An Bord Pleanala Ref.: PL09.220356
An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Development:
The demolition of the following principal elements – eastern half of the west stand (approx. 2,740 square metres), demolition of east stand (approx. 8,130 square metres) to include the dismantling and relocation of the Queen’s Room (25 square metres) within the new Grandstand, and demolition of elements (2,094 square metres) of the front south elevation and bar, lounge, function rooms and ancillary areas at ground and first floor level primarily to the front of the existing Stand House Hotel of some 6,910 square metres and demolition of storage yard and water tower, as well as demolition of part of the west wing of the Turf Club rooms (107 square metres). The construction of a new Grandstand and ancillary facilities (approx. 27,780 square metres) consisting of basement, ground floor and four upper floors (five storeys over basement level equivalent, plus plant room overall), as well as a five storey oval element to the east, all with plant rooms at roof level. The new Grandstand primarily comprises at ground floor level; a museum (219 square metres) incorporating relocated Queen’s Room (25 square metres), 1 food court (278 square metres), 2 main tote halls (816 square metres) and bar areas (1,084 square metres), as well as entrance area within the oval element, at first floor level; a seated terrace of 1,100 seats, a members bar/lounge (132 square metres), function room (154 square metres), restaurant (269 square metres), tote hall (156 square metres), owners’ and trainers’ bar/lounge (106 square metres) as well as a main bar within oval element (769 square metres), at second floor level; a seated terrace of 860, 11 corporate boxes (411 square metres), bar/lounge (122 square metres), as well as 3 function rooms (519 square metres) within oval element, at third floor level; 20 corporate boxes (819 square metres), judges’ and stewards’ boxes (53 square metres), as well as 5 corporate boxes (461 square metres) within oval element, at fourth floor level; a reception/bar area (370 square metres), roof terrace (998 square metres), and commentary box (116 square metres) as well as banqueting hall (950 square metres) within the oval element as well as plant which is located at roof level. Ancillary uses and areas, including circulation space, toilets, kitchens, stairwell, plant, stores, ancillary offices are located at all levels. All public areas of the new Grandstand are primarily for use on race days, apart from banqueting hall, reception bar area at fourth floor level, and function rooms as well as the museum at ground floor level. Permission is also sought for the reconfigured Stand House Hotel of 821 square metres that will comprise 56 square metres of new works at ground floor level of proposed new glazed south elevation, reconfiguration of courtyard and lounge of additional 31 square metres, proposed
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 40 reconfigured new main entrance, lobby and reception to the west elevation, refurbishment of the northern elevation as well as proposed new glazed circulation, reception, store and toilets of an additional 315 square metres to the rear of the main hotel, and at first floor level will primarily comprise of an extension of the Derby Suite function room of 38 square metres, new elevation and balcony to the south elevation of additional 56 square metres, proposed extended breakfast room and balcony to the rear of additional 77 square metres, as well as proposed new link and balcony to the rear of the main hotel of additional 248 square metres, as well as ancillary elements as part of the reconfiguration of the hotel. A site compound (978 square metres), consisting of 1 ESB substation (56 square metres), switch room (35 square metres), communications room (35 square metres), and 3 satellite/outside broadcast feeds (each 42 square metres, 126 square metres overall) as well as compactor within the overall compound. A new gable wall and external steel staircase to Turf clubrooms, 2 marquee areas to the rear of the new Grandstand for use primarily on race days. The proposed Grandstand and Stand House Hotel will be accessed by way of the permitted central access point off the permitted realigned road (Reg. Ref. 04/3137). A new access is proposed off the permitted road to provide access to a new HGV parking area for broadcasting vehicles, as well as access to the car parking area to the north and east of the existing Turf Club offices. A further permitted access off the eastern part of the permitted realigned road (Reg. Ref. 04/3137) will be used to access the reconfigured car parking area to the east of the proposed development. Parking to serve the development on non-race days will be in the form of 34 car parking spaces to the immediate north of the Grandstand, the marking of 110 car parking spaces on the existing hard standing car parking area to the north of the Stand House Hotel, the marking and surfacing of 190 car parking spaces on the existing hard standing car parking area to the north and east of the Turf Club Offices, as well as the reconfiguration of the existing 199 car parking spaces to provide 65 car parking spaces within the car parking area to the east of the proposed development. New pedestrian accesses, including new entrance plaza and pedestrian walkway into the overall development from the east, site development and landscape and ancillary works, all on a site of 10.6 hectares at the Curragh Racecourse, The Curragh, Co. Kildare.
Planning Application
Planning Authority: Kildare County Council
Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 06/0400
Applicant: The Trustees of the Turf Club.
Type of Application: Permission
Planning Authority Decision: To grant permission
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 40
Planning Appeal
Appellant: 1. The Trustees of the Turf Club
2. Friends of the Curragh Environment
Type of Appeal: First and Third Party
Date of Site Inspection: 01/10/07
Inspector: Andrew Boyle
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 40 INTRODUCTION
Gillian Kane, Planning Inspector, originally reported on this proposed development. She recommended the seeking of further information pursuant to Section 132 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Her report, modified to take account of the withdrawal of one of the original appellants, Geraldine McCann, the withdrawal of a referral to the Board, under RL2366, and with other non-substantive alterations, follows up to Page 27.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at the Curragh Racecourse in Co. Kildare. It is located along the northern edge of the Curragh Plains, which is a proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA). Pollardstown Fen, which is a Special Area of Conservation, is located approximately 2 km north of the subject site. The Curragh Racecourse has been the subject of a number of planning applications. That part of the racecourse, which is the subject of this appeal, is located within the centre of the racecourse, namely the Grandstand, which is bounded to the north by the existing R413 (to be realigned) and to the south by the actual racing flat. In addition, the subject site covers the existing Stand House Hotel, which is due north of the existing Grandstand, and which fronts onto the existing R413. To the north of the Stand House Hotel is an undeveloped greenfield site, currently used for sheep grazing. Work is complete on the realignment of the R413.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Planning permission was sought for development comprising the demolition of part of the Grandstand, including the dismantling and relocation of the Queen’s Room and the construction of a new Grandstand. The new Grandstand would comprise a museum, food court; tote halls, bar/lounge areas, seating areas, function rooms, restaurant, corporate boxes and judging areas. The proposal also involves a reconfiguration of the Stand House Hotel, a site compound, two marquee areas, a new access from the recently permitted realigned R413, reconfigured parking areas and a new entrance plaza and pedestrian walkway. The overall floor area of development is c.26, 601 square metres. The application was accompanied by an EIS prepared by RPS Planning and Environment Consultants.
PLANNING AUTHORITY REPORTS
The following technical reports are on file:
• Area Engineer: no objections.
• Environment Section: no objection subject to 13 conditions.
• Water Services: Previous water services conditions under 04/3072 shall apply.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 40 • Environmental Health Officer: Further Information required. There is a limit to the range of catering that may be carried out, given the existing size of the kitchen in the Stand House Hotel. It is recommended that the applicants contact the Council regarding this and other requirements of food hygiene legislation.
• Roads Department: No objection subject to 11 conditions.
• Roads Design: No objection subject to 11 conditions.
• Conservation Officer: “I note that this EIS has been reported on previously by Planning Consultants. If a grant of permission is recommended mitigation measures to existing architectural heritage should be carried out in accordance with conservation best practice and in accordance with DoEHLG guidelines. This is to protect the architectural heritage character of the Curragh Grandstands, their curtilage and attendant grounds. In particular the remnants of 1851 Victorian Stand House should be surveyed, recorded and relocated as recommended in the Consultants EIS.”
• National Roads Design Office: Section 12.2, Page 139 of the EIS confirms proposed increase of capacity from 30,000 to 50,000. 12.11 confirms that assessment does not take into account the race day traffic. I consider that the TIA should take into account race day traffic in order to properly assess the impact.
• Chief Fire Officer: Means of escape are inadequate. Access for fire brigade is inadequate.
Following from the first planning report, Kildare County Council requested Additional Information on the following items:
• Artist’s impression or photomontage of the main (south) elevation of the proposed new stand.
• A revised drawing of the proposed southern elevation of the Grandstand showing the profile of the existing stand.
• An assessment of how the proposed development complies with the ‘Report of the Inter-departmental task force on the future management and development of the Curragh’.
• Assessment of noise impacts arising on race days with regard to an increased capacity of 50,000 and revised Grandstand design.
• TIA on race day traffic.
• Proposals to address Fire Officer’s concerns.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 40 • Car parking schedule in accordance with the Newbridge Local Area Plan and cycle parking proposals.
The Applicant’s response to the request for additional information was as follows:
• The increased capacity of the racecourse to 50,000 people would be incremental and was not the basis on which the application was lodged or on which the EIS was undertaken. Any increase from the current Derby Day crowd, which occurs once a year, would result in the implementation of the Traffic Management Plan, submitted with the additional information response.
• The Grandstand is reduced in profile to address Fire Officer concerns: reduced overall floor to floor heights between 1st and 4th floor levels and revised northern elevation. Revisions to Strand House Hotel elevation. Fire Safety Strategy Report prepared by Michael Slattery & Associates, Fire Safety Consultants.
• Traffic Management report, prepared by O’Connor Sutton Cronin Associates. 9,408 spaces currently available, after realignment of road 8,086 spaces available. Maximum demand 7,734 spaces.
