise, visual stimuli and dust associated with the construction of the pipeline would have on the health and general welfare of the stabled horses. He notes that horses are creatures of habit and any intermittent changes to their environment can cause anxiety, inappetence and the poor performance. Horses need a quiet constant environment and minimal exposure to abnormal noise or visual stimuli. Windblown dust can irritate a horse’s respiratory tract and result in poor performance. In this case, a significant amount of the pipeline
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 77
construction would be southwest of the stable yard, i.e. in the direction of the prevailing wind.
Mr Sadlier was understanding of Mr Griffin’s fears and based his opinion on the worst possible effect the proposed development could have on the racing stables. He took the view that the overall impact of the construction of the pipeline on these racing stables could be moderate to major. These are defined levels of significance, “moderate” meaning that the racing stables could continue as before, but with increased management difficulties and “major” meaning that the racing stables could not continue without major management and operational changes. However, he also took the view that the overall impact of the construction on the racing stables, with all the proposed mitigation measures in place would be mild (minor?) to moderate. He defined “minor” as an impact where the racing stables suffered some interference, but remained viable.
A range of mitigation measures was proposed at the oral hearing. These included scheduling the construction activity to commence after 11am when the horses would be in the stable yard or stable, rather than in the circular gallop or warm-down field. The construction activity could also be grouped so that each item of activity could follow immediately on the previous activity. Measures to limit noise would include the building of a topsoil mound on the stables side of the working with a height of up to 4 metres. There could be noise monitors at suitable agreed locations. Modern silenced and well maintained equipment would be used and this would be shut down when not in use. Workers would be given training on minimising noise and disturbance. Construction traffic would be minimised and controlled entering and exiting the construction area. If noise levels exceeded agreed limits, temporary noise reducing barriers could be erected. On vibration, it was recognised that rock breaking would be required between Points D and E, indicated on a map submitted at the appeal, i.e. from the south to the southeast of the circular gallop. As this could give rise to vibration, vibration monitors could be located at suitable agreed locations. Alternative floor coverings could be placed in the stables. The possibility of using equipment other than a rock breaker could be investigated, e.g. the use of a single large ripping tooth on a tracked excavator. Dust levels would be monitored and a mobile sprinkler system used to dampen surfaces during dry weather. On visual intrusion, it was recognised that between Points D, E and F on the map there was a section which was at the same elevation as the equine operation. The topsoil mound would form a visual barrier and a second temporary visual barrier could be constructed at some point between the construction area and the stables. Any plant or machinery likely to protrude above the visual barrier could be wrapped in a dark coloured cover to reduce visual intrusion. Finally, as an extreme mitigation measure, the stables could be relocated in the event that the other mitigation measures failed. It was also proposed that such a relocation could take place up to six weeks before the commencement of construction activities and continue for up to six weeks after the completion of such activities.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 77
In my view, while the Board is not privy to the private agreement reached between the applicant and the observers in this instance, it is clear that the impact on the racehorse training stables at Beacon Hill was given considerable consideration both before and after the submission of the application and the finalisation of the Environmental Impact Statement.
10.6 Roads and Traffic
The topic of roads and traffic is covered at Chapter 7 of the EIS. All five categories of road varying from local roads up to motorways would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. These include the M9 Dublin to Waterford motorway, the N9 former Dublin to Waterford Road, the N25 Cork to Wexford national road, the R697 from Carrick-on-Suir to Kilkenny, the R699 Callan to the N9 and the R704 New Ross to the N9. Access would potentially be gained from 39 roads, i.e. all roads crossed, with the exception of the M9.
The 46 kilometre length of the pipeline would require delivery of 3,833 pipes in 12 metre lengths. The pipes are likely to be imported via Waterford Port and would initially be stored in a storage depot near Mullinavat or Waterford Port (clarified at the oral hearing as being a 9 hectare site adjacent to Belview Port and currently the subject of a planning application with Kilkenny County Council). HGV trips would be required for delivery of the pipeline and fittings, sand to surround the pipe, stone for temporary parking areas at the road crossings and for the construction of temporary roads through wet/peat areas and to carry construction material for the Above Ground Installation.
An eleven stage sequencing of the pipeline construction is specified at Section 7.4.3 of the EIS. Of these eleven stages, the major traffic generators are predicted to be haul-road construction, pipe stringing and importation of sand. On average 5 pipe lengths would be carried per truck giving rise to a total of 1,533 HGV movements. Sand delivery would give rise to 1,800 HGV movements on the basis of 20 tonnes per truck. The delivery of stone for temporary parking and roads would give rise to 450 HGV movements, again on the basis of 20 tonnes per truck. The construction of the Above Ground Installation would give rise to 800 HGV movements. Allowing for the time period for each stage, the daily trips would be 26, 6 and 10 HGV movements. It is estimated that there would be 200 persons employed in the construction of the pipeline together with 20 visitors. This is likely to give rise to 522 car/lgv movements daily.
The pipeline would be accessed from the local road network where the pipeline crosses the public road. Traffic is assigned to each crossing point depending on the length of pipeline which would be served. The duration of operation for the importation of pipes, sand and stone for each potential access point is set out in Table 7.10 of the EIS. The access points are shown on Figure 7.2 (omitted from the EIS and submitted subsequently). The River Barrow estuary, the Kings River, the three railway lines and the M9 motorway would all be barriers to heavy construction equipment. Possible routes for moving this heavy machinery around these barriers are indicated on Figures 7.3 to 7.7 (again omitted from the EIS and submitted subsequently).
