An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Reference: SU08.SU0081

Title: Quarry

Location: Muingaphuca and Glannagilliagh, Killorglin, Co. Kerry

Applicant: Michael F. Quirke and Sons.

Local Authority: Kerry County Council

Date of Site Visit: 1st July 2014

Inspector: Philip Davis

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 16 1. Introduction

This is an application under section 177E of the Planning and Development Acts, 2000-2011 for substitute consent for a sand and gravel in central Kerry, just north of Caragh Lake near Killorglin. The application is accompanied by a remedial Environmental Impact Statement (rEIS) and remedial Natura Impact Statement (rNIS). The rEIS and rNIS are required on foot of a direction under s.261A2(a) by the Board that the quarry would have required an EIS and NIS, due to the size and scale of the operation and its location close to an SAC.

2. Site Description

Photographs of the site and environs are attached in the appendix to this report.

General area The site for substitute consent is located across two townlands just south of the N70 between the towns of Killorglin and Glenbeigh. The area is typical of lowlands created from glaciofluvial deposits with an undulating topography of irregular hollows and shallow ridges on well drained and low fertility grasslands, some thin layers of blanket bog, bounded by rough hawthorn hedgerows. The backdrop is highly scenic, with the Macgillicuddys Reeks some 7 km to the south-east, and Lough Caragh 10km to the south-west, and the hills around Glenbeigh to the west. The area is well populated with an irregular scattering of bungalows along the minor road network. The nearest town is Killorglin, just over 3 km to the east. There are a number of quarries in the vicinity, all utilising the deep fluvio-glacial sand and gravels which are the primary subsurface geology in this part of Kerry. The N70 is a relatively narrow and busy road lacking a hard shoulder or footpath forming the Ring of Kerry at this point. Otherwise, the area is served by a network of quite narrow and substandard third class roads. The long abandoned former Great Southern railway runs through the townlands on an embankment, running roughly 500 metres south of the alignment of the N70.

Quarry at Muingaphuca and Glannagilliagh This substitute consent application relates to one small corner of a larger quarry. The area for consent is 4.1 hectares in extent and consists of a mostly worked out sand and gravel pit which appears to have a semi-permanent pond at its base – it is identified in the applicant’s plans as ‘Phase IV’. This quarry is roughly rectangular in shape. Perhaps 2-300 m² of the lands is unworked. The pit appears to be about 12 metres at its deepest below the level of the surrounding unexcavated lands. The overall quarry is to the north and east of the site and is just under 25 hectares in extent – part of it is still active. The quarry is intersected by a disused railway embankment – it is

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 16 sliced in one section to allow vehicular access – a service pipe runs on the former railway area above the haul route for quarry trucks. The main processing area for sand and gravel is just east of the site, while the entrance and parking/office/service area is to the north, beyond the railway embankment. There is no visible activity in the application site.

North of the site is the railway embankment, with immediately beyond this, about 100 metres from the boundary, is the office, weighbridge and concrete plant associated with the active site. Just west of the reception area and about 300 metres from the application site, is a small cluster of dwellings, some modern. North of these bungalows is a raised area which includes a former landfill associated with the Astellas pharmaceutical plant in Killorglin. The houses and landfill are accessed via a track which joins the end of a cul-de-sac at the same point as the quarry entrance. This cul-de-sac runs directly north from the quarry entrance for some 600 metres, past at least two dwellings, where it joins the N70 at a slightly elevated ridge. At this point, the N70 is a narrow and busy single lane each way carriageway lacking a footpath or hard shoulder. There is a single dwelling opposite the entrance. Beyond this is open countryside, with the coast 3 km away.

West of the site is a small disused farm track, with a scrub area 300 metres across which is part of the overall landholding. After another 2- 300 metres is a narrow third class road which runs due south from the N70, linking to a minor road which runs around Caragh Lake. There is a scattering of dwellings along this road.

South of the site is another 300 metres or so of scrub, also within the landholding. Perhaps 50 metres south of this is a cluster of farm buildings. 100 metres south of this is a third class road running east to west – this road runs past the north of Caragh Lake and has many houses and a number of guesthouses along its route.

