Ecological Assessment of Proposed Retention of Infill by Purcell Brothers Ltd
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Ecological Assessment of Proposed Retention of Infill by Purcell Brothers Ltd. at Newrath, Kilculliheen, Co. Kilkenny View of the Site looking southeast towards the southern reedbed For: An Bord Pleanála re. PL 10.219971 Final Report - June 2007 By: Coveney Wildlife Consulting Ltd www.ecoveney.ie Address: 56 Castle Farm, Shankill, Dublin 18. E-mail: [email protected]. Phone: 00 353 (0)1 272 0622. Mobile: 00 353 (0)87 276 5158. Fax: 00 353 (0)87 5276 5158. Company No. 336952. VAT No: IE 6356952W. Directors: John Coveney, BSc PhD, Dip EIA Mgmt; Marian O’Sullivan BSc, PhD. Infill Retention at Newrath, Kilculliheen, Co. Kilkenny - PL 10.219971 Final, June 2007 1 Summary In December 2005, Purcell Brothers Ltd. applied to Kilkenny Co. Council for planning permission to retain infill on about 1.96 ha of a 5 ha Site at Newrath, Kilculliheen, Co. Kilkenny. The Application (05/1973) also provided for the rearrangement of the remaining wetlands on the Site, the landscaping and planting of a boundary embankment, and the provision of 0.5ha on the other side of the adjacent N9 as compensatory wetland. The retention on the Site of about 0.6 ha of infill had already been approved in 1998 (97/1053).The Site has industrial zoning in the Kilkenny County Development Plan. Objections to the Co. Council were lodged by Mr Brendan McCann of Waterford City and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). In February 2006, the Co. Council requested further information from the Applicant. This was submitted in April & August 2006 and included reports on hydrology, ecology and migratory birds. NPWS withdrew their objection in August 2006, subject to the inclusion of ecological conditions for habitat creation In September 2006, the Co. Council decided to grant planning permission, subject to 15 conditions, of which 10 related to ecology. This was appealed to An Bord Pleanála (the Board) by Mr. Brendan McCann on ecological and other grounds in October 2006 (PL 10.219971). Later that month, the appeal was supported by an observation from Ms Rita Canney. In November 2006, the Applicants and the Co. Council responded to the Appeal and the Observation and the Co. Council also granted a waste permit for the retention and rearrangement of the infill. The Board invited An Taisce to make a submission in January 2007 and the Board then invited the Applicant, the Appellant, the Council and the Observer to respond to the An Taisce submission in February 2007. The Board’s Inspector completed his report in March 2007 and recommended that permission should granted subject to essentially the Co. Council ecological conditions. In April 2007, the Board commissioned Coveney Wildlife Consulting Ltd. to review the ecological issues relevant to this appeal and to assess the likely ecological impacts, with regard to the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed additional infilling and the proposed wetland creation. Recommendations were sought on the need for further information and conditions that should attach to a grant of planning permission, or reasons for a rejection of planning permission The approximately triangular 5 ha Site is located close to the northern bank of the River Suir about 2.5 km northwest of Waterford City. It was formerly part of the floodplain of a tributary of the River Suir, the River Blackwater. However, it was separated from the Blackwater by an embankment when this tributary was diverted in the 19th or early 20th centuries to enter the Suir some 700 m further upstream. It adjoins the current N9 going out of Waterford towards Dublin, the Waterford to Dublin railway line, the River Blackwater, and it is within 10m of the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation (code 2137). The Grannyferry NHA (code 833) is also close by. During the 1990’s the Site was largely reedbed apart from the embankment on its southwestern boundary. By 2002, 2.54 ha in the centre of the Site was infilled with inert material, most of it unauthorised. This left 1.27 ha of reedbed at the southern end of the Site and 0.14 ha of reed and sedge swamp at the northern edge of the Site . The remainder of the Site is occupied by 0.75 ha of hedgerow on the embankment on the southwestern boundary and 0.29 ha of grassland. The current area of infill is between 1.17 and 2.8m above the Ordnance Datum (OD), the wetlands are between 0.5 and 1.0 m OD, and the embankment is about 3.5m OD. The detailed review of the ecological review in the Board’s file highlighted the following ecological points:- 1. After rearrangement of the existing wetlands on the Site, the proposed development would result in the net infill of additional 0.25 ha of wetlands, leaving 2.79 ha for future development and 2.21 ha as ecological areas, mainly wetlands and the existing embankment from the River Blackwater. 