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 77
In terms of impact on the road network, the peak predicted traffic generation would be 26 HGV movements and 522 car/lgv movements per day. This is the equivalent of 587 passenger car units per day. It is assumed that there would be at least 3 separate work groups so that the peak traffic at any one location would be of the order of 196 pcus per day. Peak periods would be in the morning, around lunchtime and in the evening. Peak traffic is projected to be 65 pcus at any one access location. It is expected that the local roads would easily accommodate the projected peak traffic associated with the construction phase of the pipeline.
Traffic management measures would be implemented for the construction of road crossings. The crossing method would be agreed with the relevant local authority, but would be likely to include the following in order of preference:-
Closure of one lane (and then the other) and use of temporary traffic lights or stop/go signs.
Temporary diversion of roadway onto adjoining lands.
The use of trenchless technology (in which case traffic would not be affected).
Temporary closure of local road – if necessary.
In terms of mitigation, a construction phase traffic management plan would be prepared by the construction contractor in consultation with the local authorities. Typical traffic management plan headings are specified in Table 7.11 of the EIS.
Overall, I concur with the view expressed in the EIS that the traffic implications of the proposed development would be easily managed. Once constructed, the pipeline would have virtually no traffic implications, requiring just occasional maintenance vehicles at the AGI stations and for pipeline inspection.
10.7 Archaeology
The proposed pipeline would be nominally 40 metres wide and would be set within the pipeline planning corridor which would be 100 metres wide. There are no recorded archaeological sites within the pipeline route. The Cultural Heritage strip maps, included in Section 14 of Volume 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement, identify the archaeological features which lie outside, but within the vicinity of the planning corridor.
Section 14.5.1 of the EIS notes that the proposed pipeline would pass within 25 metres of three recorded archaeological sites. These are given as AR225 – the site of a hermits cave at Tinvaun, AR10 an ecclesiastical enclosure and associated sites at Great Island and AR6 – a moated site, again at Great Island. The proposed pipeline would not impact on Kells Priory (AR256), a National
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 77
Monument which lies 285 metres to the west of the route. There might however be a short-term slight visual impact on the priory during the construction phase. In order to mitigate this visual impact on the priory, topsoil would be stacked on its side of the pipeline route and grassed over to provide a visual barrier. The proposed route would cross nine streams and one river and would be tunnelled under three rivers and the Barrow Estuary. All archaeological mitigation works would be undertaken in compliance with the provisions of the National Monuments Acts, 1930-2004 and the Code of Practice agreed between Bord Gáis and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. During the course of construction works, all topsoil stripping would be monitored by a suitably qualified archaeologist, under licence to the National Monuments Service.
Three potential archaeological sites were identified within the pipeline route and it is stated in the EIS that in order to mitigate impacts on these three potential archaeological sites, archaeological testing would be carried out in advance of development. The entire pipeline route has been walked by archaeologists on behalf of the applicant during October and November 2010 and February and March 2011. Wading surveys of the streams and rivers were carried out in November 2010. An intertidal survey of the Barrow Estuary was carried out in November 2010 and January 2011. A visual impact survey of Kells Priory was carried out in February 2011. Geophysical surveys were carried out adjacent to the Kings River in the townlands of Garrynaman Lower, Kellsborough and Rathduff to the east of Kells and also at Knocktopher Abbey, southwest of Knocktopher.
Since the publication of the EIS, further investigations have been undertaken. In relation to the three recorded archaeological sites which are within 25 metres of the pipeline route, a geophysical survey of site AR225, the site of a hermits cave at Tinvaun (RMP KK027-051) confirmed that there are no subsurface archaeological features. Archaeological testing adjacent to the earthwork associated with the ecclesiastical enclosure at Great Island – AR14 (RMP WX039-018) confirmed that there are no subsurface archaeological features. Archaeological testing adjacent to the moated site at Great Island – AR6 (RMP WX039-019) confirmed that there are no subsurface archaeological features. In relation to the three possible archaeological sites identified, again nothing was found. In relation to the possible structure at Rathduff – PAS1, archaeological testing of the geophysical survey area confirmed that there are no subsurface archaeological features. In relation to the kink in the field fence suggesting a possible enclosure at Baysrath – PAS2, a geophysical survey in the area of the field fence confirmed that there were no subsurface archaeological features. In relation to the mound at Coolmeen – PAS3, archaeological testing showed that there were no subsurface archaeological features. The document presented at the oral hearing in relation to archaeology gives further details of the investigations in an appendix.
Under the heading “Architectural Heritage” at Section 14.5.2 of the EIS, it is noted that the proposed pipeline would impact on the demesnes associated with Knocktopher Abbey and the 16th/17th century house at Ballinlaw Castle.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 77
It is noted that no demesne features were identified during field inspections at the points at which these demesnes are crossed. At the oral hearing, it was accepted that subsurface features associated with these demesnes might be revealed during archaeological monitoring and that these would be preserved by record, following consultations with the National Monuments Service and the National Museum.