East of the site is the main active quarry and processing area, with mobile and fixed plant, a water well, and several ponds. The extraction area is about 550 metres long, with agricultural land (mostly low grade grazing and scrub) to the south. 600 metres further east are a number of fields in scrub which are part of the quarry landholding. 700 metres east of the site is a third class road which runs directly south from the N70. There are many individual houses and farms on either side of the road. Beyond this is more farmland.

3. Determination

The Board decided to confirm the S.261A determination by Kerry County Council (S.261A2(a)(2)(i)) that having regard to the scale and nature of the works and the cumulative impact with the adjoining quarry, an environmental impact assessment should have been carried out, and having regard to the proximity to the Castlemaine Harbour

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 16 candidate SAC and the Killarney National Park, MacGillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment candidate SAC, an appropriate assessment should have been carried out (S.261A(a)(2)(ii)).

4. Reports and correspondence

Substitute consent application The Substitute Consent application under S.177E was submitted to An Bord Pleanala on the 17th February 2014, accompanied by an rEIS and rNIS.

National Roads Authority It is noted that what is described as a ‘semi-private roadway’ in the rEIS meets the national road at a point where the 100kph limit applies. It recommends that the planning authority should avoid the creation of any additional access points to a National Road and that any traffic recommendations in the rEIS should be implemented. It recommends that any consent granted should not result in any intensification of use on the existing access to the N70.

HSE The rEIS is considered acceptable and there are no objections to the grant of substitute consent subject to the mitigation measures outlined in the rEIS being followed.

GSI No specific comments.

Kathleen O’Neill and others of Glounaguillagh The letter (undersigned by 8 names of local residents), objects to the application for substitute consent, citing strong concerns over safety and nuisance from quarry vehicles using the access road. It is requested that the quarry use an alternative access.

An Taisce Notes that in ECJ case 215006 retrospective EIA should only be permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Kerry CC Roads, Transport and Safety States that the access road is private. No specific observations. Standard conditions such as the provision of wheel washes should be requested.

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 16 Kerry CC Environment Notes that surface water does not infiltrate into the quarry floor. Any water disposed off-site will require a discharge license. Recommends 12 no. standard conditions.

Kerry CC Ecologist Notes that the main impact is likely to be via water impacts. It is noted that sand martins (amber conservation status) have been recorded on site.

Kerry CC Archaeologist There are no recorded monuments within the bounds or immediate vicinity of the site. No mitigation required.

Kerry County Council Planners report The report outlines the planning history of the quarry – the quarry (but not the land for substitute consent) has a retention permission and a total of three EIS retention permissions from 1989 onwards. It is noted that there is a licensed landfill facility north of the site. It is recommended that Substitute Consent be granted subject to 38 no. standard conditions (none of these are financial contribution conditions).

5. Applicants response

With regard to the planning authorities suggested conditions, the applicant objects to suggested condition 37, on the basis that this would make mandatory the disclosure of confidential and commercially sensitive information. They also object to condition 24 as it is stated that there is no surface discharge from the site, and in any event such a discharge would be subject to a license under the Water Pollution Act 1977, as amended.

6. Planning Context

Planning permissions – appeal site There are no planning permissions relating to specifically to the 4.1 hectares of the pit, but there is an extensive planning history to the overall quarry. These include:

Permission granted in April 1989 for the use, extension and development of a gravel pit (233/89).

Permission upheld on appeal from the Board (PL08.102875) in December 1997 to retain an extended gravel pit and crushing and screening plant and the retention of concrete batching plant and

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 16 permission for a further extension of the pit (EIS included). The permission excluded the concrete batching plant and was for 3 years only (1890/96).

Permission granted in June 1998 (with EIS) for an extension of the quarry (2548/97).

Permission upheld (PL08.119998) on appeal in 1998 for the retention of the concrete batching plant and the widening of private access (1329/98).

Permission refused on appeal (PL08.123237) in 2000 for the continued use of the land for quarrying and intensification of extraction and the upgrading of the private road (3029/00).

