WATERFORD CITY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
TRANSPORT HUB | PART VIII REPORT
WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-RP-EN-400022 |JULY 2019
PURPLE: PANTONE: 2622 COATED C- 57 M-98 Y-0 K-46 R-84 G-7 B-91
GREEN PANTONE: 3455c C-100 M-0 Y-81 K-66 R-0 G-80 B-47
RED PANTONE: 195C C-0 M-100 Y-60 K- 55 R-130 G-0 B-36
BLUE PANTONE: 5395C C-100 M-44 Y-0 K-76 R-0 G-39 B-77
YELLOW PANTONE: 392C C-7 M-0 Y-100 K-49 R-141 G-139 B-0 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Waterford City Public Infrastructure Project
Transport Hub Part VIII Planning Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 2 1.1 Introduction ...... 2 1.2 Need for the Development ...... 2 1.2.1 Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning ...... 3 1.2.2 Irish Rail Service Implications ...... 3 1.3 Planning Policy ...... 5 1.3.1 National Policy ...... 5 1.3.2 Regional Policy ...... 8 1.3.3 Local Policy ...... 8 SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 13 2.1 Design Brief ...... 13 2.2 Location of the Proposed Development ...... 14 2.2.1 Issues with the Existing Train Station Location ...... 14 2.2.2 Selection of an Alternative Location ...... 15 2.3 Station Design Options Considered ...... 16 2.3.1 Option A - ‘Do- Nothing’ ...... 16 2.3.2 Option B - Architect’s Option 1 ...... 17 2.3.3 Option C - Architect’s Option 2 ...... 18 2.3.4 Assessment of Alternatives ...... 20 2.3.5 Preferred Station Building Option ...... 21 2.4 Parking Options Considered ...... 21 2.4.1 Parking Layout Option 1...... 21 2.4.2 Parking Layout Option 2...... 22 2.4.3 Preferred Option ...... 23 2.5 Flooding Defence Considerations ...... 23 2.6 Conclusion...... 24 SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 25 3.1 Introduction ...... 25 3.2 Site Location and Description ...... 25 3.2.1 Existing Land Uses ...... 26 3.2.2 Plunkett Train Station ...... 26 3.3 General Site Layout ...... 27 3.4 Need for the Proposed Development ...... 27
Part VIII Report Page i ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3.4.1 Current Location and Future Proofing ...... 27 3.4.2 Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning ...... 27 3.5 Development Overview...... 28 3.6 Architectural Design ...... 29 3.6.1 Integration with the NQ SDZ ...... 29 3.6.2 Building Composition and Materials ...... 30 3.6.3 Station Spatial Arrangement ...... 31 3.6.4 Station Capacity, Potential for Adaptability and Future Expansion of Building ...... 32 3.6.5 Accessibility of the Station and Public Realm ...... 32 3.6.6 Public Realm ...... 33 3.6.7 Transport Hub/ Station Building ...... 34 3.7 Transport Hub Construction Methodology ...... 35 3.7.1 Flood Defences ...... 35 3.8 Traffic, transport and connectivity ...... 37 3.9 Demolitions ...... 38 3.10 Drainage Design ...... 39 3.11 Landscaping ...... 39 3.11.1 Lighting Design ...... 40 3.12 Maintenance and Operation ...... 41 3.12.1 Waste and Water Supply ...... 41 3.12.2 Station Building ...... 41 3.13 Outline Construction Stage Sequence and Methodology ...... 43 3.13.1 Overview of Works ...... 43 3.13.2 Outline Construction Stage Sequence and Methodology ...... 44 3.13.3 Operational Stage Programme and Sequence ...... 46 3.14 Construction Materials ...... 47 3.15 Construction Traffic ...... 47 3.16 Employment ...... 48 3.17 Construction Environmental Management Plan ...... 48 3.18 Environmental Operating Plan ...... 50 3.19 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan ...... 50 3.19.1 Relationship with Other Projects ...... 51 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES...... 52 4.1 Traffic and Transport ...... 52 4.1.1 Introduction ...... 52 4.1.2 Methodology ...... 52 4.1.3 Relevant Characteristics of the Proposed Development...... 52 4.1.4 Receiving Environment ...... 53 4.1.5 Road Safety ...... 61 4.1.6 Predicted Impacts ...... 64 4.1.7 Mitigation Measures ...... 71
Part VIII Report Page ii ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.2 Population and Human Health ...... 72 4.2.1 Introduction ...... 72 4.2.2 Methodology ...... 72 4.2.3 Relevant Characteristics of Proposed Development ...... 72 4.2.4 Receiving Environment ...... 73 4.2.5 Predicted Impacts ...... 75 4.2.6 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures...... 77 4.2.7 Residual Impacts ...... 78 4.2.8 Difficulties Encountered ...... 79 4.2.9 References ...... 79 4.3 Biodiversity ...... 80 4.3.1 Introduction ...... 80 4.3.2 Methodology ...... 80 4.3.3 Receiving Environment ...... 81 4.3.4 Predicted Impacts ...... 86 4.3.5 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures...... 87 4.3.6 Residual Impacts ...... 88 4.3.7 References ...... 88 4.4 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology ...... 89 4.4.1 Introduction ...... 89 4.4.2 Summary of Available Information ...... 89 4.4.3 Receiving Environment ...... 90 4.4.4 Predicted Impacts ...... 94 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures ...... 97 4.4.6 Residual Impacts ...... 99 4.5 Hydrology ...... 100 4.5.1 Introduction ...... 100 4.5.2 Receiving Environment ...... 100 4.5.3 Characteristics of the Proposed Development ...... 104 4.5.4 Predicted Impact on Hydrology ...... 106 4.5.5 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Hydrology ...... 108 4.5.6 Residual Impacts for Hydrology ...... 108 4.5.7 Difficulties Encountered ...... 109 4.5.8 References ...... 109 4.6 Landscape and Visual ...... 110 4.6.1 Introduction ...... 110 4.6.2 Methodology ...... 110 4.6.3 Receiving Environment ...... 113 4.6.4 Visual Characteristics of the Proposed Development ...... 122 4.6.5 Potential Impacts ...... 124 4.6.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures ...... 126 4.6.7 Residual Impacts ...... 127 4.7 Noise Vibration Assessment ...... 130 4.7.1 Introduction ...... 130