• The proposed development, as an improvement to an existing use, is in accordance with the Report of the Inter-Departmental Task Force on the future management and development of the Curragh.
• The current maximum number of people attending Derby Day is 30,000. This is the basis of the application and the EIS. There would be no increase in traffic levels and therefore no increase in noise levels. The realignment of the R413 would reduce capacity for car parking. This would be absorbed in various car parks at the racecourse.
• A berm with intermittent wooden barrier is proposed along the realigned road, which would prevent noise pollution.
A second planning report recommended that new public notices be required. The following reports resulted:
• Development Applications Unit of DoEHLG: Archaeological monitoring to be carried out according to 3 criteria.
• Kildare County Fire Service: further information recommended.
The third planning report states at the outset: “The Council has decided to grant permission for this development. The following conditions should be attached”. 49 conditions are recommended.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 40 PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION
A decision to grant planning permission was issued with 47 conditions. Of note are the following conditions. Condition No. 5 requires the relocation of the Queen’s Room to be carried out in accordance with the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government Guidelines. Condition No. 7 requires archaeological monitoring and condition No. 47 requires the payment of €2,296,950 in development contributions.
PLANNING HISTORY
The subject development forms part of a larger redevelopment of the Curragh, of which the following applications are of note:
06/4361 Planning permission granted for redevelopment of Waterford Lodge stables to provide retail space for the equine industry.
PL09.219093 (KCC Reg. Ref. 06/537) – Planning permission granted for the construction of a new two-storey office building on the site of the existing Turf Club offices.
PL09.213791 (KCC Reg. Ref. 04/3072) – Planning permission granted for the demolition of the western half of the West Stand (approx. 3092 square metres), and construction of a 72 bedroom hotel and ancillary facilities (approx 8,780 square metres) with 216 surface car parking spaces to serve the overall development, as well as new vehicular accesses from the realigned R413 Curragh Road.
PL09.213787 (KCC Reg. Ref. 04/3137) – Planning permission granted for the realignment of the regional road R413 to link to a new roundabout and to include new accesses from the facilities and ancillary elements in the Curragh Racecourse. EIS submitted.
ED174 Declaration that the use of agricultural land at the Curragh Racecourse to provide car parking for major events, following construction of permission under 04/3137 is development, which is not exempted development. This declaration was referred to the Board for review, under RL2366, but this referral was subsequently withdrawn.
PL09.221070 (KCC Reg. Ref. 06/2068) is a current application by The Trustees of the Turf Club for a development of 3 parcels of land in an area of approx 1.38ha within the overall Curragh Racecourse site which includes the demolition and replacement and upgrading of facilities.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 40 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Development Plan for the area is the Kildare County Development Plan 2005 – 2011. There are a number of chapters, policies and objectives, which are relevant to the subject proposal.
Chapter 10 relates to ‘Agriculture & the Bloodstock Industry’. It lists The Curragh as one of the three premier grade one racetracks in the county and notes that these racetracks are nationally important centres for horse racing and provide valuable employment, tourism revenue and promotional outlets for the county as a whole. There are 7 policies listed in Section 10.2.2 relating to the equine industry. Policy Bl 5 is to protect the Curragh, Punchestown and Naas racecourses from any development, which would interfere with their amenity qualities, while at the same time, promote the enhancement of facilities for racegoers.
Chapter 13 of the development plan relates to ‘Tourism and Recreation’ and 18 policies are listed in Section 13.4.1. Policies relating to ‘Countryside Recreation, the Bloodstock, Racing and Equine Industries’ are outlined in Section 13.4.4.
Chapter 3 of the plan relates to ‘Physical Infrastructure Strategy’. Section 3.1.4.4 outlines policy relating to regional roads. Section 3.1.4.6 outlines policies relating to a ‘Roads Programme’. Policy RP 14: To improve and re-align where necessary the following regional roads, refers to Table 3.2, which includes R413 Kildare to Kilcullen and R413 Kildare to Newbridge.
Chapter 17 addresses matters relating to ‘Heritage’. Table 17.1 lists Natural Heritage Areas, which include the Curragh (Ref: Site Code 00392). Table 17.2 lists Special Areas of Conservation, which include Pollardstown Fen, which is located approximately 2 kilometres north of the proposed development. Table 17.4 lists Sites of Geological Importance, which include Curragh Pumping Station, Geological Interest: Hydrogeology.
Chapter 18 addresses ‘Landscape Character Areas’. There are three Special Landscape Areas listed, including The Curragh, ref: Section 18.7. There are four specific policies listed relating to the Curragh. These include: CE1 To restrict development, particularly on the Curragh edge, or where it obtrudes on the skyline as viewed from the Curragh Plains and CE2 to ensure that fencing, earth works or planting should not conflict with the intrinsic quality of the landscape.
Chapter 19 relates to ‘Protected Views & Scenic Routes’. Table 19.6 lists Scenic Routes which include Route No. 3: Views of the Curragh Plains from M7 Interchange to St. Ledgers Bottoms and Route No. 4: Views of Curragh Plains including Little Curragh; County Road from Kildare Town Boundary to Military Ranges, R413 from Kildare Town Boundary to Motorway Interchange.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
There is one first party appeal and one third party appeal.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 40 First Party Appeal
The first party has appealed Condition No. 47. The grounds of the appeal are as follows:
• The level of contribution as per Condition No. 47 is unreasonably applied and constitutes a misapplication of the Kildare County Council Development Contribution Scheme 2004.
• The overall floor area of the new Grandstand, as per the public notices, is 25,780 square metres. Kildare County Council has based their contribution calculation on a floor area of 29,780 square metres. Kildare County Council has acknowledged that this miscalculation has taken place (reduction of €300,000).
• A second miscalculation has taken place. Part of the proposed development is to relocate the existing Queen’s Room (25 square metres). Therefore this is included in the overall floor area. Kildare County Council have listed the Queen’s room relocation separately and a separate contribution fee of €1875.00 has been applied. This is a duplicate calculation.
• The development contributions levied should be reduced by €301,875.00 (4,025 square metres x. €75).
The Third Party Appeal - Percy Podger & Associates on behalf of Friends of the Curragh Environment.
• A complaint has been made to the European Commission regarding the breach of EC Directives on EIA. An Bord Pleanala must make no decision until this complaint has been resolved.
• The planning application is fundamentally flawed, as the site notice was not on a yellow background. The application is invalid as it did not include sewage or waste water treatment facilities. Therefore the decision by Kildare County Council to grant planning permission cannot be upheld.
• Seven applications have been made in respect of the racecourse. As they are all linked, one EIA should be carried out. The submitted EIS is substandard.
• The proposed development is an extension to an unauthorised use. The area identified as a car park, which is a National Monument, and has been used as a car park on Derby Day, is not a car park. It is open grazing land. This extension of an unauthorised use would cause pollution of the aquifer.
• The traffic report submitted with the additional information is based on 30,000 people but it speculates up to 50,000 people may attend. The assessment is therefore inaccurate.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 40 • Given that the applicants do not have planning permission to use the lands identified for car parking, there is a deficiency in car parking provision.
• On October 29th, 2006 a new road was laid across the Ballymany area for which no planning permission has been sought. This is unauthorised development.
• There is no evidence that the Turf Club have a lease to the subject lands. If such a lease exists it should be made available to the public.
• Given that drawings referred to by the Council’s Engineering department are dated 30.06.06, how was the report written by the Engineers on 19.06.06?
• The Planning Report incorrectly states that the site is not part of the surviving open grassland. The reports incorrectly state that there has been no implementation of the Sruna – Interdepartmental Task Force Report. The synopsis of the objections received is not a meaningful assessment.
• The proposal is in conflict with policies AG5 and AG9 and therefore materially contravenes the development plan.
• The proposal to relocate the Queen’s Room is a bad precedent and contrary to the concept of protecting Heritage Buildings. The issue of the architectural heritage of the façade of the Stand House Hotel has not been addressed.
• No alternative design was considered in the EIS. The design of the stand is detrimental to the visual amenity and sensitive landscape of the Curragh.
• The requirements of the Chief Fire Officer were not assessed. The submitted Fire Safety Strategy Report is flawed on the grounds that it estimated number of people is too low.
• The EIS is substandard on the following grounds:
o No public participation was undertaken
o No mention of impacts on human beings other than racegoers, of impact on grazing rights, of impact on protected species,
o No assessment of cost of development to the State, of the socio-economic impact of using public lands for private purposes, of pollution from bringing 50,000 people to a rural area, of traffic generation on local road network, of noise, of strain on natural resources, of fire safety,
• As the proposal involves the demolition of the existing water tower, why has permission not been applied for a replacement?
• The Environmental Health report states the proposal is not safe for food preparation and yet this has not been addressed.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 40 RESPONSES
The response of Kildare County Council to the third party appeal by Percy Podger can be summarised as follows:
• Each proposal for development at the subject site has been publicly notified. A white site notice was used, as the subject proposal is not a repeat application.
• It is for the applicants to decide how many applications they wish to make. As a number of the applications were accompanied by an EIS, project splitting has not occurred. The grounds of appeal have no planning purpose.
• The areas of parking referred to by the appellant are not within the subject application site. There is nothing to suggest such parking is unauthorised.
• The proposed development relates to an established use.
• It is not necessary for the applicants to own the land in question, provided the agreement of the owner is present. These matters are irrelevant to the planning process.