Planning permissions – general vicinity None relevant on file. There is an EPA license in relation to ongoing monitoring of the Astellas landfill (a hazardous waste facility) which is located just to the north-east of the quarry entrance.

Development Plan The pits are in open countryside without a specific zoning objective. There are a number of NHA’s and Natura 2000 sites within the vicinity, but not within 1 km of the quarry.

7. Assessment

Planning background The overall quarry has a long history of unauthorised works, later granted retention permissions, including retention permissions with EIS. This Substitute Consent application applies to just one relatively small portion of the quarry (less than 20% of the total), one of the most recent areas of extraction - an area just over 4 hectares - which seems to have been worked mostly at the tail end of the development boom which ended in 2008. It is a rectangular area of extraction which may have produced what I would estimate to be around half a million cubic metres of sand and gravel for processing elsewhere within the quarry, utilising the existing main entrance to the quarry. I note that the Board Direction in relation to the S.261A decisions referred to the interactions with the overall quarry in its decision, so in assessing this rEIS are rNIS I would consider these interactions and indirect effects to be particularly important.

rEIS and rNIS Notwithstanding my comments in detail in the analysis below, I conclude that the rEIS and rNIS conform with the statutory guidelines.

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 16 Assessment of alternatives As the quarrying works have been completed, there is no reasonable basis for an assessment of alternatives to the location of the quarry – this would only apply to details for the restoration of the pit.

Flora and fauna/rNIS The works require an rNIS, so I would consider the overall ‘flora and fauna’ issue and that covered by the rNIS to be essentially the same.

From aerial photographs and local context, it would appear that the site was originally vegetated by a thin layer of lowland blanket bog. Most of the similar peat in the area has been cut through small scale local turbary or drained for agriculture. The 2005 aerial photo indicates streaks through the peat, so there was probably some localised draining and cutting. The gravel substrate results in very low fertility – where peat has been cut in the area the result is usually that the land quickly becomes gorse or birch scrub unless it is intensively fertilised, which seems to be rarely the case.

The site at the time of my site visit is a 10-12 metre deep pit, with a few small areas as yet worked. The western side is a steep cutting face, and I noted a colony of sand martins were nesting in one section. The base is what seems to be a semi-permanent water body. This appears to be surface water fed – looking at the history of aerial photographs it seems that much of the quarry is semi-permanently flooded at the base. The murkiness of this water would indicate that it is not groundwater and the evidence suggests that the main local aquifers are well below the level of the quarry floor. Most likely the base of the quarry is in parts relatively impermeable, resulting in ponding. This may be due to the nature of the sub-surface geology, or inadvertent sealing through the discharge of gravel fines from the washing process - I would guess at the latter.

The current state of the quarry is that there is some trace vegetation on the small areas which have been removed, but elsewhere there is just bare quarry floor, exposed cut faces, and the semi-permanent waterbody, which on visual inspection has not vegetated and is not clear enough to have fish or a substantial invertebrate population. An area of exposed quarry face is pockmarked with sand martin nests and bird activity during my site visit would indicate that these are active breeding sites (the sand martin is amber listed).

There are a number of SAC and SPA’s in the vicinity – the two identified as being relevant in terms of potential impact on the conservation status of a European site in the Boards S.261A direction are the Castlemaine Harbour SAC (00343) and the Killarney National Park and McGillacuddy Reeks SAC (00365). With regard to the former the key objective would be to protect freshwater species entering Castlemaine Harbour – specifically the River lamprey (Lametra

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 16 Fluviatilis) and the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and the otter (lutra lutra). For the latter, the key species would also include freshwater fauna including the Freshwater pearl mussel, three lamprey species, the Twaite shad, salmon, otter, and invertebrates such as the Kerry slug (Geomalacus maculosus). In this regard, I consider that by far the most important element is the potential impact on ground and surface waters, insofar as they could impact on these designated sites, which at their closest are just over 0.5 km from the quarry (in the case of 00365) and 3.5 km (00343).