Part VIII Report Page iii ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.7.2 Methodology ...... 130 4.7.3 Assessment Criteria – Operational ...... 131 4.7.4 Existing Conditions ...... 132 4.7.5 Proposed Development...... 135 4.7.6 Noise Survey ...... 136 4.7.7 Impact Assessment Criteria ...... 139 4.7.8 Impact Assessment – Noise ...... 140 4.7.9 Assessment Criteria – Freight Trains and Maintenance ...... 147 4.7.10 Impact Assessment – Vibration ...... 148 4.7.11 Impact Assessment – Construction Noise & Vibration ...... 149 4.7.12 Human Health Assessment ...... 153 4.7.13 Mitigation Measures ...... 154 4.7.14 Conclusion ...... 155 4.8 Air Quality & Climate ...... 164 4.8.1 Introduction ...... 164 4.8.2 Methodology ...... 166 4.8.3 Receiving Environment ...... 169 4.8.4 Characteristics of the Proposed Development ...... 173 4.8.5 Predicted Impacts ...... 174 4.8.6 Mitigation Measures ...... 187 4.8.7 Conclusions ...... 188 4.8.8 References ...... 188 4.9 Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage...... 195 4.9.1 Introduction ...... 195 4.9.2 Methodology ...... 195 4.9.3 Findings ...... 197 4.9.4 Summary of Findings ...... 226 4.9.5 Impact Assessment and Mitigation Strategy ...... 227 4.9.6 Mitigation ...... 228 4.9.7 References ...... 229 4.10 Material Assets and Land ...... 254 4.10.1 Introduction ...... 254 4.10.2 Methodology ...... 254 4.10.3 Receiving Environment ...... 254 4.10.4 Predicted Impacts ...... 256 4.10.5 Mitigation Measures ...... 263 4.10.6 Conclusion ...... 264 4.10.7 Residual Impacts ...... 264 4.10.8 Difficulties Encountered ...... 264 4.11 Major Accidents, Interrelationships and Cumulative impacts...... 265 4.11.1 Introduction ...... 265 4.11.2 Methodology ...... 265 4.11.3 Major Accidents and/or Disasters ...... 266 4.11.4 Interrelationships...... 268
Part VIII Report Page iv ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.11.5 Residual Impacts ...... 278 4.11.6 Cumulative impacts ...... 278 SECTION 5 CONCLUSION ...... 294
APPENDIX A Proposed Development Drawings APPENDIX B Architectural Design Statement APPENDIX C Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment APPENDIX D Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan APPENDIX E Compliance Statement APPENDIX F Outline Fire Strategy and Emergency Response Plan APPENDIX G Dust Minimisation Plan APPENDIX H Outline Environmental Operating Plan APPENDIX I Outline Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan APPENDIX J Public Lighting Report APPENDIX K Mechanical & Electrical Engineering Services Report APPENDIX L Sustainability Report APPENDIX M Landowner Letter of Support
Part VIII Report Page v ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Executive Summary
The relocation of Plunket Station to a new location is a long-term development strategy of Waterford City and County Council with Irish Rail. The current isolated and constrained location of Plunkett Station, exacerbated by a major junction at its entrance/exit does not lend itself to applying the strategies of sustainable urban planning. The proposed Transport Hub is being developed to future proof the transportation needs of the City towards sustainable compact land use and transportation planning principles.
The regeneration of the adjoining lands in a city centre location (set out in the Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone) will provide a sustainable integrated transport hub that will support a modal shift towards walking, cycling and public transport framed in the context of a compact sustainable concentric city model.
This Part VIII Planning Report has been prepared to provide a description of the nature and extent of the Proposed Development, assess and consider any potential environmental effects that may arise as a result the Transport Hub project. An environmental assessment has been undertaken across a range of environmental topics to include: traffic; population and human health; biodiversity; soils, geology and, hydrogeology; hydrology; landscape and visual; noise and vibration; air quality and climate; archaeology; historical and built heritage; and a range of material assets. A summary of the likely environmental effects and recommended mitigation measures are detailed at the end of each environmental topic addressed in Section 4 of this Report. The construction stage Contractor will be required to demonstrate how it addresses the likely environmental effects and will be required to include suitable mitigation measures to be detailed as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, Traffic Management Plan and Stakeholder Management Plan which will be agreed with Waterford City and County Council prior to the works commencing. A separate AA Screening and Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment was carried out for the proposed development. These assessments found that there are no likely significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the Proposed Development.