• As regards the conflict of dates on the engineering reports, this is simply an error.
• The proposed capacity of the racecourse was satisfactorily dealt with at additional information stage.
• As the proposal relates to the redevelopment of an existing structure the proposal does not materially contravene the development plan.
• The Queen’s Room in not a protected structure and the Council was satisfied with proposals for its relocation.
• The statement made by the appellant regarding alternative layouts is taken out of context. The proposal is for an established use and therefore the consideration of alternative sites is not necessary.
• The benefits of the redesign outweigh any additional visual impact arising from the proposed higher Grandstand.
• The Council, as is their right, decided to grant permission subject to conditions, rather than seek clarification of additional information recommended by the planning officer.
• The EIS is adequate and fulfils all requirements of the Regulations.
• With regards to the appellant’s contention that the impacts of a water tower have not been assessed, this is correct, as no water tower is proposed.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 40 • The applicants must satisfy the requirements of the Fire Regulations.
• The proposal is for the redevelopment of an existing amenity that is of great importance. Each section of the proposal was subject to assessment by various sections of the Council.
The response of Kildare County Council to the first party appeal is as follows:
• Regrettably the development contribution calculation was erroneously based on an incorrect floor area. The correct levy to be imposed is €1,995,075.
The response of the first party to the above is as follows:
• The applicant is satisfied that the Planning Authority have accepted the error and there is full agreement between the Applicant and the Planning Authority now as regards the level of development contributions due.
The response of the first party to the third party appeal can be summarised as follows:
• The application was validated by KCC.
• Chapter 8 of the EIS sets out full details of proposed sewage and wastewater treatment facilities.
• No project splitting has occurred.
• The applicants have examined and had regard to the Report of the Inter- Departmental Task Force on the future development and management of the Curragh. However, no change is proposed to the racecourse itself. The subject site is outside the catchment area of the report and represents an improvement to an established use.
• The Queen’s Room is not a protected structure. A suitably qualified Conservation specialist would oversee the relocation and redevelopment. The proposed location of the Queen’s Room in the new racing museum would provide a more suitable setting.
• The Stand House Hotel is not a protected structure. The hotel has limited architectural merit and salvaged historic fabric would be re-used.
• The proposed Grandstand is an enhancement of the existing one. A full visual assessment was carried out.
• The conditions recommended by the Fire Officer form part of the planning permission.
The response of the third party appellant to the First Party appeal can be summarised as follows:
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 40 • There has been an omission of €144 million development contributions. As the applicant has no right to use the proposed area for car parking, it is unauthorised development. Therefore there is a shortfall of 6000 spaces. According to the Development Contributions Scheme, this results in a levy of €144 million.
The response of An Taisce to the third party appeal can be summarised as follows:
• We concur with the major part of the concerns raised in the Friends of the Curragh Environment Appeal.
• We note with particular concern the treatment of the Queen’s Room, which is the only architecturally significant area of the existing complex.
ASSESSMENT
I have read through the file documentation, which included an Environmental Impact Statement, and the relevant provisions of the ‘Kildare County Development Plan 2005-2011’, the relevant provisions of the ‘The Curragh Sustainable Use Strategy’ (Kildare County Council, Dublin Regional Authority, SRUNA), and have carried out a site inspection. It is considered that the principal factors in this appeal primarily relate to:
• Development Contributions
• Validity of the planning authority decision
• Project Splitting
• Validity of the EIA and EIS
• Adequacy of the EIS
• Condition no. 4 of the Road Realignment planning permission (PL09.213787)
• Car Parking
• Traffic
• Sustainable Transport
• The Queen’s Room
• Helicopter Landing Areas and
• The Inter Departmental Report on Management of the Curragh
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 40 Development Contributions
Condition No. 47 requires the payment of €2,296.950 in development contributions. According to a letter from the Council dated 09/10/06 to the applicant, details of the development contributions were calculated as follows:
Floor area: Grandstand 29,780 square metres. Standhouse 821 square metres. Queen’s Room 25 square metres. Total 30,626 square metres X €75 commercial rate = €2,296,950.00
In a fax to the Applicant dated 23/10/06 Kildare County Council have acknowledged that an error was made in calculating the development contribution levy applicable. A floor area of 29,780 square metres was used, instead of 25,780 square metres. The Council state that the correct figure of €1,996,950 will be imposed when the final grant issues.
The misapplication of the development contribution scheme by Kildare County Council has been acknowledged in relation to the floor area and is not contested by the Council. As per the public notices, the floor area of the scheme and therefore the area to be used in calculation is 25,780 square metres. According to the 2004 Kildare County Council Development Contributions Scheme, Point 1, a rate of €75 per square metres is applied to commercial development. Therefore the development contribution payable by the Applicant for the proposed grandstand is (25,780 square metres x. €75 =) €1,933,500.
The first party states that the third element of the development contribution calculation by the Council, i.e. the proposed relocation of the Queen’s room (25 square metres) is included in the overall floor area figure of 25, 780 square metres and therefore should not be levied separately. It is noted that the description of the development in the public notices states
“the dismantling and relocation of the Queen’s Room (25 square metres) within the new Grandstand” and further:
“the new grandstand primarily comprises; at ground floor level; a museum (219 square metres) incorporating relocated Queen’s Room (25 square metres),”
It is accepted that the 25 square metres floor area of the Queen’s Room forms part of the overall floor area of 25,780 square metres and therefore should not have been levied separately. It is considered this is not a proper application of the provisions of the Development Contributions Scheme.
The development contribution levied for the proposed Stand House Hotel of (821 square metres x. €75) €61,575 is not contested by the first party.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 40 In conclusion, it is considered that the contribution applicable to the proposed development is as follows:
Floor area: Grandstand 25,780 square metres. Standhouse 821 square metres. Total 26,601 square metres x. €75 = €1,995,075.00
It is noted that this figure has been acknowledged by the first and second party as being correct. Should permission be granted, a revised condition may be attached.
Validity of the Planning Authority Decision
The third party appellant has raised concerns about the validity of the planning authority decision. The appellant has raised a number of issues in that regard and requests the Board to declare the application invalid. I am satisfied that the issues raised are procedural matters for the planning authority to address. I consider the issue of the lease of lands included within this application to be a civil matter. I note section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which states: A person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any development.
Project Splitting
At this stage it is important to distinguish ‘project splitting’ from the secondary issue of the ability of the EIS to fully address the cumulative impact of the subject proposal in relation to the previously permitted two developments.
In relation to project splitting, the third party appellant states that, as the subject proposal forms part of a greater masterplan, the applicant seeking permission for some sections of the masterplan is ‘project splitting’. ‘Project splitting’ is a term generally used to describe a situation where a developer splits a project into smaller sections so that each section falls below the threshold necessary for an EIS to be carried out.
In the subject instance, I do not accept that project splitting has occurred. The applicant has submitted a sub-threshold EIS for the previous applications (hotel and road re-alignment) and the subject proposal. It is clear therefore that the applicant was not intending to obviate the need to carry out an EIA.
Validity of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Statement
The subject proposal is below the threshold required to submit a mandatory EIS. The first party has stated that, due to the sensitive nature of the subject site, a sub- threshold EIS was submitted. I do not accept that the appellant’s demand that An Bord Pleanala must not make a decision on the subject proposal until a complaint lodged with the European Commission is determined is legally correct.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 40 Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement
As noted above, the first party states that the subject proposal forms the second phase of the overall development of the Curragh Racecourse. The first phase is that recently granted planning permission by An Bord Pleanala, namely the realignment of the R413 (PL09.213787) and a 72-bedroom hotel (PL09.213791). Disregarding the issue of project splitting, both the third party appeal and the observation state that an EIA must assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed development plus the previously permitted two developments (hotel and realigned road).
It is noted that the EIS submitted with the previous applications assess only the impacts of the projects under consideration at that time. This information is gleaned from the planning report, as the EIS is not on the history files. This is to be expected as they represent the first of the stages of the masterplan. In this, the subject application, the first party states that the cumulative impacts of all three proposals (hotel, road and Grandstand) were assessed during EIA. Therefore the first party refutes the contention of the appellant, regarding project splitting and lack of cumulative assessment.
The EIS submitted with the subject application has 16 chapters as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Non-Technical Summary
3. Characteristics of the Proposal
4. Planning and Development Context
5. Human Beings
6. Flora and Fauna
7. Soil and Hydrogeology
8. Water Supply
9. Noise
10. Climate
11. Landscape and Visual Impact
12. Material Assets
13. Cultural Heritage
14. Direct and Indirect Effects
15. Interactions
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 40 16. Difficulties Encountered in Preparing this EIS
In my assessment of the EIS, I had regard to the Third Schedule of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1989, as amended, to Schedule 7 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 and to the guidance contained in the document entitled Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance for Consent Authorities Regarding Sub-Threshold Development, issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in August 2003. The schedules referred to set out the criteria for determining whether a development would or would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment. The criteria are in three parts based on (1) the characteristics of the proposed development, (2) the location of the proposed development and (3) the characteristics of potential impacts.
The Guidelines state that certain sub-threshold projects when viewed in conjunction with other projects may cumulatively ‘have significant effects on the environment.’ Section 5.8 states: “One of the aims of the sub-threshold provisions contained in Irish EIA legislation is to address the issue of accumulation with other projects. This issue can arise in a number of scenarios. The combination of individual projects may, over a period of years, have significant effects on the environment.”