2. The main wetland, of 0.62 ha, would be at the northern end where it would have more biodiversity because of the brackish influence of the adjacent tidal Blackwater on the ground water underneath it. The existing southern reedbed of 1.27 ha would be lost to infill and a wetland canal. 3. A nearby 0.5 ha area of existing wetland on the Applicant’s lands would be transferred to the Co. Council for integration with compensatory wetlands associated with the N25 Waterford Bypass. Coveney Wildlife Consulting Ltd. 19/12/2007 2 Infill Retention at Newrath, Kilculliheen, Co. Kilkenny - PL 10.219971 Final, June 2007 4. The Applicant stated that the proposed development would enhance ecological status and connectivity of the nearby areas designated for nature conservation. 5. Ecological field work was done in May, September & October 2005 and in April, July & August 2006 as well as a desk study. The Site’s remaining wetlands are of local conservation value. 6. The enlargement of the northern wetland was predicted by the Applicant to have a moderate positive effect while the creation of the wetland canal and the enhancement of the embankment hedgerow would have minor positive effects. The infill of the southern wetland would have a minor negative effect because its ecological quality is degraded – this was later reassessed to no significant effect. No adverse affects were predicted on migratory birds or on the nearby SAC or NHA nor their characteristic species because of the lack of hydrological interactions with these areas. 7. Several good practice measures would be taken to avoid pollution effects during construction. 8. Mr Brendan McCann objected to the proposal and the substantial points made by him were, essentially, that the Site is part of the ecosystem complex in the area, the Site’s industrial zoning did not take account of its ecology, permission would be contrary to Development Plan and objectives to protect ecology, and that the ecological impacts of the unauthorised infill to past and present wetlands on the Site were not adequately assessed. The NPWS objection noted the Site’s location adjacent to the SAC, the illegal infill, and sought more hydrological information. NPWS also objected to the loss of the southern wetland and the overall permanent loss of wetland as contrary to the National Biodiversity Plan 9. After the submission of additional ecological information by the Applicant, the NPWS withdrew their objection subject to the imposition of conditions on habitat creation for butterflies, moths and dragonflies and on the design of the enlarged northern wetland. 10. The Co. Council’s decided to grant planning permission, subject to 10 ecological conditions, which were essentially the inclusion of the Applicant’s and the NPWS’s ecological mitigation measures except for the addition of planting and landscaping conditions. Co. Council reports in the Board’s file detail their success in obtaining a conviction against the Applicant in connection with the unauthorised infill, the imposition of substantial landfill levies and site investigation costs, their belief that the measures they have taken would satisfy national and EU authorities, and that they do not believe that the removal of the unauthorised infill would be warranted. Two months after its decision to grant planning permission, the Co. Council granted a Waste Permit (WMP052/2005). 11. Following the Appeal and the supporting Observation there were two additional submissions by the Applicant and the Co. Council, as well as one from An Taisce, the Appellant and the Observer. There were no substantially new ecological points in any of these submissions. 12. The report by the Board’s Inspector noted that the proposal would result in the loss of a small area of ecologically important wetland but recommended against the removal of the unauthorised infill, largely in view of the Site’s industrial zoning. The inspector also noted the withdrawal of the NPWS objection and recommended that permission should be granted subject to essentially the same ecological conditions as the Co. Council. The Site and the surrounding area was visited on 24 May 2007. Observations of the Site and its and habitats and species were essentially as expected from the review of the Board’s file. However, the nearby works for the nearby N25 Waterford bypass may be encroaching on the proposed 0.5ha compensation wetland. 1.1 Principal Findings 1. The ecological information submitted was seriously inadequate because the ecological impact of the loss of wetland habitat to unauthorised infilling was not assessed. It was also inadequate because the effect of the unauthorised infill on the remaining wetlands on the Site was poorly assessed. 2. The size of the proposed compensation wetland is inadequate. Furthermore, its ecological compensation value is reduced because it is already wetland habitat.