Part VIII Report Page 1 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Section 1 Introduction and Need for the Proposed Development
1.1 Introduction Roughan & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers (ROD) has been appointed by Waterford City and County Council (WCCC) to lead the Waterford City Public Infrastructure Project and undertake all required architectural, engineering, environmental, health & safety and quantity surveying services in order to deliver the required transportation proposals for Waterford City. As part of this, ROD has prepared this Part VIII Planning Report to support the Part VIII Planning Application for the development of a Transport Hub described in Section 3 below.
Waterford City and County Council with the support from Iarnród Éireann (IÉ) and Córas Iompair Éireann/ Bus Eireann (CIÉ) propose to develop a new Transport Hub to replace the existing Plunkett Railway Station. The planning for the proposed development is undertaken in accordance with the legislative requirement under Section 179 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000, as amended and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended. Part VIII procedure is required for specific developments by, on behalf of, or in partnership with local authorities. The planning application for permission for the development is supported by Iarnród Éireann and Córas Iompar Éireann (Refer to Appendix M Landowner Letter of Support).
The purpose of this Part VIII Report is to identify and address the likely significant environmental effects from the proposed development that is likely to occur during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases and recommend any mitigation measures required, as appropriate.
A separate Appropriate Assessment (AA) Screening Report has been prepared for the proposed development, which concluded that the proposed development either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, will not give rise to any likely significant effects on the Qualifying Interests of the Lower River Suir SAC and its Conservation Objectives in view of scientific knowledge.
A separate EIA Screening has been completed and determined that the proposed development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of its characteristics, location, size or potential impacts and does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) to be undertaken. It found that any likely significant adverse environmental effects arising from the project will generally be short-term impacts during the construction phase and can be mitigated as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Stakeholder Management Plan (SMP).
1.2 Need for the Development Plunkett Train Station occupies an isolated location in the context of the city centre, located across Rice Bridge on the north side of the city. The station is a significant interchange being the terminus for Intercity services to Waterford City from Dublin Heuston and Limerick Junction.
The current location of the railway station does not lend itself to the concentric model of city development that the city will be embarking on over the next 20 years. Furthermore, it is not deemed to be sustainable in terms of land use, transportation,
Part VIII Report Page 2 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
and environmental planning to continue to operate the railway station in an isolated and severed location that cannot be readily connected by other modes of transport.
The existing railway station is not capable of catering for the projected increase in population and economic and commercial activity to be realised in the City over the next 20 years. The following limitations have informed this conclusion: • Restrictions on creating a comfortable environment for passengers due to the isolated location from other public transport modes, restricted parking, and difficulties with ingress/egress all of which contribute to limiting usage levels. • Restricted options for future development at the current location - with the projected population growth, the current arrangement at Plunkett station will not be fit for purpose into the future. Restrictions include car parking, set-down spaces, bicycle parking, and bus set-down space. • There are acute difficulties with entering/exiting the train station by car or bicycle at peak travel times due to the level of traffic at the roundabout junction immediately outside the front of the station. This situation will deteriorate significantly as traffic volumes increase with population growth. Lack of integration with other sustainable modes of transport makes travelling by train an unattractive option compared to car-based travel. This will seriously undermine efforts to encourage a modal shift away from the private car. 1.2.1 Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning Under the NPF the Waterford Metropolitan Area will grow by 30,000-35,000 people by 2040. The future population targets for the north side of the City are an important prerequisite for sustainable mobility and to create walkable urban environments. This type of modal shift cannot be achieved at the current train station due to restricted site conditions and the lack of connectivity available to the site. Based on the principles of transit–oriented development, future developments are required to be planned near transport nodes and along the axes of public transport services.
The proposed development is being developed to future proof the transportation needs of the City towards sustainable compact land use and transportation planning principles. It is widely accepted that land use and public transportation planning should be integrated and harmonised in order to provide viable alternatives to car-based transport. Development is required to be concentrated in areas that are easily accessible by public transport. The current isolated and constrained location of Plunkett Station exacerbated by a major junction at its entrance/exit does not lend itself to applying the strategies of sustainable urban planning.
The principle of sustainable planning advocates mixed land uses located adjacent to the points of transit which would reduce land consumption, reduce carbon footprint and emissions, create good transport networks and in return a good quality of life in urban areas. This is the long term development strategy that Waterford City and County Council in association with Iarnród Éireann is aiming to implement through the redevelopment of the North Quays SDZ and the provision of a sustainable integrated transport hub that will support a modal shift towards walking, cycling and public transport framed in the context of a compact sustainable concentric city model. 1.2.2 Irish Rail Service Implications The implications for the service operations and infrastructure should the Waterford North Quays Development not proceed or not fund the proposed railway related works are set out under the headings Station, Track, Signalling, Rock Cutting and Flooding.