Having read the EIS, I am not satisfied that the cumulative impacts of all three elements were assessed. I address the deficiencies I perceived in each chapter, individually, as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Section 1.4: Nature and extent of Proposed Development. This states that the “current development for which this EIS has been prepared includes the provision of the following elements at the Curragh Racecourse”. Thereafter follows a summary of the subject development in bullet points. Further descriptions of the previously permitted elements of the masterplan follow, but it is not clear that these form part of the “nature and extent of the proposed development” upon which the EIS is based.
Chapter 2: Non-Technical Summary
Section 2.3 states that “the elements which constitute the full nature and extent of the proposed development are as follows:” As above, thereafter follows a summary of the subject proposal only, in bullet points. From section 2.4 to section 2.6, the site location description represents the full masterplan area and not just the application site. Section 2.7 to 2.25 describes the current land uses, again being the full masterplan area. Section 2.26 to section 2.49 identifies the ‘study area’ within which data was gathered to carry out the EIA. This study area is considerably larger than either the application site or the masterplan area. It appears that there is a fundamental difference between what is being described as the application site, the masterplan area and the study area. While it is accepted that there will always be some variation in such areas, due to the availability of data, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient consistency to allow for a full and complete environmental assessment. In addition, as noted above, there is the fundamental flaw in that proposed development described is not the full development proposed cumulatively.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 40 Therefore any assessment, regardless of the accuracy or not of the receiving environment baseline, is deficient from the start.
Chapter 3: Characteristics of the Proposal
Section 3.2 states that “the elements which constitute the full nature and extent of the proposed development are as follows.” As in the previous chapters, the bulleted point summary following is a description of the subject proposal only. No mention is made of the developments previously granted planning permission. Section 3.47 sets out the overall masterplan for the Curragh Racecourse, stating the redevelopment of the Curragh Racecourse is based on:
• 72 bedroom hotel,
• the proposed Grandstand,
• the realignment of the R413,
• the relocation of the existing TRM building,
• consolidation of racecourse activities,
• increasing the level of accommodation, conference and leisure facilities, and
• creation of the capacity to develop and further consolidate activities in the future
Drawing no. 9412/TP/107 shows all of the above elements. Section 3.5 states that “future development of the Curragh Racecourse would include the expansion of the Parade Ring, a canter down area, a new weighroom, champagne bar, new Turf Club offices and a children’s play area”. It is noted that these elements form the proposal currently under appeal (PL09.221070). It appears, therefore, that these elements do not form part of the ‘masterplan’.
Chapter 4: Planning and Development Context
Section 4.5 states that the overall masterplan for the redevelopment of the racecourse would accommodate 50,000 spectators on particularly busy days. This figure correlates with the TIA submitted as additional information. It is noted, however, that the response from the first party to the third party appeal states that the EIS was based on a capacity of 30,000 and that the increased capacity of the racecourse to 50,000 people would be incremental and was not the basis on which the application was lodged, or on which the EIS was undertaken. I find this fundamental discrepancy a concern. O’Connor Sutton Cronin, Consulting Engineers, who state, at the outset of the chapter, that the capacity of the new grandstand and public areas would be 50,000, has carried out chapter 12 of the EIS. It must be assumed that this is the basis upon which the EIS was carried out. If this is cross-referenced to the TIA prepared by O’Connor Sutton Cronin, page 1 states that the new grandstand would have a capacity of 50,000. This is followed by a description of the development, which represents the subject proposal only. This is clearly a deviation from the EIS,
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 40 which states that the 50,000 capacity is the entire masterplan development – notwithstanding that the description of what constitutes the proposed development does not match the masterplan proposal.
It can be taken that the proposed grandstand, being the central part of any racecourse would account for the largest proportion of capacity. Nonetheless, I am concerned at the lack of consistency throughout the EIS and other documentation submitted with the application.
Further in Chapter 4, under the section titled ‘Alternatives Considered’ only alternatives to the subject proposal were considered. No information on alternatives for the previously permitted elements such as the road or the hotel is discussed. I accept that this may have been dealt with in the previous EIS (please note, as stated above, the previous EIS was not on the deposit file and therefore could not be examined in detail), however, if as the first party purports, the EIS assesses the cumulative impacts of all previously permitted developments, it is not unreasonable to expect the alternatives for the entire proposal to be discussed.
Chapter 5: Human Beings,
Chapter 6: Flora and Fauna
These chapters, as is the nature of data available on the subject matter section, clearly assesses the impacts outside the subject application site. However, as with all preceding chapters the characteristics of the proposal, which form the basis of the assessment, are the subject proposal components only, not including previously permitted developments. It can only be assumed that the impacts from the subject proposal and not cumulative impacts are assessed.
Chapter 7: Soil and Hydrogeology
Chapter 8: Water Supply, Groundwater & Surface Water drainage
As with the above-mentioned chapters, the nature of the data available on these subject matters is geographically based and therefore greater than any given site or masterplan area. As above, the fundamental difficulty is that it appears that only the impacts of the proposed development in isolation has been assessed against soil, water supply etc. Given the sensitive nature of the site and the fact that the EIS acknowledges that problems occur with flooding, foul and surface water disposal, I consider the fact that the cumulative impacts of all development on the site have not been assessed seriously deficient. In this instance, it is extremely difficult to truly assess the full impact of development at the Curragh Racecourse on the highly sensitive soil and water environment of the Curragh.
Chapter 9: Noise
Chapter 10: Air Quality and Climate
As with previous chapters, the difficulty lies in the outset of the assessment in that the proposed development, the impacts of which are to be assessed, is incomplete. The
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 40 cumulative impact of all proposed development has not been assessed. With criteria such as noise and air quality, it is considered that the cumulative impacts of more than one stage of construction, demolition etc, are likely to be greater than the individual impacts. In addition, given the nature of industry carried out by neighbouring properties, such impacts, as noted in the appeals, could have a significant effect. Therefore, it is considered critical that the proposed development as described and of which impacts are assessed, represents all development to occur within the racecourse to date. Not assessing the cumulative impact is in effect not assessing the ‘worst case scenario’. Therefore any mitigation or remedial measures may prove ineffective.
Chapter 11: Landscape and Visual
Given that the subject proposal represents the largest physical element of the overall masterplan development, the assessment carried out in the subject EIS is likely to be sufficient.
Chapter 12 Material Assets
Section 12.2 lists the elements which form part of the subject development and the impacts of which upon the environment are assessed. The first deficiency with this assessment is, as noted above in chapter 4, that there is inconsistency in the proposed capacity of the racecourse. The second deficiency is, as with all previous chapters, the proposed development does not incorporate previously permitted development. This is despite Figure 12.3 on page 144 showing the permitted route of the R413. In this instance the deficiency is all the more significant however, as the realignment of the R413 has a significant impact on car parking. The new route of the R413 is to the north of the existing Stand House Hotel. This area has been used for car parking but was the subject of a Section 5 declaration in which the planning authority held that the use constituted development. The realignment of the road results in a reduction in car parking spaces available, however as the EIS does not address this issue, it is difficult to assess the true impact of development on traffic and car parking. In addition, the issue of helicopter landing spaces has not been addressed. While, I accept that there are no proposals for helicopter landing pads in the subject application, as the most recent location for helicopter landings is now part of the new R413, I find it of concern that this issue has not been addressed in the EIS. The failure to address all proposed development and the undoubted cumulative impacts, which are greater than the sum of individual projects, has left a number of significant issues unresolved.
Chapter 13: Cultural Heritage
As with all previous chapters of the EIS, the proposed development does not include any previously permitted development and therefore the impacts described, the mitigation or remedial measures and monitoring proposed are not complete.
Chapter 14: Direct and Indirect Effects
Chapter 15: Interactions
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 40 Chapter 16: Difficulties Encountered with Preparing the Environmental Impact Statement
Given the deficiencies outlined above in relation to all environmental indicators assessed, these chapters are not considered to represent an accurate environmental assessment.
It is acknowledged that that the first party in this instance has submitted a sub- threshold EIS, however I consider, as stated above, that the issue of the accumulation with other projects has not been addressed. Section 5.10 of the Guidelines on sub- threshold EIS states: “In determining whether “significant effects” arise, the issue of accumulation must be considered alongside all of the other criteria listed in the Appendix”.
It is clear to me that the EIS submitted with this application is an assessment of the subject proposal in isolation. The larger issue of the impact of the overall development and the potential effects that may have on the environment has not been addressed. Not assessing the cumulative impact is in effect not assessing the ‘worst case scenario’. Therefore any mitigation or remedial measures may prove ineffective.
A judicial review was sought by the subject third party appellant, in relation to the legitimacy of the previous two applications, on the issue of project splitting and adequacy of the EIS. I note that in the Judgment of the High Court in this case (‘Friends of the Irish Environment v An Bord Pleanala’) Mr Justice Kelly states:
“If, in the future, the Turf Club proceeds to the next stage of its masterplan it will be obliged to obtain planning permission for that development. The Board will be obliged to carry out an EIA for that development and in doing so will have regard to all of the circumstances that obtain in relation to that project including the development for which planning permission has already been granted. No part of the total development will therefore avoid being subject to appropriate scrutiny.”