Responding to the submission from An Taisce referring to the unsuitability of the location of the pipeline route in proximity to Kilmokea on Great Island due to the significant archaeological remains in the vicinity, the archaeological submission at the oral hearing states that the alignment at this location was placed as far as possible from the enclosure taking into consideration cultural heritage and all the other constraints. The historical and archaeological importance, along with the strong possibility of archaeological finds in this area, are outlined in the EIS. The recommended mitigation was archaeological testing in advance of development in this area and this has since been carried out and no archaeological finds or features were noted. The archaeologist concluded that “there was no apparent reason in relation to archaeology why the pipeline should not follow the proposed route”. He noted that the pipeline would be running through an area of ground reclaimed extensively in the 19th century and again in the 1950s. Shoreline features such as jetties, fish traps, etc. were not evident in the test trenches. He recommended archaeological monitoring in the area in the course of construction work in case any of these features might turn up and noted the unsuitability of the low lying area for settlement in antiquity. It is confirmed that archaeological monitoring of topsoil stripping in the area would be undertaken, as would be the case for the entire pipeline route.
In response to the submission from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, it is noted that the mitigation suggested by the National Monuments Service is included in the EIS. Responding to the concerns of the Department in relation to underwater heritage, it is noted that an underwater archaeological report was compiled by Moore Marine Services Ltd. on behalf of the applicant in December 2011 after completion of the EIS. It is noted that the report describes the results of a side scan sonar survey and magnetometer survey of the proposed trenchless crossing of the River Barrow. While three fish traps, two of them still in active use, and three riverbed navigation buoys were recorded, the report noted that all of these were outside the proposed development zone and so no predicted direct impact was anticipated for the overwater geotechnical investigations and associated project ground works. The report recommended that the project should proceed without further underwater archaeological mitigation. Archaeological monitoring would be carried out to the required specifications and level of the Department by a suitably qualified licenced archaeologist. The advice of the Underwater Archaeology Unit of the Department would be sought, should archaeological material be found, and the archaeologist would be facilitated in recording this material.
In conclusion, in relation to archaeology, I consider that the Board can be satisfied that the proposed pipeline route would not impact directly on any
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 77
recorded archaeological site. The archaeological investigations which have been undertaken in line with the Environmental Impact Statement and subsequent to its publication give additional assurance as to the unlikelihood of any major archaeological finds being encountered during the construction of the pipeline. This is especially the case at Kilmokea on Great Island where there is a noticeable concentration of archaeological features. The applicant’s willingness to comply with the requirements of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht should ensure that there will be adequate recording of any archaeological finds during the laying of the pipeline.
10.8 Landscape and Visual Impact
The landscape and visual implications of the proposed development is considered at Chapter 10 of the EIS. A five-category visual impact significance classification is adopted namely “imperceptible”, “slight”, “moderate”, “significant” and “profound”. The EIS divides the impacts into those which are neutral, those which are beneficial and those which are adverse. They may be temporary (one year or less) short term (lasting from 1-7 years) medium term (lasting from 7-15 years), long term (lasting 15-60 years) and permanent (lasting over 60 years). The pipeline route is noted to pass through all four broad categories of landscape character area defined in the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008-2014, namely upland areas, lowland areas, river valleys and transitional areas. Starting from Baunlusk in the northwest, the pipeline route passes through seven smaller landscape character areas as identified in Appendix C of the Development Plan namely
Kilkenny Western Basin (lowland) Nore River Valley (Kings River) Kilkenny Western Basin (lowland) South Hills transition area South Western Hills (uplands) South-eastern uplands Barrow River Valley In County Wexford, the pipeline would pass through an area designated the County Development Plan as Lowlands – Barrow River corridor.
The greatest long term potential for impact on visual amenity is considered to arise from the Above Ground Installation. This would be a permanent feature and would contain low profile items of equipment. The site would be cleared of vegetation and levelled and areas of hardstanding constructed. The installation would be square shaped in plan, with an instrumentation kiosk, lighting and some visible pipe work. Landscape planting would be provided at the perimeter of the site.
The pipe line itself would affect the landscape only during the construction period and for a short time thereafter. The working width of 36 metres would be visible through the landscape during construction. The permanent wayleave, a 14 metre strip centred over the pipeline, would remain clear of trees and would have a long term impact on any forested portions of the route, but would be similar to a forest road or fire break. Hedgerows would be replanted.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 77
Construction compounds would be likely to take place in existing hardstanding areas and yards. These would be active sites for up to 12 months with material storage areas, and office, canteen and welfare buildings and parking areas.
The pipeline construction activities are held to have a moderate short term adverse impact on the landscape character area resulting from machinery, excavated earth, temporary structures and general construction works. Over time the restored land would blend with the existing vegetation and the impact would reduce to negligible adverse. The AGI site would be located unobtrusively on the landscape and would have a slight long term localised adverse impact on the local landscape character.
There would be moderate short term localised adverse visual impact arising from topsoil stripping and removal of portions of hedgerows and some trees. Two listed views in County Kilkenny, namely that over the Kings River Valley (view no. 20) and views of the confluence of the Rivers Suir and Barrow (view no. 22) would be affected where the construction activity would be a new foreground element. Maturing vegetation in the reinstatement would reduce these impacts until they are negligible in the long term. Views of the AGI would be screened by mature hedgerows and nearby commercial forestry plantation.