Part VIII Report Page 3 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Station All scheduled services to and from Plunkett Station are currently operated from a single platform (Platform 5) following a series of rationalisations of the track layout following a major flooding event in October 2012 and the landslide at the rock cutting in December 2013. Passenger services are not permitted to pass to the east of the signal cabin and access Platforms 3 & 4 due to the risk of further landslide events at the rock cutting.
While the current arrangement is not ideal, there is no disruption to scheduled services and there are no current plans to upgrade the existing station. IÉ recognise the benefits of the proposed relocation of the station as part of the Waterford North Quays Development. These benefits will include improved access, additional car parking spaces, improved connectivity and integration with other transport modes, an increase in operational capacity and facilitates additional operational flexibilities in normal and degraded modes. As a consequence, the proposal will be a catalyst for modal shift to public transport and will provide the capacity to respond to that demand increase.
Track Plunkett Station is currently accessed via a single track to the sole operational platform (Platform 5). A Freight Only siding, which is accessed from the existing sidings at Sallypark to the west of Plunkett Station, continues east serving the Port of Waterford at Belview. The existing track is in good condition and it satisfied the current operational requirements. There are no current plans to upgrade the existing track.
The proposed track layout at the new station has been developed to provide a double track alignment serving 2 new platforms and to satisfy the operational requirements of re-locating passenger services to the new station. The proposed track layout will also provide improved connectivity for rail freight to the Port of Waterford.
Signalling The current signalling in Plunkett Station is controlled by mechanical interlocking and while the existing system is obsolete, it satisfies the current operational requirements. It is likely that the signalling system will be upgraded in the next 5-10 years subject to funding availability. As the existing system is obsolete, it cannot be extended to control the proposed new track alignment for the new station and an upgrade of the signalling is required. The proposed new system will provide greater capacity and flexibility to serve the relocated station, as well as the Port of Waterford. The new infrastructure will also enable increased service frequency to/from Waterford.
Rock Cutting On 31 December 2013, a significant landslide occurred at the rock cutting to the north of Plunkett Station. The track layout was subsequently rationalised and passenger services are not permitted to pass to the east of the signal cabin in Plunkett Station due to risk of further landslide events at the rock cutting. Following the 2013 landside a detailed inspection of the feature and some de-vegetation remedial works were carried out. A Part VIII planning application was approved in January 2019 to carry out remedial works to the rock cutting and to address the risk of future landslides of the rock face which will facilitate the movement of passenger trains to the new station location. Inspections and vegetation management works of the rock face will continue.
Flooding The existing railway track at Plunkett Station is vulnerable to tidal flooding. A major flooding event occurred in October 2012 which resulted in significant damage to a
Part VIII Report Page 4 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
number of points and crossings in the station. The frequency and intensity of these flooding events is expected to increase as a consequence of climate change. The track layout in Plunkett Station was rationalised after this flooding event to remove the points and crossings from the area and the track through the station has been raised by up to 500mm to reduce the impact of flooding. Despite these measures, and as a consequence of climate change, it is anticipated that the frequency, intensity and impact of flood events will increase unless capital investment funding is provided for these works and further remedial measures are implemented. IÉ recognise the benefits of the proposed flood risk mitigation works forming part of the Waterford North Quays Development. The proposed enhancements will reduce flood risk to the railway and are designed to take account of the impacts of climate change. They will enable IÉ to provide sustainable, safe, and reliable services from the new station into the future
1.3 Planning Policy A range of national, regional and local planning policy documents support the development of the Transport Hub and the provision of infrastructure to support compact sustainable cities. The key policy documents that support the proposed development are set down in the following sections. 1.3.1 National Policy Project Ireland 2040: National Planning Framework and the National Development Plan 2018-2027 The NPF is the Government’s long-term strategic planning framework guiding national, regional and local planning and investment decisions over the next 25 years. The NPF companion document is the National Development Plan, a ten-year strategy for public capital investment of almost €116 Billion known as the ‘Project Ireland 2040’. Their joint publication is intended to create a unified and coherent plan for the country aligning the investment strategy with our strategic planning documents.
The five cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford will be targeted to accommodate 50% of overall national growth between them which will have implications for the overall population and employment growth and new housing provision in these locations. The key future growth enables for Waterford City include: “Delivering the North Quays SDZ regeneration project for integrated, sustainable development together with supporting infrastructure, including a new pedestrian bridge or a pedestrian/public transport bridge over the River Suir” “Progressing the sustainable development of new greenfield areas for housing and the development of supporting public transport and infrastructure”
Under the NPF, the Waterford Metropolitan Area will grow by 30,000-35,000 people by 2040. The future population targets for the north side of the City are an important prerequisite for sustainable mobility and to create walkable urban environments. This type of modal shift cannot be achieved at the current train station due to restricted site conditions and the lack of connectivity available to the site. Based on the principles of transit–oriented development, future developments are required to be planned near transport nodes and along the axes of public transport services.