It is clear to me, therefore, that it was intended that the permitted developments were to be taken as part of the baseline on which the new development was to be assessed. In other words, given that permission has been granted, these developments (hotel and road realignment) would form part of the receiving environment within which the subject proposal would be located or would form part of the characteristics of the proposed development. In this manner, the cumulative impacts of all three developments would be assessed.
Notwithstanding the fact that a sub-threshold EIS was submitted with the subject application, I am satisfied, therefore, that the subject EIS is inadequate and that the information required under schedule 6 of the 2001 Regulations is not contained within the EIS. In particular I believe the submitted EIS does not comply with section 1(c) of Schedule 6, which requires:
“the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed development is likely to have on the environment.”
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 40 I believe such data is deficient in that the ‘proposed development’ does not include proposals already granted planning permission and therefore is an incomplete representation of development proposed for the Curragh Racecourse.
It is clear to me from the above that the ‘proposed development’ is incorrect in that it is not a description of all development to be carried out on the Curragh, as required by Government Guidelines. Therefore any assessment that follows thereafter is not a true representation of the environmental impacts of development at the Curragh on the receiving environment. It is my opinion therefore that the EIS is fundamentally flawed.
In such instances, the Board may wish to take one of two options. Should the Board feel that a new EIA would be outside the remit of this appeal, permission may be refused in the grounds that “The proposed development does not comply with Section 1 of Annex III of the EU Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by Directive 97/11/EC) as regards sub-threshold EIS, in that the characteristics of the proposed development do not have regard to the cumulative impact of previously permitted development within the Curragh Racecourse. It is considered therefore that the proposed development is premature pending a full assessment of the environmental impact of development on the Curragh. It is, therefore, considered that the proposed development is not in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ”
Alternatively, given the fundamental deficiency of the EIS, a revised EIA could be carried out which assesses the impacts of all cumulative development thus far permitted and proposed on the Curragh Racecourse. In this course of action, the following is of note:
Article 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 states: “Where the Board decides that an EIS does not comply with article 94, or any relevant written opinion under article 95(4), as appropriate, it shall issue a notice under section 132 of the Act requiring the applicant to submit such further information as may be necessary to comply with the relevant article.”
Section 132 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides that the Board may, at its discretion, serve a notice requiring a person within a specified time to submit to the Board such document, particulars or other information as is specified in the notice.
Should the Board wish, a section 132 notice may be served on the applicant requesting that an EIA be carried out which has regard to all previous developments granted permission within the overall Curragh Racecourse masterplan area.
It is my recommendation that this course of action be taken, given that the applicant in the subject and all previous applications is the same and therefore the required information necessary to carry out an EIA would be readily available. Should the Board agree, the applicant or his/her agent could be notified that the EIS is considered deficient. In order to facilitate a full and complete assessment of the subject appeal, a new EIA should be carried out which addresses the following:
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 40 • The characteristics of the proposed development, the impacts of which on the environment are to be assessed, a description of the physical characteristics of the whole proposed development and the land use requirements during the construction and operational phases, a description of the main characteristics of the production processes and estimates of expected residues and emissions resulting from the operational phase, which must be based on the entire development and must include:
o The subject’s proposal for the re-development of the Grandstand, the re- development of the Stand House Hotel and the re-development of the existing Turf Club offices, including all other proposals of planning application Reg. Ref. 06/400.
o The previously permitted realignment of the R413, including all other proposals of planning application Reg. Ref. 04/3137.
o The previously permitted demolition of the western half of the grandstand and the construction of a 72-bedroom hotel and all other proposals within planning application Reg. Ref. 04/3072.
o The previously permitted re-development of the fire damaged Turf Club and all other proposals within planning application Reg. Ref. 06/57.
o And any other ancillary development permitted or proposed within the Curragh Racecourse masterplan.
o The proposed development described above must be consistent in terms of study area, application site area and masterplan area, the proposed capacity of the overall development, and
• The description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects, must address the cumulative environmental impact of all of the above mentioned proposed development on the receiving environment of the Curragh Racecourse,
• The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed development is likely to have on the environment must have regard to the cumulative development proposals outlined above,
• The outline of the main alternatives studied, and an indication of the main reasons for the chosen options, taking into account the effects on the environment, must include the alternatives considered for each of the development elements outlined above.
Car Parking
The realignment of the R413 through the northern part of the subject site removes some areas of land, which had previously been used for car parking. In the TIA, submitted with the additional information, the applicant states that the shortfall would be absorbed by ‘various car parks in the Racecourse’. I find this response unduly
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 40 vague. When coupled with the increase in traffic, which would be generated by the proposal, it is considered the possibility for parking on unauthorised land is high. As has been noted by the third party appellant, not only is this injurious to the landscape of the Curragh, but it creates considerable nuisance to the surrounding landowners.
This issue refers back to the fact that the subject proposal has been addressed in isolation from the previously permitted developments. Should the Bord decide to recommend an extended EIS as recommended above, this issue should be resolved.
Traffic
The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment as part of the additional information response. In the first page of the TIA, the capacity of the proposed grandstand is stated to be 50,000. In response to the issue the first party submitted a letter from the Turf Club, which states that the increased capacity of the racecourse to 50,000 people would be incremental and was not the basis on which the application was lodged, or on which the EIS was undertaken. Any increase from the current Derby Day crowd, which occurs once a year, would result in the implementation of the Traffic Management Plan, submitted with the additional information response.
I find this discrepancy unacceptable. It appears that there is a fundamental disagreement about the proposed capacity of the grandstand. As noted in the assessment of the EIS above, it is difficult to assess the true impact of transportation on the Curragh and surrounding environment. I find the first party’s explanation of the discrepancy to be implausible. I consider it more likely, having read the TIA, that the capacity of 50,000 is the capacity of the entire masterplan re-development of the Curragh.
As noted above, there are impacts of this proposal, which cannot be assessed accurately given the information submitted with this appeal. The recommendation made above, that an extended EIS should be requested is compounded by this additional shortfall in information.
Sustainable Transport
The issue of the promotion of sustainable transport is raised by the third party appellant and by the observer, An Taisce. The EIS states that the subject site is located adjacent to the Dublin-Limerick Railway line and this allows significant use to be made of public transport. I note this matter was identified in the previous planning report, relating to the realignment of the R413, within which the inspector stated:
“The complex is within walking distance to platforms along the railway line to the north-west (see view nos. 3 & 4 in the attached appendix. This rail line has recently been upgraded and provides commuter services to/from Dublin as well as providing inter-regional connections to Limerick and Cork. The applicants control land right up to the existing platforms. There would appear to be great potential to utilise this sustainable mode of transport, recently upgraded, to access the racecourse during race meetings. Section 12.57 of the EIS makes reference to the stations at Kildare town and Newbridge being used on race days, it does not assess options to use the
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 40 halt at the Curragh. I am of the opinion that the road upgrade subject of this application would be required irrespective of the rail halt being re-utilised. However, I would also be of the opinion that if a future application is made for a new stand, that this issued should be fully assessed and addressed.”
I find no proposal to increase the modal split of traffic travelling to the site. Given the significant increase in capacity proposed, the introduction of new hospitality facilities and the consequent impact upon traffic generation I find this most regrettable. The applicant should take the opportunity to address this deficiency at a future date.
Queen’s Room
The third party appellant states the proposal to remove and relocate the Queen’s Room is contrary to the Architectural Protection Guidelines. It is noted that the Queen’s Room is not a protected structure. As can be seen from the attached photographs, the interior of the Queen’s Room has been maintained. The exterior, however, is lost within the overall Grandstand and the architectural merit of the building is difficult to appreciate. I consider the proposal to remove and relocate the Queen’s Room, whilst regrettable in principle, is nonetheless an improvement on the existing situation.
Inter Departmental Report on Management of the Curragh
I accept the First and Second Party’s submissions that the findings of the report were taken into consideration when assessing the application.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
I have read the submissions on file, visited the site, had due regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other matters arising.
First Party Appeal
I am satisfied the issue of the mis-application of the Development Contribution Scheme has been resolved.
Third Party Appeal
In relation to the issues raised in the third party appeal and the Government Guidelines outlined above, it is difficult in this instance to adequately and fully assess the impact of the subject proposal, given the shortcomings of the EIA carried out and consequent EIS submitted. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to assess the compliance or not of the subject proposal with the County Development Plan and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
I consider the submitted EIS to be deficient in that it does not comply with item 1(c) of Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, which requires the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed development is likely to have on the environment to be contained within the EIS. In my opinion,
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 40 this ‘data’ must include all previously permitted developments within the area defined as the Curragh Racecourse Masterplan. This would allow the cumulative impacts of all proposals to be assessed.