In terms of mitigation measures it is noted that the greatest opportunity to minimise the visual impact of the pipeline is presented during the route planning phase. Most of the proposed pipeline crosses agricultural land which is typically the easiest to reinstate, provided that land drainage is replaced, topsoil is carefully handled and fields reseeded. Where possible, hedgerows and in particular hedgerow trees have been avoided and gaps or weak points within the hedgerow selected as the crossing point. Hedgerows disturbed during construction would be replanted using a suitable mix of native species. Similarly, dry stone walls or stone faced earthen banks would be dismantled and replaced after the pipeline has been laid. Construction working hours would generally be restricted to day time hours in the summer months, but there might be a requirement for night time hours. Accordingly, lighting intrusion on the landscape is unlikely to be significant. Directional lighting would be adopted in any case. The text of chapter 10 of the EIS ends by noting that residual impacts of the pipeline would be moderate in the short term during the construction phase and negligible to slight in the long term arising from the AGI as a permanent new feature in the landscape.
Overall, I consider that the Environmental Impact Statement correctly evaluates the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development. The long term visual impact is likely to be restricted to those areas of woodland through which the pipeline would pass which are, themselves, very limited. The Above Ground Installation would be screened by a perimeter hedgerow and would be located adjacent to a forestry plantation to its east.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 77
10.9 Flora and Fauna
Flora and fauna are considered at Chapter 11 of the Environmental Impact Statement. The initial field survey was carried out during September and October 2010 to identify, map and evaluate habitats. As this survey was carried out prior to the end of the growing season, the applicant holds that the identification of habitat types and plant species was adequate. While the survey was conducted outside the bird breeding season, the habitats noted on site are common and impacts on rare or uncommon birds, which were not recorded, are considered highly unlikely. The survey covered the 100 metre wide strip, 46 kilometres long, representing the area within which the pipeline would be located. Habitats were classified and surveyed in accordance with the Heritage Council publications “A Guide to Habitats in Ireland” (Fossitt, 2000) and “Draft Habitat Survey Guidelines: A Standard Methodology for Habitat Survey and Mapping in Ireland”.
This chapter of the EIS notes the crossings of the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC, which I review in the section entitled “Appropriate Assessment” in this assessment.
The terrestrial habitats through which the pipeline would pass are listed at Section 11.3.5 of the EIS and mapped in Figures 11.5 – 11.21 of Volume 2. Values are attached to the various habitat types in Table 11.4, based on the valuation system included in the NRA publication “Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes” (2006). Most of the terrestrial habitats are assigned values varying from low – E to moderate – D. Only LS4 – mud shore/CW2 - tidal river and CM2 – upper salt marsh are assigned international value A reflecting their location within the cSAC. Habitat PF1 – rich fen and flush is assigned high value C to nationally important value B. The comment in relation to this latter area is “semi-natural with high biodiversity and naturalness. Possible site for Marsh Fritillary. Being invaded by willow (salix) SP.). The pipeline has been rerouted to avoid this area”. This refers to an area immediately to the east of the M9 motorway just north of the point where it is intended that the pipeline would cross the motorway. It is considered further under the section entitled “Material Assets” in this assessment.
Three active badger setts and two disused setts were located adjacent to the pipeline route. They are detailed in Table 11.5 and shown in Figures 11.5 – 11.21. In relation to bats, no buildings would be directly affected by the proposed route, but it would pass through treelines and hedgerows which provide feeding opportunities and commuting routes. The removal of mature or over mature trees would be avoided where possible and any necessary removal of these types of trees would be carried out in accordance with NRA Guidelines. No conclusive direct evidence of otters was found in the study area, but potential evidence, in the form of partly eroded footprints, was recorded at the Kings River. Neither the common newt or common frog was observed but it is felt likely that the common frog is present within wet grassland/marsh habitats.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 77
General bird surveys were undertaken in September and October 2010. It is recognised that October is too late to carry out a breeding bird survey. Summer visitors that breed on the site are absent and some resident species remain inconspicuous until the spring. However, it is held that a good general picture of the bird communities can be gained from examination of the habitat types present and general bird observations. Table 11.6 lists the birds likely to be encountered based on the habitat types through which the pipeline would pass. Birds of conservation concern in Ireland have been classified into a red list and an amber list based on their rate of decline by Bird Watch Ireland and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Of the birds in Table11.6, the curlew and the yellow hammer are red listed, while the cuckoo, golden plover, grasshopper warbler, kingfisher, skylark, snipe, stonechat and swallow are amber listed.
In terms of aquatic fauna, it is noted that six of the nine fish species, protected in Ireland under European legislation or listed in the Irish Red Data Book as having endangered, vulnerable or internationally important status, occur within the River Barrow and River Nore and much of the estuary. The estuary is known to include river lamprey, sea lamprey, brook lamprey, Atlantic salmon, trout, Twaite shad, European eel and smelt. The freshwater crayfish is noted to be one of the qualifying species for the cSAC and is protected as an Annex II species under the Habitats Directive. While no evidence was observed, it is expected that this species may occur in well oxygenated streams and rivers along the pipeline route. It is expected to occur in the larger tributaries of the River Nore. Both the freshwater pearl mussel and the Nore freshwater pearl mussel are qualifying species for the cSAC. The latter is discounted as it occurs in parts of the Nore where the water hardness is at a higher level than that encountered in the watercourses to be crossed by the pipeline route. The freshwater pearl mussel was not recorded in either the Kings River or the Little Arrigal River in a survey carried out in 1991.