I will discuss in more detail the impacts on surface and groundwater in the relevant sections below, but I would summarise the findings of the rEIS (which I broadly concur with), that the impacts are very localised. There are no surface watercourses directly impacted upon by the works. Water abstraction for gravel washing has had a measurable impact beyond the boundaries of the quarry, and I would note with concern the possible impact on changed water flows with the potential for indirect impacts on the localised groundwater pollution associated with the licensed hazardous waste landfill to the north-east of the site. But this impact seems to be very localised and so there seems little reasonable possibility of impact on the designated habitats, either by way of reducing water flow, significantly impacting on the hydraulic balance of the major watercourses associated with Lough Caragh, or by impacting via pollution (either from the quarry or from other sources, either the landfill or agricultural/septic tank pollution). I would note in this regard that the underlying geology is karstic limestone which does make assessing geological impacts particularly difficult. However, on the basis of my site visit and the information in the rEIS and other documentation (including the license information available on the EPA website regarding water monitoring of the adjoining landfill) I would conclude that there is no evidence that during the relevant statutory period there was any adverse impact on the conservation status of any designated EU habitat. In this regard, I concur with the conclusions in the rNIS and rEIS.

The rEIS recommends a number of mitigation measures, which note that it is impractical to recreate blanket peat. It recommends that restoration tries to create complexity on the site by varying peat depths and creating waterlogged hollows and pools. I would note in this regard that ensuring that some exposed gravel cliff faces to remain would allow it to be used in the longer term by nesting sand martins. I would concur with this and I would recommend a condition such that the site be subject to an appropriate restoration masterplan which emphasises the ecological value of the excavated lands.

Soils, geology and water As I have outlined in the ‘flora and fauna’ section above, the land was formerly a thin layer of lowland raised bog with evidence of some draining and cutting of unknown date (I would guess that any localised cutting had been long abandoned, with possibly some regrowth of the

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 16 peat – when heavily cut and drained the local peat appears to regenerate as gorse/birch/hawthorn scrub). It was part of a large expanse of peat indicated on the oldest OS maps, although this was intersected in the 19th Century by the construction of the railway embankment. The rEIS states that the rock underlying the thick fluvioglacial deposits is limestone.

The EIS indicated that there are some stockpiles on site of peat and subsoil, although it is not clear that it is from the site in question. It would seem unlikely that the peat cover could be reconstructed following any restoration as the storage has been long term and not particularly careful. However, some level of restoration of a soil cover would be possible, although realistically I would have considered that leaving this part of the site to nature would be more appropriate as it would not be possible to restore the lands to any economic agricultural use – the exposed face has significant wildlife value for nesting birds and the water body would have ecological value over time.

There are no watercourses visible in the vicinity – although older OS plans indicate what are probably ditches with some water flow. None of the ditches I saw on my inspection contained anything but standing water – the rEIS (section 4.2.3) discusses this and notes that despite the presence of an aqueduct traversing the access road, there is no evidence of flowing water except during very wet conditions. It does not seem that the works has directly affected any surface water systems to a significant extent, although as the rEIS notes the cumulative impact of the quarrying works affects the recharge rate by removing vegetation. The area is within the catchment of the River Keale and Caragh Lake. The impacts would most likely be via pollution such as from diesel leakage – there is no evidence that this has occurred, and the possibility is low if the quarry is managed effectively.

The quarry overlies the Killarney Town Groundwater Body, which is considered to have a ‘poor’ water status. There is one abstraction point within the quarry landholding – this is next to the processing area – it is stated to be 33 metres deep and to draw 750 m³ per day, a rate which, it is noted, has a measurable impact on other wells in the area (this is related to a report carried out on hydrology for the adjoining Astellas waste tip). I saw no evidence of other abstractions during my site visit. It has also apparently affected groundwater flow within and beyond the quarry boundary –i.e., it has created a plume of depression which extends well beyond the quarry. This water is used for processing – there is no discharge point, all waters apparently draining into the quarry floor. Recycled water from settlement ponds within the quarry is also used. During my site visit I saw no evidence of deliberate dewatering, or of water discharges external to the site, so I concur with the overall description and analysis in the rEIS. I note that from information submitted to the EPA that there is some trace level contamination of the local groundwater from the landfill (tetrahydrofuran, toluene and chloroform)