Urban Regeneration and Development Fund As part of Project Ireland 2040, the Government announced the establishment of a new Urban Regeneration and Development Fund (URDF). The Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG) has responsibility for implementing the URDF, which has an allocation of €2 billion in the National
Part VIII Report Page 5 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Development Plan (NDP) to 2027, primarily to support the compact growth and sustainable development of Ireland’s five cities and other large urban centres.
The NDP identifies a number of ‘investment actions’ including ‘protecting the quality and value of past investments’, ‘increased investment in public transport programmes’ and ‘Bus Connects’ across the five cities.
Under public transport programmes there will be a number of sustainable transport projects delivered over the period to 2027 across the five cities to provide additional sustainable travel options to complement increased capacity and faster higher quality public transport in the cities. These will include traffic management, bus priority and other smarter travel projects along with the new urban cycling and walking routes to allow transport infrastructure to function more effectively and relieve congestion.
Investment plans will also be guided by transport strategies and wider Government policies to promote balanced regional development and social inclusion objectives. Some of the programmes and underlying projects relevant to Waterford City proposed for delivery during the period to 2027 are set out below. • Continued investment in bus and train fleets, as well as infrastructure, to maintain safety and service levels including further expansion where required. • Delivery of the full Bus Connects programme for all of Ireland’s cities (inclusive of ticketing systems, bus corridors, additional capacity, new bus stops and bus shelters etc.). • Transition to low emission buses, including electric buses, for the urban public bus fleet, with no diesel-only buses purchased from July 2019, while promoting commercial bus services and small public service vehicle industry to pursue low emission fleet. • Park-and-Ride Programme: strategic park and ride sites plus investment in parking facilities at rail and bus locations. • Delivery of comprehensive cycling and walking network for Ireland’s cities. Supporting programmes of rail and bus station improvement/development, traffic management investment, passenger information programmes, public bicycle share schemes, accessibility enhancements and similar.
The proposed development will provide better connection to railway services across the City and region. Furthermore, it will be located in proximity to the future Sustainable Transport Bridge (in planning) that will connect north and south of the city as well as facilitating the connection to the Waterford to New Ross greenway. Consequently, the proposed development will enable integration between different modes of sustainable transport within the City.
Rail Network Strategy 2030 The Railway Network Strategy 2030 was published in 2011 with the intention of identifying the future development requirements of the Iarnród Éireann InterCity Network (ICN) and the regional services which are to be implemented by the year 2030. The Strategy focuses on the railway services between the five cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford.
The existing Plunkett Station in Waterford City provides direct services for the Waterford to Dublin, Waterford to Limerick Junction. The Strategy identified that the Waterford to Dublin corridor suffers from a number of barriers, including: • “relatively high journey time in comparison to road”;
Part VIII Report Page 6 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• “the limited population catchment along the corridor”; and • “the isolation of the mainline rail station in Waterford from the City Centre.”
To improve the level of service provided by the railway station in Waterford City, and to make the railway corridor more attractive for use, the Strategy proposes to invest in “improving access by passengers to Waterford train station”. The proposed development will address the difficulties identified with the existing Plunkett Train Station by relocating it to the north quays.
Smarter Travel, A Sustainable Transport Future 2009-2020 Smarter Travel, a Sustainable Transport Future is a transport policy for Ireland introduced by the Government in 2009 to: • Enhance our communities; • Improve our environment; • Make our economy more efficient and competitive; and, • Significantly add to the equality of life for all our citizens.
The Key Goals of the smarter travel initiative include the following: • Improve quality of life and accessibility to transport for all and, in particular, for people with reduced mobility and those who may experience isolation due to lack of transport; • Improve economic competitiveness through maximising the efficiency of the transport system and alleviating congestion and infrastructural bottlenecks; • Minimise the negative impacts of transport on the local and global environment through reducing localised air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions; • Reduce overall travel demand and commuting distances travelled by the private car; and, • Improve security of energy supply by reducing dependency on imported fossil fuels. A number of actions are set out to help achieve the vision and key goals, these actions relate to: • encourage smarter Travel • deliver alternative ways of traveling; • improve the efficiency of motorised transport • ensure integrated delivery of the Policy; The proposed development supports many of these wide-ranging actions particularly those relating to encouraging smarter travel and alternative ways of traveling, by facilitating better integration of land use planning and transport to meet the vision for sustainable travel as Waterford City works towards a compact sustainable city model.
The proposed development will relocate the existing train services from Plunkett Train Station to the North Quays which will improve the interconnectivity of public transport modes in Waterford City. The proposed development will be in proximity to existing bus services, and future walking and cycling infrastructure in a form of recently approved Waterford to New Ross Greenway and the future Sustainable Transport Bridge. The proposed development is in line with Smarter Travel as it aims to promote the use of sustainable transport, as opposed to car-based modes of travel and thus, will contribute to the alleviation of air pollutants and emissions of greenhouse gases
Part VIII Report Page 7 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
from the transport sector. The proposed development will improve the accessibility of railway service to/ from Waterford City and the southeast region. 1.3.2 Regional Policy Regional Planning Guidelines for the South East Region 2010-2022 The RPGs are intended to constitute a strategic planning framework for the period 2010-2022 for the development of each region and for inter-regional cooperation. The strategic policies and objectives set out in the RPG will form the backdrop for socio- economic planning by national and regional agencies and will constitute the policy framework within which county, city, town and local area development plans will be made. The Regional Planning Guidelines support the re-development of the North Quays. It was included as a Critical Enabling Investment Priority in the RPGs in 2004.