I recommend the Board serve a Section 132 notice requiring the applicant to submit the following information:
The applicant or his/her agent should be notified that the EIS is considered deficient. In order to facilitate a full and complete assessment of the subject appeal a new EIA should be carried out, which addresses the following:
• The characteristics of the proposed development, the impacts of which on the environment are to be assessed, a description of the physical characteristics of the whole proposed development and the land use requirements during the construction and operational phases, a description of the main characteristics of the production processes and estimates of expected residues and emissions resulting from the operational phase, which must be based on the entire development and must include:
o The subject’s proposal for the re-development of the grandstand, the re-development of the Stand House Hotel and the re-development of the existing Turf Club offices, including all other proposals of planning application Reg. Ref. 06/400.
o The previously permitted realignment of the R413, including all other proposals of planning application Reg. Ref. 04/3137.
o The previously permitted demolition of the western half of the grandstand and the construction of a 72-bedroom hotel and all other proposals within planning application Reg. Ref. 04/3072.
o The previously permitted construction of a two-storey building on the site of the fire damaged Turf Club and all other proposals within planning application Reg. Ref. 06/57.
o The redevelopment of Waterford Lodge stables to provide retail space for the equine industry as permitted under planning application Reg. Ref. 06/4361.
o Any other ancillary development permitted or proposed within the Curragh Racecourse masterplan.
o The proposed development described above must be consistent in terms of study area, application site area and masterplan area, the proposed capacity of the overall development, and
• The description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy significant adverse effects must address the cumulative environmental impact of all of the above mentioned proposed development on the receiving environment of the Curragh Racecourse,
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 40 • The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed development is likely to have on the environment must have regard to the cumulative development proposals outlined above,
• The outline of the main alternatives studied, and an indication of the main reasons for the chosen options taking into account the effects on the environment must include the alternatives considered for each of the development elements outlined above.
This is to facilitate the cumulative impacts of all development permitted and proposed within the Racecourse to be adequately assessed. The EIS shall be submitted to An Bord Pleanala within 10 weeks from the date of the section 132 notice.
THE BOARD'S REQUEST UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000
The Board accepted the recommendation of the inspector and requested the information set out in her report.
RESPONSE OF THE APPLICANTS
The applicants have responded by submitting a revised Environmental Impact Statement for the cumulative development.
THE REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The revised Environmental Impact Statement takes into account the cumulative impact of the proposed development, together with those arising from the permitted developments to date. It adopts the same format as the original Environmental Impact Statement. It has 16 chapter headings, as follows: -
1. Introduction. 2. Non-Technical Summary. 3. Characteristics of the Proposal. 4. Planning and Development Context. 5. Human Beings. 6. Flora and Fauna. 7. Soil and Hydrogeology. 8. Water. 9. Noise. 10. Climate. 11. Landscape and Visual Impact. 12. Material Assets. 13. Cultural Heritage. 14. Direct and Indirect Effects. 15. Interactions and
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 40 16. Difficulties Encountered in Preparing this EIS.
Section 4 of the cumulative Environmental Impact Statement on the Planning and Development Context, includes sub-sections on alternatives considered. The relocation of the entire racecourse complex was considered. However, the Curragh is at the heart of the Irish Bloodstock Industry. It has developed into a world-renowned training centre and a major source of employment. Synergies have developed with the trainers and stud farms in the vicinity. Relocation to a greenfield site outside the area would undermine such synergies and would also increase the impact on the receiving environment compared to the present redevelopment on what is, effectively, a brownfield site.
In terms of alternative uses, it is noted that the final design of the new grandstand, the reconfiguration of the Stand House Hotel, the works to the Turf Club rooms and the other elements of the cumulative development have been derived as a consequence of the architectural brief, the specific needs of the applicants/users of the racecourse facilities, the existing racecourse layout and the proposed Masterplan for the racecourse.
Alternatives to the various elements of the cumulative development proposals are then discussed. Relocating the grandstand to a greenfield location to the south was rejected, as it would have had an undesirable negative visual impact and far greater impacts on the baseline receiving environment, such as new services and roads. A stand-alone grandstand was considered, but it was felt important to link it through to the hotel permitted under PL09.213791. A general continuation of the line of the hotel was the favoured solution. For the spectator, the most important area of the grandstand is that adjacent to the finishing line. A scheme including a seven-storey tower adjacent to the finishing line was considered, but was rejected due to its vertical emphasis and its impact on views across the Curragh. Eventually, the basic preferred form of a linear building from the hotel to the finishing line with an increased size and capacity in the areas in the vicinity of the latter, culminated in the “dramatic “oval” viewing area”, four-storeys in height.
A number of alternative road realignment routes were considered for the R413 granted under PL09.213787. The final alignment and recently opened route allows for the racecourse facility to be developed and consolidated in an appropriate fashion. Retaining the original alignment would have been sub-optimal from a traffic safety point of view. Alternative locations were considered for the hotel permitted under PL09.213791. It was felt that a separate greenfield location elsewhere within the Curragh racecourse complex would have been visually undesirable and have led to far greater impacts on the baseline receiving environment.
Alternative locations for the Turf Club offices permitted under PL09.219093 were considered, but these were considered to be impractical from an operational point of view. The permitted two-storey development has a lesser footprint than the single storey structure, which was destroyed by fire.
Alternative locations for the enlarged parade ring, which is currently on appeal under PL09.221070, were considered. However, the reuse of the existing parade ring site was deemed to be the most appropriate and advantageous, as it links to the existing
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 40 pre-parade ring located to the east, as well as the permitted horse tunnel which links the parade ring to the stables to the east.
On human beings, the EIS concludes that the construction phase of the cumulative project would not have any direct impact on the population of the hinterland. The workforce would travel from existing places of residence to the construction site, rather than reside in the area. The construction phase would take about 13 months and would employ between 150 and 200 persons at peak periods. There would be temporary nuisances such as traffic congestion and increase noise and dust to the resident, worker and visitor communities, but these would not result in a significant adverse impact to the local community. The operational phase would enhance the local economy and provide full and part-time employment opportunities.
On flora and fauna, it is noted that there would be a loss of dry-humid acid grassland, improved agricultural grassland, and treeline and hedgerow habitats during the construction phase. The extra activity on site would lead to increased disturbance to wildlife. The impact on the dry-humid acid grassland would be of greatest ecological significance. It is important to ensure that a minimal area is affected and that the habitat is reinstated as far as possible. The development of the grandstand would result in the permanent loss of a small area of the proposed Curragh Natural Heritage Area, but this is already degraded through poaching and vehicle tracks and shows a high proportion of agricultural grassland species. There would be an increased level of disturbance in the improved agricultural grassland area to the north of the site where no road existed previously. However, no sensitive species were identified within the site and this should cause minimal impact. In terms of bat habitats, there would be loss of buildings, mature deciduous trees and grassland. With successful mitigation measures for bats, the overall impact of the proposed redevelopment would be minor in relation to bats.
Chapter 7 of the EIS is on soil and hydrogeology. As surface water flow is absent in much of the area surrounding the proposed development, recharge to the aquifer is considered high (c.350-450 millimetres per year) and run-off is minimal. Groundwater is noted to discharge to the south of the proposed development at springs in the Japanese Gardens and further south in Kings Bog and Nurney Bog and to the Tully Stream. To the north, it discharges to Pollardstown Fen and the Milltown Stream. To the east, the aquifer discharges to the Liffey Catchment. The annual fluctuations in the Curragh aquifer vary between 1.25 and 2.5 metres, indicating a high storage aquifer. It is considered to be a Regionally Important Extensive Sand and Gravel Aquifer and is regarded as a major groundwater resource for the future. In terms of the potential impact of the proposal some minimal removal and compaction of soil would occur during the construction phase. Some minimal erosion of soils would occur where soil is left exposed. Owing to the depth to bedrock, there would be no impact on bedrock geology. Accidental hydrocarbon leaks from vehicles and machinery could have direct consequences for the water quality in the area.
In relation to the operational phase, as no dewatering would be undertaken, there would be no quantitative impact on the aquifer. The road realignment is over a distance of 925 metres. Some additional lands would be covered by the hotel and commercial buildings and associated car parks, but much of this land is already paved. Road and car parking run-off would be via oil interceptors. As no significant
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 40 additional traffic would be generated, the impact is considered to be negligible. Accidental discharge of chemicals to the aquifer could occur as a result of traffic accidents while the aquifer is designated as having a high vulnerability, this would act to some degree as a natural filter for attenuation of pollutants and the volume of water contained within it would allow significant dilution and dispersion, prior to discharge at sensitive receptors such as Pollardstown Fen. Based on the characteristics of the aquifer, the difference between an accidental event on the current road south of the Stand House Hotel compared with the new road is negligible. Normal avoidance, remedial and mitigation measures are proposed including ensuring that vehicles are in good working order, minimising long-term parking on the sand and gravel aquifer, refuelling, preferably off-site or, failing this, in a properly bunded area and having an emergency action plan.
Chapter 8 of the EIS is on water. This chapter is, initially, similar in its content to that on soil and hydrogeology insofar as it describes the nature of the Curragh Aquifer. In terms of existing foul water disposal, three septic tanks are detailed. These are on the infield in front of the existing grandstand, at the west end of the site in the field north of the R413 and in the vicinity of the Turf Club building. In addition, there is a package treatment system for the existing Stand House Hotel. On normal race meetings, when there are 10,000 visitors, as distinct from Derby Day, no additional toilet facilities are provided. Problems with capacity have occurred on the second day of two-day race meetings and surcharge/flooding events have been known. A new foul water drainage system is proposed. This is shown on a Masterplan layout. All foul water drainage would be designed and constructed to be in accordance with “Sewers for Adoption”. There would be a traditional system discharging by gravity into a foul water storage and pump works from where the sewage would be pumped to the existing public sewer in Stand House Road. This would be designed to meet the capacity requirements of Derby Day of approximately 30,000 persons and would allow for additional “headroom” capacity over and above this figure to deal with further potential capacity, if required. In relation to surface water drainage, a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) would be adopted. This would provide for the attenuation of stormwater flows at source and the infiltration of stormwaters into the soil horizons. Except for 1 in 100 year extreme storm events, the system would ensure that there would be no off-site flooding. There would thus be no significant impact on the local hydrological system. The infiltration of stormwaters into the soil horizons is likely to result in their being a greater recharge to the aquifer during the summer months than would occur naturally, as most of the summer rainfall would be lost through evapo-transpiration. Groundwater levels are unlikely to fall as much during the summer months (except in dry years) and spring discharges are likely to be maintained at higher rates throughout the year. It is therefore considered that the overall impact of the SUDS system would be beneficial.