In terms of mitigation, it is noted that the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2000, makes it an offence to cut, grub, burn or destroy any vegetation on uncultivated land or growing in any hedge or ditch from the 1st March to 31st August. However, there is an exemption for the clearance of vegetation in the course of construction works or site preparation works for any structure. Nonetheless, it is recommended that vegetation be removed outside of the breeding season where possible and, in particular, the peak breeding season from March to June. The route of the proposed pipeline was chosen to avoid substantial areas of woodland and isolated large trees. Similarly, for hedgerows, impacts would be minimised wherever possible by routing the pipeline through existing gaps or sections that are out of character with the hedgerow or which have been poorly managed. In the case of hedgerows, the minimum width of hedgerows would be removed consistent with safe working and good practice. Where possible, trees and hedgerows within the proposed pipeline route would be left in situ and fenced off prior to construction. A series of other specific mitigation measures are proposed in Section 11.10.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS. In addition, specific mitigation measures in relation to badgers, otters, bats, birds, aquatic flora and fauna and invertebrates are proposed in Section 11.10.2 of Volume 1 of the EIS.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 77
During the course of the oral hearing, the applicant’s field ecologist consultant responded to the written observations which were received by the Board. In relation to the recognised shortcoming in carrying out the field survey in September and October and the substitution of a list of breeding bird species expected to be found in the various habitats identified and the assumptions in relation to flora as to what might occur in certain habitats, leading to a change in the routing of the pipeline, it is pointed out that the results are largely based on field observations. However, the existing habitat was used as a guide to the potential species, particularly in relation to birds as in Section 11.6 of the EIS and Table 11.6. However, the habitats which would be significantly affected are generally common in the Irish countryside and impacts on rare or uncommon species are not anticipated. It is accepted that the derogation in relation to the clearance of vegetation during the nesting season would not allow the intentional destruction of birds’ nests. The applicant would undertake a survey of birds’ nests should clearance works be required during the bird breeding season and seek to obtain such a licence. While the proposed pipeline has been rerouted to avoid badger setts and the nearest edge of the working width of the pipeline would be a minimum of 50 metres from the nearest sett entrance, badger setts would be resurveyed prior to the commencement of works and if potential impacts are identified, a derogation licence would be sought. In relation to the practice of indiscriminately stripping a 36 metre wide strip of vegetation, particularly hedgerows along the entire length of the line which was questioned by Kilkenny County Council it is stated that possible impacts on mature trees and hedgerows would be avoided by minimising the working area or repositioning the pipeline within the designated strip. All hedges would be reinstated to match the diverse nature of existing boundaries. In relation to the recommendation that mitigation measures should be correctly implemented and that a qualified ecologist should be on site to oversee the site works in relation to the cSAC, as sought by Wexford County Council, it is stated that all mitigation measures specified in the EIS would be implemented and that detailed method statements would be drawn up and agreed with Inland Fisheries Ireland and the National Parks and Wildlife Service for works that could impact sensitive habitats. The method statements would be drawn up with input from the construction contractors and the supervising ecologist who would be on site during construction works at these sensitive locations.
Having regard to the content of the EIS in relation to flora and fauna and the responses to the observations submitted to the Board, I concur with the conclusion of the EIS that provided the specified mitigation measures are effectively implemented, only short-term disturbance of fauna, including aquatic fauna could be expected to occur during the construction phase and that the overall impact would be localised, with no significant long-term impact.
10.10 Conditions
As noted earlier, both Kilkenny County Council and Wexford County Council, in their written submissions to the Board, each separately suggested a list of
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 77
conditions which might be applied in the event of planning approval being granted for this development. Subsequent to those submissions, meetings were held with Kilkenny County Council on 23rd February 2012 and Wexford County Council on 13th March 2012. At these meetings between the applicant and the county councils, a suite of six conditions was agreed with each local authority. These conditions were quoted at the oral hearing. They are as follows:-
1. “The proposed development will be carried out in accordance with the lodged submission to An Bord Pleanála in particular the mitigation measures as outlined in the EIS, unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority.
2. Construction access roads and haul roads will be agreed in advance, where preferable temporary access points are to be provided from Regional or National roads, no access permitted from the M9 Motorway, and where local access roads are to be used precondition surveys are to be carried out to establish the strength of the road, where required the road will be strengthened to cater for construction traffic. Traffic management plans to be agreed in advance with relevant Area Engineer, road closures where required to comply with Roads Act 1993 & fees payable by the applicant.
3. Reinstatement works to be agreed in advance with Area Engineer and any restoration works deemed necessary by Area Engineer, such as damage to existing roads surfaces caused by the works.
4. Planning contributions in respect of public road improvements are not required, however works to open public roads will be subject to road opening licence fee, payable by applicant, the fee includes all necessary costs associated with monitoring and supervision of the reinstatement works, ducts will be installed at appropriate depths to take account of open roadside drains and agreed with Area Engineer.