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 16 The impact of the overall quarrying works on the local hydrogeological system is significant, in particular the impact of dewatering. However, it is less clear that the contribution of the 4.1 hectare site subject to this rEIS is a particularly significant element of this. The impact of the extra area was most likely to prolong the life of the quarry, rather than permit intensification, as the overall level of extraction was largely limited by the extent of the processing facilities. In mitigation, the rEIS recommends the restoration of the lands and ongoing monitoring of the ring drain around the quarry (which acts to prevent surface water entering the quarry) and ongoing monitoring of local wells. I consider this reasonable and I do not recommend additional conditions.

Climate and Air Quality, Noise and Vibration The quarry, and specifically the area subject to this SC application, is located within a block of land enclosed by four roads, all four of which have the usual scatter of bungalows and farms typical of the area. The closest dwellings are a small cluster next to the quarry at the end of the cul-de-sac road (I note that it is not clear from the information on file as to whether this is a public road or not – the Council Engineers report describes it suitably ambiguously as ‘semi-private’). It was obvious from my site visit that the greatest disturbance by way of noise and dust is to the residents along this road. There is no doubt that quarry vehicles dominate traffic on this road and result in levels of noise and dust far above what would be normal for a rural minor road. Some of the residents of these dwellings have written objecting to the Substitute Consent and I do not think they are exaggerating in the details they have provided about the difficulties of living on a quarry haul route (not to mention the issues of the adjoining hazardous waste landfill). No doubt it was at its worse when Phase IV was under active extraction as traffic would have been at its peak, mirroring the state of the construction economy at the time.

The rEIS (Section 4.5) outlines the on-going noise monitoring at the quarry (these are not specific to Phase IV operations). Drawing 4.5.1 shows the noise monitoring stations – I consider N1 to be the crucial one as the dwellings here will undoubtedly suffer most from combined operational and traffic noise. The rEIS concludes on the basis of noise summary data from on-going monitoring (2007-2012) that there were no exceedances of the 55dBA level usual for rural areas. The detected noise levels for the relevant period at N1 were in the region of 53-55, although I would suspect on the basis of my site visit that there would have been noise levels well in excess of this when traffic was at its most intense during the peak construction periods.

The rEIS indicates that the local topography and the distances involved would have resulted in relatively low noise levels from operations within the Phase IV pit. I would consider this a reasonable conclusion – the main impact would have been in allowing the pit to operate for a longer period by increasing recoverable mineral reserves.

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 16 The impacts from dust and local climatic impacts would have been quite minor around Phase IV due to the separation distance from it and likely receptors. There was on going dust monitoring from 2007 to 2012, summarised in Table 4.4.1 of the rEIS. These revealed no significant impact from the extraction works, although again I would note that the main impact would have been on people living along the access road. The potential impact was obvious during my site visit, on a dry day following heavy rain – there was active watering of the entire length of road to (successfully) keep dust down. However, it is obvious from the state of the road verges that fugitive dust emissions are an issue in the area, and this was most likely a negative impact on local residents during the period covered by the rEIS. The overall impact undoubtedly has had a strong negative impact on the amenities of the residents along this road, although it is doubtful if the operation of Phase IV was particularly significant relative to the size and scale of the quarry.

The rEIS sets out a series of mitigation measures for noise and dust. I would have considered this to have been the most significant environmental impact on residents, specifically those living next to the quarry entrance, during the operational period. Essentially, these are for monitoring and operational controls. It would seem that under the current circumstances, this is the best that can be achieved.