The NPF and NDP and the associated legislative framework will guide the Regional Assemblies’ delivery of statutory Regional Spatial and Economic Strategic (RSESs) which will supersede the current RPGs which are yet to be published. These strategies will include new Metropolitan Area Strategic Plans for the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, and Waterford which will guide regional planning and investment plans.
Priority Rail Improvements have been identified for the South-East Region which, includes Objective RP8 “Provision of a new rail-passenger platform on the North Quays in Waterford City as part of a new Public Transport Interchange.” The proposed development supports the implementation of this priority rail improvement objective.
Southern Region Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (Draft) Arising under the Local Government Reform Act 2014 the Southern Regional Assembly has assumed a number of new functions. Chief among these responsibilities is the preparation of a Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) for the Southern Region. The Southern Regional Assembly have prepared the draft Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES), which has been submitted for public consultation in December 2018.
As part of the RSES, a Metropolitan Area Strategic Plan (MASP) for Waterford City has been developed and identified objectives for the City. In order to integrate land use with transportation, MASP identifies that the development of a “concentric city including the north of the river - the North Quays and other key locations will be supported by integrated transport investment to create an attractive liveable city, connecting city and suburbs and building north—south linkages.”
Regional Policy Objective RPO 155, aims to promote sustainable mobility by supporting “Steady State Investment to maintain and upgrade the existing road, rail and bus networks to provide a quality service to transport users”.
The proposed development supports the achievement of these objective. 1.3.3 Local Policy Waterford City Development Plan 2013-2019 (As amended and As Extended) The Development Plan for Waterford City is recognised as having many fundamental strengths and opportunities which will underpin its future growth and sustainable development as a Gateway City such as it local, national and international links by road, rail, sea, and air are just some of these strengths.
Part VIII Report Page 8 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
OBJ 2.1.11 of the Plan is: “To facilitate improved access to the City through more sustainable transport modes”.
The relocated train station will be more accessible to the public on the North Quays and via the Sustainable Transport Bridge (in planning) from the South Quays, encouraging people to use rail and planned improvements to be bus service to access the city centre and beyond.
The development strategy for Waterford City has been guided by the PLUTS since 2004. Waterford City Development Plan 2013-2019 supports the development of a “rail-passenger platform on the North Quays as part of a new Public Transport Interchange” as was outlined in the PLUTS 2004.
The proposed Transport Hub will better support the existing and potential growth of the rail corridor from Waterford to Dublin and Waterford to Limerick by making rail travel to/ from Waterford a more attractive, convenient, and safer mode of transport.
North Quays Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme (2018) The Government designated lands at North Quays in Waterford City as Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) on 20th January 2016. SDZ designations are created to facilitate development which, in the opinion of the Government is of economic or social importance to the State. Waterford City and County Council as the ‘Development Agency’ prepared the North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme which was adopted by the elected members of Waterford City and County Council in February 2018. The Planning Scheme sets out the following Vision for the North Quays: • To create a sustainable, compact extension to the City Centre that will serve a future population of 83,000 people. • A regeneration catalyst for the City and Region and the establishment of a sustainable modern city quarter. • Creation of an integrated multi-modal transport hub designed to sustainably meet the access requirements of The City. • Building on the context and the riverside location of the site to create a high- quality urban quarter as a natural extension of the City Centre.
The Planning Scheme vision is supported by a range of principal goals. Directly relevant to the proposed development are the following goals: • To provide a sustainable transport hub on the North Quays. • To provide for sustainable patterns of movement and access with priority for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.
The vision and goals are supported by several ‘Specific Objectives’ relating to physical and social Infrastructure, planning strategy, architectural strategy and actions and implementation objectives. The Planning Scheme details the Access Strategy that is required as part of the development of the NQ SDZ in order to improve access and connectivity detailed in Figure 1.1 below. The proposed development is consistent with the Vision, Goals and objectives of the Planning Scheme and the access strategy.
The Planning Scheme also aligns with the NPF in that its objective is to enable Waterford to become a regional city of scale leading the economic recovery of the South East and expanding and enhancing the local economy to realise the potential of the City and the region as a whole.
Part VIII Report Page 9 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 1.1 Transport Hub and Access Strategy – Source: North Quays Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme 2018
Specific Objective relevant to the Transport Hub include:
“PSI 1: The siting, design, orientation and accessibility of the proposed transport hub should be informed by the objective of delivering seamless interchange between sustainable transport modes, connectivity and integration with complementary land uses, in the context of high-quality public realm.”
“PSA 29: Design of central development zone block/s to be considered in tandem with the bridge and gateway structure. There is an opportunity to seamlessly link the structures on both sides of the railway line and form a dramatic entrance to the development. The design solution could incorporate various forms of shelter including tensile structures, canopies and amenity structures.”
“PSA 30: There will be vertical circulation at each end of the rail platform to provide access to the bridges across the railway line; the eastern crossing in the vicinity of the Rockshire Road and the western opposite the sustainable transport bridge. These routes and their associated public realm areas should be seamlessly integrated into the development with clear way-finding.”