5. Archaeological materials will be recorded and preserved and an archaeologist will be employed for monitoring of topsoil works, a waste management plan will be put in place for management of waste.
6. As-built records of the pipeline will be provided in electronic format to planning authority. Elevation details and layout will be provided where the pipeline crosses the water main serving Great Island. The Above Ground installation serving the Great Island CCGT has received planning permission as part of the Endesa planning application PA0016.”
The applicant indicated that the county councils were satisfied with the applicant’s response.
During the course of the oral hearing, Kilkenny County Council stated that it welcomed the proposed development and the fact that it would also allow for a
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 77
future gas supply to Belview Port and other urban areas including New Ross. It asked that the Board ensure that the integrity of the Natura 2000 site be protected. Access points and haul routes were to be agreed prior to commencement of development. It repeated that where accesses are to be provided from a local road, a precondition survey consisting of Level 1 and Level 2 falling weight deflectometer testing should be carried out. It reiterated where additional road strengthening is required to cater for construction traffic associated with the development, the developer should carry out these works prior to commencement of works and should be liable for the cost. All works to the public road should be subject to a road opening licence. The developer should be liable for the cost of supervision of all reinstatement works.
Following the submission of the applicant’s response, including the six agreed conditions, Wexford County Council indicated that it accepted that the Above Ground Installation at the Great Island power station was not part of the present application. It was withdrawing its requirement for a contribution based on the floor area of this AGI.
During the oral hearing, following the submissions from the local authorities and the response of the applicant, the applicant responded to questions from the Inspector which generally related to conditions imposed in previous approvals granted by the Board for gas pipelines. It was confirmed that there were no areas of peat along the entire length of the pipeline so that there would be no need for a condition in this regard. The applicant was agreeable that the road crossings of national and regional routes should maintain access for through traffic at all times. The applicant was agreeable to 4 weeks’ notice being given to the relevant local authority and Inland Fisheries Ireland before commencement of hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. The applicant was agreeable to a condition that a detailed traffic management plan should be submitted to and agreed in writing with the relevant local authorities prior to commencement of development.
I consider that the type of conditions suggested by the local authorities, as largely agreed by the applicant, as well as those applied by the Board in the case of similar gas pipeline projects, are suitable for inclusion in this case, in the event of approval being granted.
11.0 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the laying of the proposed gas pipeline from Baunlusk in County Kilkenny over a distance of 46 kilometres in a south- southeasterly direction to the proposed combined cycle gas turbine power station at Great Island in County Wexford entails the adoption of a methodology which has been tried and tested extensively, both nationally and internationally. The proposed alignment avoids centres of population and landscapes of high visual amenity. Where it crosses rivers and tributaries forming part of the River Barrow and River Nore candidate Special Area of Conservation, it would do so using trenchless technology. The route avoids items of archaeological interest and would not require the demolition of any
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 77
buildings, let alone those of architectural interest. While the wayleave would be visible during the construction phase, post-construction most of the landscape through which the pipeline would pass would quickly recover and only limited areas of forest would remain cleared, giving an impression, similar to that of a firebreak. While members of the farming community would suffer a temporary loss of some of their land, they would be adequately compensated in accordance with standard procedures. As confirmed at the oral hearing, the pipeline would be capable of supplying additional customers in County Wexford and in Belview Port in County Kilkenny, albeit subject to it being established that there would be sufficient demand. Overall, I consider that this proposed pipeline should be regarded as acceptable and commendable in terms of the contribution which the combustion of natural gas in place of oil at the Great Island Power Station would make towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I consider that approval may be granted for this development.
12.0 THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION ORDER
Although no specific explicit objection to the proposed compulsory acquisition order was received by the Board, it was stated on behalf of the applicant during the course of the oral hearing that it was considered that there was one such objection, namely that of Mr Donal Gorey as landowner in respect of lands in the townlands of Baysrath, Knocktopher Commons and Ricesland near Knocktopher in County Kilkenny. The lands in question are shown on Drawing BGE/111/CWL/07. The wayleave section is numbered 30 on this drawing.
My views in relation to this objection are as set out earlier in my report in the section entitled “Material Assets”. I consider that the compulsory acquisition order should be upheld without alteration.
13.0 RECOMMENDATION ON PLANNING APPLICATION
Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend that permission be granted for this development for the reasons and considerations and subject to the conditions set out below.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The Board had regard to:
(a) The provisions of the National Development Plan, 2007-2013 in relation to security of energy supply,
(b) The strategic goals of the government White Paper entitled “Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland” published in March, 2007, which seek to ensure secure and reliable electricity and gas supplies, to enhance the
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 77
diversity of fuels used for power generation and to be prepared for energy supply disruptions,
(c) The policies of the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008-2014 and the Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013,
(d) The need to provide a gas supply to service the 430 megawatt combined cycle gas turbine power station at Great Island, County Wexford for which permission has been granted under An Bord Pleanála reference PA0016,
(e) The detailed design of the proposed development, including the mitigation measures set out in the environmental impact statement,
(f) The submissions and observations received in relation to the likely effects on the environment of the proposed development, and
(g) The report and recommendation of the person who conducted the oral hearing,
The Board considered the environmental impact statement submitted with the planning application (including the mitigation measures therein), the further information made available during the course of the oral hearing, the submissions from the third party observers and the Inspector’s assessment of environmental impacts, which was noted. The Board completed an environmental impact assessment and concluded that the proposed development would not have significant adverse effects on the environment. The Board considered the Natura Impact Statement Screening Report included in the environmental impact statement and carried out an Appropriate Assessment Screening of the potential impacts on the affected Natura 2000 site, namely the River Barrow and River Nore candidate Special Area of Conservation, taking into account the submissions on file in relation to ecology and the Inspector’s assessment. The Board was satisfied that the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect, individually, or in combination with other plans or projects on this European site, having regard to the conservation objectives for this site, and concluded that an Appropriate Assessment (and submission of a Natura Impact Statement) is not therefore required.