Landscape and visual impacts The quarry is situated close to major tourist areas and in a part of Kerry well known internationally for its landscape qualities. The area immediately around Lough Caragh is famously scenic. The site is not directly within an area of the highest quality, and the undulating natural terrain and intermittent scrub vegetation results in a landscape which is relatively robust. The site is within an area without a specific landscape designation within the County Development Plan. Apart from the indirect evidence of road signs and quarry vehicles, the entrance to the quarry is only visible from the end of the cul-de-sac and it is not directly or indirectly visible from any vantage point I could identify from the public roads on all four sides. I could not identify any specific dwellings which would have a clear view of the quarry or the plant within the quarry, although it may have been that the works on Phase IV were visible when excavation plant would have been at or close to the natural ground level. The quarry may be visible from higher ground to the south, from the walking and hiking paths on the north sides of the MacGillycuddy Reeks although from this distance it is likely to be a very minor feature on the landscape. The topography and vegetation would screen the quarry from any points around Lough Caragh. The site would be very prominent if the abandoned railway (on an elevated embankment where it runs past and through the site) were to be restored for public amenity use, but I am not aware of any such proposals, and there were no proposals during the relevant statutory period for the purposes of this assessment.

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 16 The EIS includes a number of photomontages in the appendix – I consider the choice of locations to be reasonable. It concludes that the works in the phase IV area have had a ‘slight negative and permanent’ impact on the landscape and visual impact on the area, mainly through the loss of peatland landscape – I would concur with this conclusion. It recommends a series of mitigation measures relating to the restoration of the site. I note that some of the recommendations are not strictly speaking consistent with recommendations covering other aspects – for example, it recommends the infilling of ponds for the protection of groundwater (I would not consider this either necessary or appropriate as these could have significant ecological value in the long term). But in broad terms I would consider it acceptable, although I would recommend that the Board set a condition to ensure a coherent approach to the restoration and long term management of the site incorporating visual, ecological and water protection requirements.

Cultural Heritage There are no recorded ancient monuments or protected structures within several hundred metres of the quarry. The quarry is not within view or hearing distance of any significant older structures, apart from the abandoned railway line (which does not have any form of statutory protection). There are no structures visible on older OS plans on the Phase IV part of the quarry – the lands were originally bog. It cannot be ruled out that archaeological material would have been found within the peat, but the entire area was scraped clean so there is now no means of knowing if this was the case – but the absence of any archaeological sites in the vicinity makes this unlikely. The rEIS concludes that there was no significant impact of the works and no mitigation is recommended. Although I note that this section does not mention the railway embankment which I would consider a significant part of the cultural heritage of the area, I would concur with the conclusions.

Material Assets The rEIS addresses only traffic impacts under ‘material assets’. The rEIS (as does the Council Engineers Report) describes the access road as ‘semi-private’, without defining what that means. The road is paved as normal for a rural country road, but apparently was improved in line with the requirements for one of the earlier planning permissions for the quarry. A number of lay-bys have also been provided – again this was a planning requirement. The quarry operator regularly waters the road. It is shared by several dwellings and farms along its route. The junction with the N70 is not ideal, but there is reasonable visibility on either side. At the time of my site visit a warning sign at the junction was partially obscured.

The rEIS indicates that even at peak, the quarry (which seems to have averaged around 70 vehicles a day in use) never accounted for more than 1% of heavy vehicle movements on the N70. From my

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 16 observations, I would be sceptical that the number of movements at peak would be so low – it would most likely have been far higher at the economic peak around 2006-7. However, Phase IV was likely only a small proportion of this. So in overall terms, I would concur that the impact of use on the national road network was quite modest.

The rEIS concludes that the mitigation measures put in place prior to 2007 were adequate, and I concur with this. As they still apply to the active planning permissions, I would not consider it necessary to add any more conditions.

An issue not raised by the rEIS is the impact on the abandoned railway line. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport recently announced a €3.4 million grant towards creating a Greenway on this line from Glenbeigh to Caherciveen. It is not stated on the website as to why the proposal commences in Glenbeigh rather than Killarney or Killorglin, which would seem more logical trailheads, but I would assume this relates to the difficulties in re-establishing the line due to incursions such as the quarry. As such, I would consider this to have been a significant loss in material assets as the long term potential of this Greenway to the local tourism industry is very significant. However, I would note that the recognition at central and local government level of the potential value of these abandoned railways is only quite recent, so probably would not have been given much weight at the statutory period for which the rEIS applies.