Chapter 9 of the EIS is on noise. Five noise-monitoring locations were chosen to establish background noise levels. These are shown on Figure 9.1 of Appendix D of the EIS. The LA90 noise levels, which varied from 43 to 54 dB, were, in all cases, affected by noise from the then unrealigned R413. There was intermittent noise from the Dermot Welds stable in the case of the two monitoring positions closest to this stable and there was also noise noticeable from the M7 in the vicinity of the then unbuilt roundabout.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 40 During the construction phase, with noise mitigation measures, and the fact that all on-site construction activities would be conducted during daytime hours, the EIS considers that noise impacts on the receiving noise climate would not be significant and would remain within the recommended community noise exposure in the range Laeq 1 hour of 65 to 75 dB. In terms of vibration during the construction phase, intermittent vibration monitoring would be undertaken at sensitive receptors including the Dermot Weld stables and the Geraldine McCann Loughbrown Stud. Owing to the construction of a 1.5 metre high berm on the outside of the realigned R413, predicted noise levels are expected to decrease from 55.3 dBLAeq, 1 hour to 53.2 dBLAeq 1 hour at the boundary of the Dermot Weld stables and from 64.9 dBLAeq 1 hour at the nearest corner of the Geraldine McCann stud to 58.7 dBLAeq 1 hour for road noise for the operational phase of the development.
In relation to race days, the EIS notes that the current maximum number of people attending a race day is on Derby Day at 30,000. The EIS considers that as a result of the cumulative permitted and proposed developments offering an enhancement of the existing facilities, there would be no material increase in traffic levels and hence no increase in noise level from the proposed redevelopment. The realignment of the R413 results in the non-availability of lands formerly used for overflow car parking on race days. With less parking space available to the north of the road line, there would be less noise from this source. All new car-parking areas (which would be the subject of future planning applications) would be situated away from existing sensitive receptors. In addition, the berm along the R413 and a proposed additional berm to be located on Curragh lands that adjoin land in equine use would further reduce noise.
Chapter 11 of the Environmental Impact Statement is on landscape and visual impact. It is submitted that the proposed development would have a significant and positive visual impact on visitors to the racecourse. At a local level, the impact would be seen as significant and neutral. The insertion of the new structures would be a significant alteration to the existing landscape character, but in the overall context of the racecourse compartment, the impact would be neutral. It is submitted that the replacement of the outdated existing stand with the new grandstand and the construction of the other elements would have a significant and positive visual impact in the immediate vicinity of the racecourse. Eight key viewpoints are taken to illustrate the visual impact of the proposed development. These are set out in Appendix M. Three of the views are from the R445 to the southeast, southwest and west/southwest of the proposed development. Three further views are “end-on” to the development to the east and west, one of them being from just to the west of the M7 Newbridge Interchange. The remaining two viewing points are from a local road to the north of the railway line and to the north of the proposed development and from the Curragh to the southeast of the proposed development and the M7. In terms of avoidance, remedial or reductive measures, the visual impact of the development would be mitigated through the adoption of colours, textures and materials, which would visually diminish the apparent massing of the buildings and the landscape. There would be tree and shrub planting to soften the visual impact of the hard surface areas.
Chapter 12 of the Environmental Impact Statement is on material assets. This consists of an analysis of the transportation implication of the proposed cumulative
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 40 development. Baseline traffic counts were carried out on the main roads and junctions in the vicinity of the racecourse. Short-term traffic counts were expanded to project Annual Average Daily Traffic. These were adjusted for the year 2011 - the assessment year for the completed development, and for 2021. The traffic generation potential of the development is assessed using the TRICS planning database. Virtually all roads and junctions in the vicinity of the site operate well within capacity and this would continue to be the case with the completed cumulative development. The impact of the development during the construction period would be temporary and managed over a 24-month period. The operational phase of the proposed development would have a minimal impact on network capacity. A traffic management plan, including the provision of car parking would be implemented on race days and this is included in Appendix F of the EIS.
Chapter 13 of the Environmental Impact Statement is on cultural heritage. It is noted that the preservation of the Curragh, in its present open form, is mainly due to the protection of the plain under Crown and Government Policies since the 13th century. The development area comprises a brownfield complex with several existing buildings, concrete and tarmacadam surfaces. The southern section of the development falls within the recorded monument constraint area for the Curragh (KD023:076). Almost 200 archaeological monuments and numerous features of cultural heritage have been identified within this constraint area. In relation to the current two phased redevelopment of the racecourse, ongoing monitoring and archaeological test excavations have been undertaken, but, to date, no archaeological features, deposits, soils or have been revealed. It is recommended that a licensed archaeologist should be present during soil stripping to ensure that appropriate measures can be implemented in consultation with the requirements of the National Monuments Section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In the event that archaeological material is uncovered or recovered, the requirements of the National Museum would be implemented. In terms of architectural heritage, it is noted that the surviving bow end and staircase of the earlier Stand House is retained within the East Stand. This is of significant architectural heritage merit and its removal would result in a significant negative impact. Its retention within the museum on the ground floor of the new Grand Stand is a significant and positive impact. The façade of the Stand House Hotel is noted to be of limited architectural heritage merit and its removal would result in a negative impact. However, it is proposed to retain some features such as the dressed stone doorcase from the building, within the museum. It is concluded that the construction and operational phases of the proposed development would not negatively impact on the character of the cultural heritage of the Curragh Racecourse.
Comment
The Environmental Impact Statement is comprehensive. It succeeds in addressing the concerns raised in the earlier Inspector’s report in that it is now based on the impact of the proposed grandstand development, taken cumulatively with the other permitted and proposed developments to date. However, the Environmental Impact Statement still fails to clearly identify the overall capacity of the grandstand and associated development, by comparison with that of the existing East Stand and the remainder of the west stand, unaffected by the construction of the hotel permitted under
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 40 PL09.213791. Minor shortcomings in the interpretation of the visual impact of the proposed cumulative development are considered in my assessment.
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOLLOWING SUBMISSION OF THE CUMULATIVE EIS.
No further comments have been received following the advertisement of the revised Environmental Impact Statement or in response to cross-circulation to the parties to the appeal. WRONG!!!
ASSESSMENT
Introduction
Many of the issues, which arise in considering this proposed development, have already been covered, in whole or in part, in the earlier Inspector’s report when this appeal was first lodged with the Board. In this regard, I refer the Board to her conclusions under the headings “Development Contributions, Validity of the Planning Authority Decision, Project Splitting, Queen’s Room and Inter-Departmental Report on Management of the Curragh”, which are copied at pages 14, 15 and 25 of this report and with which I concur. I now consider outstanding matters under the sub- headings that follow:
Visual Impact
A series of photomontages is included in Appendix M of the cumulative Environmental Impact Statement. Of the 8 viewing points presented, two are likely to be seen by far the greatest numbers, namely Views 5 and 6 from the R445 and, accordingly, beside and visible from the M7. View 7, also from the R445, would not be visible from the M7 as, at this point, the motorway is in a cutting. Having visited the site, I consider that the photographs and the photomontages developed from them overstate the distance of the grandstand from the viewer. There must be some doubt as to whether or not it is appropriate to describe the visual impact from these points as “slight and neutral” (EIS Sections 11.41 and 11.42). The proximity of the stand from these viewpoints might warrant the description of the visual impact of the proposed development to be moderate, rather than slight. However, I consider it fair to designate the visual impact as neutral. What would be seen is an attractive and appropriate modernisation of a long established racecourse complex. Similar comments are applicable to the other viewpoints, but in these cases, they would be seen by a lesser number of the public. Overall, I consider that the proposed development is an appropriate modern redevelopment of the long existing stands at this location.
Traffic
The original environmental impact statement submitted with the application indicates (Section 12.2) that the new grandstand and public areas would have a capacity of up to 50,000, as opposed to the current grandstand and racecourse complex, which has a
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 40 capacity of 30,000. The traffic impact statement with the original submission indicates (Section 1.2) that the new grandstand would have a capacity of 50,000 as opposed to the current grandstand with a capacity of 30,000. The Environmental Impact Statement (Section 2.21) notes that the main stand has three floors of public space with a capacity of 15,000 spectators, while the panoramic stand (i.e. the west stand) can accommodate approximately 13,000 spectators. It appears to be me that the grandstand capacity would not increase significantly, nor is it intended that there should be a dramatic increase in the attendance at the racecourse as a whole, but rather that there would be an increased capacity of up to 50,000, available following the development. The traffic impact is thus assessed on the day-to-day operation of the cumulative development, rather than the race day capacity. Of the 20 race meetings, which take place annually at present, just three are on working weekdays. It is pointed out that at major events, local arrangements are made with the Garda Siochana in respect of traffic management. Even though junction and road capacities have not been assessed for race days, I consider that the implications of the approach taken, namely that traffic arising directly from race day attendees would not change, is reasonable. Having regard to the excess day to day capacity of the local road network, following signalisation of certain junctions (EIS Sections 12.46 – 12.70), it is unlikely that the additional traffic on race days would be problematic.