The Board considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not seriously injure the visual amenities or landscape character of the area, would not seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity, would not be prejudicial to public health and would not, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
CONDITIONS
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars, including the environmental impact statement, lodged with An Bord Pleanála on the 21st day of November 2011, as amended by submissions made to the oral hearing. In particular, the undertaker shall ensure that all proposed environmental mitigation measures are implemented, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the conditions of this order.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 77
Reason: In the interest of clarity.
2. Details of the proposed lighting columns at the Castlebanny above ground installation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local authority. All lights shall be suitably shaded to prevent glare or light spillage outside the site.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area.
3. The river crossings of the Barrow and the King’s River and those of the Little Arrigle (as agreed with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht) shall be by trenchless techniques, only.
Reason: To protect the integrity of a European designated site.
4. All other river crossings, excluding those referred to in condition 3 above, shall be carried out in accordance with CIRIA technical guidance: Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects (C649, 2006) and shall comply with the requirements of Inland Fisheries Ireland.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the area and the aquatic flora and fauna contained within the affected watercourses.
5. Trenches cut in lands sloping towards those rivers specified in condition 3 above shall be backfilled with soil of a final permeability no less than that of the surrounding soil or subsoil.
Reason: To protect the integrity of a European designated site, as intended.
6. The crossings of all roads, watercourses, watermains, or sewers and those of the three railway lines shall comply with the requirements of the local authority or those of Iarnród Éireann, as relevant, for such works.
Reason: In the interest of public health and to ensure a proper standard of development.
7. Prior to commencement of development, the undertaker shall submit and agree in writing with the National Roads Authority and Kilkenny County Council, a protocol and procedure for the laying and protection of the pipeline at the point where it would cross the alignment of the future N25 Waterford- Glenmore road scheme.
Reason: To protect the future alignment of the N25 national primary route and in the interest of public safety.
8. During works to the road crossings on the N9, N25, R697, R699 and R704 access for through-traffic shall be maintained at all times.
Reason: In the interest of traffic safety and convenience.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 77
9. Not less than 4 weeks prior to commencement of development of the hydrostatic testing of the pipeline, the undertaker shall notify the relevant local authority and Inland Fisheries Ireland of the date of commencement and duration of testing and details of the location and volume of the proposed abstraction and discharge of water.
Reason: In the interest of public health.
10. Within 6 months of construction of the pipeline, as-constructed drawings, including details of the wall thickness along the entire length of the pipeline (specifying distances from its point of commencement) shall be submitted to the relevant local authorities for record.
Reason: In the interest of clarity and orderly development.
11. Prior to commencement of development, the undertaker shall submit to and agree in writing with the relevant local authorities a detailed Construction Management Plan. The Plan shall make provision for inclusion of all relevant mitigation measures proposed in the environmental impact statement and shall ensure that its scope extends to the following parameters:
(a) surface water management during construction to prevent run-off from the site onto the public roads, unnatural flooding and/or the occurrence of any deleterious matter in the River Barrow, the King’s River, the Little Arrigle River, the Derrylacky River and the un-named rivers to the northeast and east of Mullinavat, designated watercourses 06 and 07 at the oral hearing, or other waters, including groundwater, in accordance with CIRIA technical guidance: Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects (C649, 2006),
(b) control of adverse noise and disturbance by reference to construction working hours, noise limits and traffic management arrangements,
(c) dust minimisation, including dust potentially generated from vehicles, measures to include appropriately located wheel wash facilities and appropriate good practice in the covering of laden and unladen vehicles,
(d) management of public roads in the vicinity so that they are kept free of soil, clay, gravel, mud or other debris and general site management to the satisfaction of the local authorities,
(e) preparation of a formal Project Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan for submission to the relevant local authorities and agreement before commencement of development; any excess soils generated on the site which cannot be reused on site shall be disposed of by a licensed contractor or contractors at a suitable permitted facility or facilities, and
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 77
(f) all other waste disposal in accordance with the requirements of the relevant local authorities.
A record of daily checks that the works are being undertaken in accordance with the Construction Management Plan shall be maintained for inspection by the relevant local authorities. The undertaker shall satisfy the requirements of the relevant local authority in relation to measures to be proposed to prevent pollution run-off into water courses.
Reason: In the interest of amenities, public health and safety and to protect the adjoining surface watercourses.