Waterford Planning Land Use and Transportation Study (PLUTS) 2004 The Waterford Planning, Land Use and Transportation Study (PLUTS) was adopted by Waterford City Council, Waterford County Council and Kilkenny County Council in 2004 and is currently integrated into the current Regional Planning Guidelines. PLUTS sets out a strategy for the balanced and sustainable growth of Waterford, while providing a high quality of life for its inhabitants over the next twenty years. The PLUTS recognises the potential of the North Quays as an extension of the city centre and prioritises a new city centre pedestrian bridge and a new public transport interchange at the North Quay. The PLUTS proposed to bring the North Quays and the Northern Suburbs fully into the social and economic domain of the City.
Some of the key recommendations of the PLUTS include the: • Provision of a rail-passenger platform on the North Quays as part of a new Public Transport Interchange. • Significant retail expansion in the expanding City Centre;
Part VIII Report Page 10 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• A new city centre bridge for pedestrians and cyclists which will link the redeveloped North Quays with the existing City Centre; • Development of a high-quality bus-based public transport system in the City supported by Park and Ride facilities location north and south of the River linking with the Belview Port area.
Transforming Waterford: Integrated Transport Proposal The Transforming Waterford Integrated Transport Proposal provides high level costings relating to transportation proposals some of which are based on the PLUTS and strategic City infrastructure requirements deemed necessary for the sustainable development of the City. They are consistent with the Planning Land Use and Transportation Strategy for the City and with regional and national planning policies.
The proposed transportation components include: • City centre – Enabling City Growth • City Centre Improvement – Building on The Essential Character • Sustainable Transport Corridor/Regional Greenway • Abbey Road Improvement Works • Dock Road Improvement Works • Integrated Transport Hub – Redefining Urban Transport Modal Integration (3f)
The proposals related to the “Integrated Transport Hub – Redefining Urban Transport Modal Integration” recognise that the existing transport integration is “exceptionally poor and is significantly damaging efforts for modal change.” It states, “the existing Railway Station is at the heart of this problem with its location at Rice Bridge and restricted/nearly unsafe access denying integration with other modes of transport and compromising the commerciality of inter-city train services” (P.21).
It goes on to state; “This is further compounded by the station being restricted to one platform and passenger trains not being allowed access beyond a certain point due to an unstable rock face. No capacity to improve the situation is available at the current location due to the restrictions in width imposed by the station residing between the River Suir and the imposing cliff face to the North.”
“Redevelopment of the North Quays provides an opportunity to dramatically alter circumstances and to provide a unique transport interchange facility incorporating a fully enclosed facility for walkers, cyclists and train, bus and car users. The combination of pedestrian bridge, green route, train and bus services will be unique in Irish circumstances and as near optimal as can be achieved anywhere in this country given the nature of our city centres.”
The proposal identifies that the current transport integration within the city is ‘poor’ due to the location of the existing train station. Plunkett train station is located north of the Rice Bridge roundabout, creating a restricted and unsafe access to the railway with limited integration with other modes of transport.
The relocation of the train station is the only viable option due to the “restrictions in width imposed by the station residing between the River Suir and the imposing cliff face to the North”. The location of the proposed development will enable easy integration between different modes of transport including rail, bus, walking, cycling and car and thus, creating a “unique transport interchange facility”.
Part VIII Report Page 11 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 1.2 Integrated Transport Hub (Source: Transforming Waterford Integrated Transport Proposal, P21.)
Ferrybank Belview Local Area Plan 2017-2023 The Ferrybank- Belview Local Area Plan (LAP) 2017 – 2023 outlines a strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area of land stretching from Grannagh to Belview and from the River Suir to the line of the Waterford bypass, adjacent to the proposed Transport Hub.
The LAP boundary is located north of the transport hub and NQ SDZ. It identifies a number of objectives that are relevant to the area to include: • Objective1D: “To maximise the connectivity between Ferrybank, the City Centre and the North Quays SDZ and to take account of the opportunities afforded by the planning scheme for the SDZ”. • Objective1E: “To seek to implement in full the provisions of the Waterford Planning Land Use and Transportation Study 2004 (PLUTS) and any review thereof undertaken”. • The objectives to support a greenway into the site. (via the disused railway (Waterford to New Ross) line that runs through the Belview area).
The LAP also supports the Waterford PLUTS and states that “both local authorities remain committed to PLUTS, to its implementation and to any review.”
The proposed development supports a range of policies of the LAP and the planned population growth of the city that will take place in the northern suburbs of the city, as anticipated by PLUTS “growth in Waterford City and Environs be distributed between the north and south sides of the River Suir in the ratio of approximately 2:3 respectively over twenty years. It was anticipated that a 50:50 balance would be achieved over a thirty-year period.” (P.7 of the LAP). The proposed development will support this strategic objective and the future growth of the City including in the northern environs.
Previous Studies A Traffic & Transportation Impact Assessment (TTIA) was prepared by Roughan & O’Donovan for Waterford City and County Council to inform the preparation of the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme and included consideration of alternatives. The analysis undertaken as part of this study included the requirement to upgrade and modify the Dock Road and Abbey Road and identified two access points into the NQ SDZ. These proposals have been updated based on the proposed development and are updated as part of this Report.