Interactions, direct and indirect affects There is one other quarry in the vicinity, and I note the Inspectors remarks in the most recent appeal for the quarry that there was clearly an interaction effect, especially with regard to noise. But I do not consider that any interactions or indirect impacts involving Phase IV (except insofar as they involve the main quarry itself) would have been significant enough to have resulted in a refusal. In other respects, I do not consider that there would be interaction, direct or indirect impacts requiring additional mitigation over that recommended in the rEIS.

Financial contribution I note that the planning authority did not request a financial contribution for the works.

8. Conclusion and Recommendation

I conclude that the rEIS and rNIS are acceptable and that the Board should confirm the substitute consent subject to the conditions set out below. For the avoidance of doubt, I would note that the quarry works is subject to all mitigation measures set out in the rEIS and rNIS and so I do not propose that these be repeated in the conditions.

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 16 DECISION

The Board, in accordance with section 177K of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and based on the Reasons and Considerations set out below, decided to GRANT substitute consent in accordance with the following conditions.

MATTERS CONSIDERED

In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

The Board had regard, inter alia, to the following:

(a) the provisions of the Planning and Development Acts, 2000 to 2011, as amended, and in particular Part XA, (b) the ‘Quarry and Ancillary Activities, Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in April, 2004, (c) the provisions of the Kerry County Development Plan, 2009-2015, (d) the remedial Environmental Impact Statement and remedial Natura Impact Assessment submitted with the application for substitute consent, (e) the report and the opinion of the planning authority under section 177I, (f) the submissions/observations made in accordance with regulations made under section 177N, (g) the report of the Board’s Inspector, including in relation to potential significant effects on the environment, (h) the planning history of the site, (i) the pattern of development in the area, and (j) the nature and scale of the development the subject of this application for substitute consent.

The Board completed an environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment in relation to the development in question, and considered that the assessment and conclusions of the Inspector’s report were satisfactory in identifying the environmental effects of the development in question, and also agreed with his conclusions in relation to the acceptability of mitigation measures proposed and residual effects.

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 16 The Board considered the remedial Natura Impact Statement submitted with the application for substitute consent and carried out an Appropriate Assessment of the development having particular regard to the potential for impacts on nearby Natura 2000 sites Castlemaine Harbour candidate SAC (site code 000343) and the Killarney National Park, MacGillycuddy’s Reeks and Caragh River Catchment candidate SAC (site code 000365). The Board completed an Appropriate Assessment and having regard to the nature and scale of the subject development, the nature of the receiving environment and the mitigation measures and water management proposals set out in the remedial Natura Impact Statement, the Board is satisfied that the subject development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, has not adversely affected the integrity of a European site.

Having regard to the acceptability of the environmental impacts as set out above, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the subject development is not contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. This grant of substitute consent shall be in accordance with the plans and particulars submitted to An Bord Pleanála with the application on the 17th Day of January 2014. This grant of substitute consent relates only to development undertaken as described in the application and does not authorise any future development on this site.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

2. A restoration scheme shall be carried out in accordance with a restoration plan, which shall include existing and proposed finished ground levels, landscaping proposals and a timescale for implementation. This plan shall be prepared by the developer, and shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority within 3 months of the date of this notice. This plan shall include for the provision of habitats in mitigation for previous damage caused, including exposed gravel cliff faces suitable for nesting birds, water/wetland areas using existing areas of standing water and areas of natural recolonisation. In the event of a failure to agree details, the restoration proposals shall be submitted to the Board for agreement.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area, to ensure public safety and to ensure that the quarry restoration protects and enhances ecology.

3. Within three months of the date of this order, a scheme of landscaping, including details of the screening and landscaping arrangements along

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 16 the boundary of the site shall be submitted to the planning authority for written agreement. This scheme shall include the strengthening of the existing hedge along the road boundary. All planting as agreed with the planning authority shall be carried out within one year of the date of this order.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

______Philip Davis, Inspectorate. 29th August 2014

SU08.SU0081 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 16