12. Prior to commencement of development, the undertaker shall submit to and agree in writing with the relevant local authorities a detailed traffic management plan. This management plan shall make provision for the inclusion of all relevant mitigation measures proposed in the environmental impact statement and shall ensure that its scope extends to the following parameters:-
(a) Details of the transport routes to the site. (b) Construction traffic management related to access points onto the existing road network and (c) Details of construction work, travel and transport arrangements.
No construction or staff vehicles shall be allowed to park on public roads or roadside verges.
Reason: In the interest of traffic and pedestrian safety.
13. Where local roads are to be used for access, precondition surveys shall be carried out to establish the strength of the road. This shall consist of Level 1 and 2 falling weight deflector testing. Where required, the road shall be strengthened to cater for construction traffic at the undertaker’s expense.
Reason: In the interest of traffic safety.
14. Reinstatement works following any damage incurred as a result of the construction programme shall be agreed with the relevant local authority and any restoration works deemed necessary shall be carried out at the undertaker’s expense.
Reason: In the interest of traffic safety.
15. Works to open public road shall be subject to a road opening licence fee which shall be payable by the undertaker. The fee shall include all necessary costs associated with monitoring and supervision of the reinstatement works. The opening of public roads shall include the installation of ducts at appropriate depths to take account of open roadside drains and shall be agreed with the local authority.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 77
Reason: In the interest of traffic safety.
16. The developer shall facilitate the preservation, recording and protection of archaeological materials or features that may exist within the site. In this regard, the developer shall -
(a) notify the local authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any site operation (including hydrological and geotechnical investigations) relating to the proposed development,
(b) employ a suitably-qualified archaeologist who shall monitor all site investigations and other excavation works, and
(c) provide arrangements, acceptable to the local authority, for the recording and for the removal of any archaeological material which the authority considers appropriate to remove.
In default of agreement on any of these requirements, the matter shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.
Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation and protection of any remains that may exist within the site.
17. The following archaeological requirements shall be complied with for all excavations within the foreshore/intertidal zones and all works underwater both for the main pipeline drilling and for the laying and recovery of the temporary fluid pipeline at the River Barrow estuary:-
(a) The undertaker shall engage the services of a suitably qualified archaeologist to monitor all foreshore and riverbed disturbance works associated with the development. The archaeologist shall be licenced under the National Monuments Acts 1930-2004.
(b) Should archaeological material be found during the course of monitoring, the archaeologist shall have work at that location suspended, pending a decision as to how best to deal with the archaeology. The undertaker shall be advised by the Underwater Archaeology Unit of the National Monuments Service with regard to any necessary mitigating action (e.g. preservation in situ, dive and/or geophysical survey or excavation). The undertaker shall facilitate the archaeologist in recording any material found.
(c) The relevant local authority/authorities shall be furnished with a report describing the results of the monitoring.
Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation and protection of any remains that may exist within the site.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 77
18. Construction work within 100 metres of any occupied house shall be limited to 0700 – 1700 hours on Mondays to Fridays and from 0800 – 1700 hours on Saturdays. No construction work shall take place at such locations at any time on Sundays or on public holidays.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
19. A survey for breeding sites and resting places of badgers (setts), otters (holts and couches) and bats (all roost types) shall be carried out prior to construction works commencing. If any of these features are found, then appropriate mitigation measures shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the relevant local authority prior to commencement of development. Any mitigation measures in relation to badger, otter or bat populations shall be carried out only under licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and details of any such licence shall be copied to the local authority.
Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.
20. All reinstatement works shall be completed within the first planting season following the commissioning of the pipeline.
Reason: To limit the impact of the development on the amenity of the area, to ensure appropriate reinstatement of the site and in the interest of public safety.
21. Prior to commencement of development, the undertaker shall lodge with the relevant local authorities a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other security to secure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site and the reinstatement and repair of roads and/or services as a result of the development, coupled with an agreement empowering the relevant local authority to apply such security or part thereof to the satisfactory completion of the reinstatement. The form and amount of the deposit shall be as agreed between the relevant local authorities and the undertaker or, in default of agreement, shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site and in the interest of visual amenity and road safety.
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 76 of 77
14.0 RECOMMENDATION ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION ORDER
I recommend that the Board should grant the compulsory acquisition order and confirm the deviation limits without modification for the reasons and considerations set out below.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to
(a) The provisions of the National Development Plan, 2007-2013 in relation to security of energy supply,
(b) The strategic goals of the government White Paper entitled “Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland” published in March, 2007, which seek to ensure secure and reliable electricity and gas supplies, to enhance the diversity of fuels used for power generation and to be prepared for energy supply disruptions,
(c) The policies of the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008-2014 and the Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013,
(d) The need to provide a gas supply to service the 430 megawatt combined cycle gas turbine power station at Great Island, County Wexford for which permission has been granted under An Bord Pleanála reference PA0016,
(e) The report and recommendation of the person who conducted the oral hearing,
It is considered that the acquisition of the lands in question by the applicant is necessary for the purpose stated in the order and the objections cannot be sustained having regard to this necessity and further it is considered that the deviation limits proposed are reasonable and appropriate.
______Andrew C. Boyle Senior Planning Inspector 9th May, 2012. Cr
26.GA0005 An Bord Pleanála Page 77 of 77