Traffic Management and Parking
Figure 1 of the traffic management report for the cumulative development, at Appendix F of the EIS, shows the locations of car parking areas at the racecourse, prior to the realignment of the R413. The report estimates the capacity of these car parks as 9,408 spaces. Car occupancy rates were noted for Guineas Day on Sunday 28th May, 2006. On that day, 2,207 private cars arrived at an average adult occupancy of 2.04 persons. This meant that 4,502 of the 8,560 attendees arrived by private car with the remainder arriving by other means. Extrapolating these rates to Derby Day, with a projected attendance of 30,000, results in a demand for 7,734 parking spaces. Following the realignment of the R413, the available parking is estimated to diminish by 1,322 spaces. However, this would still leave a residual stock of 8,086 spaces, which would exceed the requirement for Derby Day. In addition to this existing car parking, three additional areas are proposed for overflow parking, namely an infield overflow area, within the racecourse itself, an area to the northwest of the realigned road and an area to the west of the Pollardstown Road. These would have a combined additional capacity of 11,153 spaces. The infield and the area to the west of Pollardstown Road would require planning permission. The area to the northwest of the realigned road is already used for car parking, but only on Derby Day. It has a capacity of 1,030 spaces.
Figure 5 in Appendix F of the Environmental Impact Statement shows the location of the car parking areas, which, after the realignment of the R413 are held to have capacity for 8,086 car parking spaces. An adjoining landowner, Geraldine McCann, sought a declaration from the planning authority that the use of land outside (north) of the realigned R413, including the members car park, the RTE car park and the west end car park indicated on Figure 5 and overflow area 1 indicated on Figure 6 would constitute development. The planning authority held that the use of this land as an overflow car park would not be exempted development. The applicants referred this declaration for review by the Board under 09.RL.2366, but subsequently withdrew the
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 40 referral. The implication of this declaration would have been that very substantial areas of car parking would be no longer available for use to facilitate the proposed development. I estimate that the loss from the members’ car park would have been of the order of 3.8 hectares and from the RTE car park would have been 2 hectares. In addition, virtually the whole of the 1.86 hectares of the west end car parking area would have been unavailable. Applying the figure of 400 car parking spaces per hectare, given in Appendix F, this would have implied the unavailability of a further 3,064 spaces, reducing the residual stock to 5,022, well below the projected demand of 7,734 spaces.
Of the overflow areas noted in Section 11 of Appendix F, overflow area 1, which was only used for car parking on busy Derby Days would, by virtue of the planning authority’s declaration, have required planning permission, even for this use. The other two overflow areas, namely the infield area and overflow area 2 to the west of the Pollardstown Road, are noted to be in the ownership of the applicants and to be available for car parking in the future. However, these, too, as recognised in the EIS (Appendix F, Section 11), require permission.
Having regard to the foregoing, I am reluctantly forced to conclude that there would be insufficient car parking to cater for the proposed grandstand development and the cumulative existing and permitted development on the site. Accordingly, I consider that permission should be refused for this development.
RECOMMENDATION
Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend that the planning authority’s decision be reversed in this instance and that permission be refused for this development for the reasons and considerations set out below.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to the recent declaration, by the planning authority, under Section 5 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, in relation to the lands to the north of the newly realigned Regional Route R413, the Board is not satisfied, on the basis of the submissions made in connection with the planning application and the appeal, that there would be adequate car parking available to service the proposed development, taken cumulatively with the existing and permitted development at the overall Curragh Racecourse complex. The proposed development would therefore give rise to haphazard overspill car parking and would, thereby, endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard and the obstruction of road users. The proposed development would, accordingly, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
______Andrew C. Boyle Senior Planning Inspector 15th October, 2007. rk/sg
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 40 Prior to withdrawing their appeal to the Board under 09.RL2366, the applicants had sought a declaration, on the same issue and on the same lands, from the planning authority, under its Ref. ED233. In issuing its decision in this later case, that the proposed development constituted exempted development, the planning authority had regard, in addition to the normal statutory provisions and Condition 4 of PL09.213787 (planning authority Reg. Ref. 04/3137), its earlier declaration under its File Ref. ED174.
Having regard to the foregoing, it appears that there will be just enough car parking to cater for maximum attendances at the appeal site, i.e. on Derby Day. Nevertheless, the surplus car parking provision is relatively small and for this reason, I consider that it would be desirable to improve the modal split in favour of public transport.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the proposed development represents an appropriate consolidation and modernisation of the Grandstand facility at the Curragh. The submission of a cumulative environmental impact statement overcomes the previous inspector’s concerns in relation to the earlier EIS. I consider that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of the proper planning and sustainability of the area and that the planning authority’s decision should be upheld in this instance.
RECOMMENDATION
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
Having regard to the long established use of the Curragh as a horse racing venue, including the existence of a grandstand at this location, the national and regional economic benefits of the horse racing industry which is recognised in the National Development Plan, 2007 to 2013 and the reasonable policy of the planning authority to promote the enhancement of facilities for horse racegoers contained in the Kildare County Development Plan, 2005-2011, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions below, the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would not be prejudicial to public health and would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience. The proposed development would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 40
CONDITIONS
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars, including the environmental impact statement lodged with the application, as amended by the documentation received by the planning authority on the 30th day of June, 2006, and as further clarified by the cumulative environmental impact statement received by An Bord Pleanála on 29th day of June 2007, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions.
Reason: In the interest of clarity.
2. Prior to commencement of development, details of the materials, colours and textures of all the external finishes, including samples thereof, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
3. No plant shall be located on the roof of the development in such a manner as to be visible from ground level.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
4. All service cables associated with the proposed development (such as electrical, communal television, telephone and public lighting cables) shall be run underground within the site.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
5. No advertisement or advertisement structure, the exhibition or erection of which would otherwise constitute exempted development under the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, shall be displayed or erected within the curtilage of the site without the agreement of the planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
6. 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
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 40 (c) provide satisfactory arrangements for the recording and removal of any archaeological material, which may be considered appropriate to remove.
Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation of any remains which may exist within the site.
7. The relocation of the “Queens Room” shall be carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2004.
Reason: To ensure the preservation of the “Queens Room” to an acceptable standard.
8. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the attenuation and disposal of surface water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services. Reason: In the interest of public health and to ensure a proper standard of development.
9. Car parking shall be provided in accordance with the totals shown in Section 10 and the locations shown in Figure 5 of the Traffic Management Report received by the planning authority on the 30th day of June, 2006. Prior to commencement of development, details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority in relation to the proposed access points for the car parking areas marked “Public Parking West End, Public Parking RTE, Member Car Park, the Hill, Ballymaney and Infield” on Figure 5.
Reason: In the interest of orderly development and of traffic safety.
10. Bicycle parking shall be provided at the rates indicated in the Newbridge Local Area Plan, 2003.
Reason: In the interest of traffic safety.
11. Prior to commencement of development, a scheme designed to encourage greater use of rail and coach transport on race days shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority. Such a scheme may include, inter alia, the negotiation of more frequent/greater capacity passenger trains on race days, improved bus linkages to trains not stopping at the Curragh, the greater use of combined transport and race tickets at discounted prices and improved publicity.
Reason: In the interest of sustainability.
12. All overground oil and chemical storage tanks shall be adequately bunded to protect against spillage. Bunding shall be impermeable and capable of retaining a volume equal to 1.5 times the capacity of the largest tank. Filling and off take points shall be located within the bunded areas.
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 40 Reason: In the interest of orderly development.
13. The following requirements shall be complied with during the demolition/construction phase of the development: -
(a) Demolition/construction waste shall be identified for separation into appropriate waste streams for the purposes of collection, recovery or disposal off-site. Segregation shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the planning authority prior to removal of any waste from the site.
(b) Storage of waste on-site, prior to collection and removal off-site shall be in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority.
(c) Hazardous waste shall be treated in an appropriate fashion prior to being allowed off-site for further disposal or recovery at an appropriate licensed waste facility. C1 forms/TFS Certification shall be completed prior to the movement of any hazardous waste from the site.
(d) The destination of all waste streams shall be agreed with the planning authority prior to removal off-site.
Reason: In the interest of pollution control and orderly development.
14. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit and agree in writing with the planning authority a construction and demolition waste management plan. This plan shall, inter alia, include the information recommended in Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of the Best Practice Guidelines on the Preparation of Waste Management Plans for Construction and Demolition Projects published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in June 2006.
Reason: In the interest of pollution control and orderly development.
15. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall prepare a plan containing details for the management of waste (and, in particular, recyclable materials) within the development, including the provision of facilities for the storage, separation and collection of waste and, in particular, recyclable materials and for the ongoing operation of these facilities.
Reason: To provide for the appropriate management of waste and, in particular, recyclable materials, in the interest of protecting the environment.
16. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area of the planning authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or on behalf of the authority in accordance with the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 40 Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.
Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the permission.
______Andrew C. Boyle Senior Planning Inspector
November, 2007. sg
PL09.220356A An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 40