Part VIII Report Page 12 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Section 2 Alternatives Considered
This section of the Part VIII Report outlines the reasonable alternatives that were considered during the design of the proposed development and the reasons why the proposed development option was chosen. Alternative considerations relating to the relocation of the existing train station were based on three factors namely; • Location of a train station, to meet Iarnród Éireann requirements; • Station Design; • Parking and; • Flood defence.
The alternatives of each of these factors are described and assessed individually in the sections below.
2.1 Design Brief Irish Rail Requirements All station options that were considered were required to meet the IÉ requirements, to include: • The track layout at the new station is to provide a double track alignment (two no. 200m long single faced platforms) with a station building; • Station concourse, to include the waiting area, is the primary space within the station building, and is to accommodate 300-400 people waiting; • The concourse to include seating and space for ticket sales machines; • Directly accessible from the concourse there must be a ticket sales office and a retail space, which is capable of being sub-let. A number of smaller cellular spaces are to be provided off this main space, to include staff facilities, cleaning stores, plant space and public toilets; • From the station concourse, access to each of the platforms is to be via stairs and lifts; and, • The platforms are to also feature storage spaces for basic cleaning operations.
The layout of the station is therefore based on the requirements of Iarnród Éireann. No other design layouts were considered.
NQ SDZ Planning Scheme Requirements The NQ SDZ Planning Scheme contains a number of specific objectives relevant to the development of a Transport hub (see Section 1.3.3 of this Report). These objectives informed the design options and include the following: ‘The transport hub forms part of the support infrastructure for the SDZ. It will consist of a multifunctional gateway/ station building, rail platforms, vertical circulation such as lifts, ramps and steps as well as protective canopies and landscaping. This hub provides the primary site access and drop off from the northern suburbs and from various transportation modes such as cars, buses, taxis and trains. The gateway building and bridge over the railway line act as a focal point and landmark to signify the development from Dock Road and Greenway. It could also provide additional functionality such as after-hours shopping. The assembly of
Part VIII Report Page 13 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
structures associated with the hub can be designed to be attractive, colourful, of bold design and varied in form.’ (Section 5.1.7, NQ SDZ Planning Scheme, 2018).
Specific objectives PSI 1, PSA 29 and PSA 30 (detailed in Section 1.3.3 of this Report) also formed part of the design requirements of the Transport Hub.
2.2 Location of the Proposed Development Planning policy documents, existing issues with the current station and engineering requirements informed the identification of a suitable location for the proposed development.
The relocation of the train station in Waterford City to the north quays area has been a strategic objective of Waterford City and County Council for many years and is outlined in a number of Waterford City and County Council planning policy documents as detailed in Section 1 of this Part VIII Report. 2.2.1 Issues with the Existing Train Station Location The existing Plunkett Station is situated on the north side of the city, approximately 500m from the city centre. There are a number of issues with the existing station, to include: • Restrictions on creating a comfortable environment for passengers due to the isolated location from other transport modes, restricted parking and difficulties with ingress/egress all of which contribute to limiting usage levels. These restrictions include: o Poor access for pedestrians and cyclists. A signal-controlled junction is provided on the west arm of the Rice Bridge Roundabout, while there is an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing to the east of the roundabout across the dual carriageway; o There is no connectivity between rail services and scheduled bus services at Plunkett Station. The station has no bus stop, nor does it have adequate space to safely install one; o There is no adequate set down area at the station which leads to set downs and collections being made by way of double parking in the carparking area which blocks in cars already parked and interferes with the operation of the taxis; o There are acute difficulties with entering/exiting the train station by car or bicycle at peak travel times due to the level of traffic at the roundabout junction immediately outside the front of the station and issues with the roundabout itself. The small available area imposed severe constraints upon the design of the roundabout and the entry/exit points from the station. o The roundabout area has no provision for cyclists and no space to add dedicated cycle lanes or other features to improve cyclising safety. o The adjacent cliff dace has stability issues and has experienced significant rock falls in recent past. The presence of the station increases person occupancy in the danger zone for any future rock falls.
Plunkett Station has restricted options for future development at the current location. With the projected population growth, the current arrangement at Plunkett station will not be fit for purpose into the future. It is likely that the current situation will deteriorate significantly as traffic volumes increase with population growth. Absence of available space severely limits potential for any road safety or capacity improvements.
Part VIII Report Page 14 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Lack of integration with other sustainable modes of transport make travelling by train an unattractive option compared to car-based travel. The current situation will also seriously undermine efforts to encourage a modal shift away from the private car and the national objective to transition to a low carbon society. 2.2.2 Selection of an Alternative Location The identification of potential locations for the proposed Transport Hub was somewhat constrained due to the following determining factors: • Iarnród Éireann’s engineering requirements (Section 2.1 above); • A new station must be located along existing railway infrastructure; • Provide improved access/ connectivity to the existing city centre and must have the ability to integrate with sustainable modes of travel; and • Support the future concentric zone city model being pursued by Waterford City and County Council.
As already stated in Section 2.1, the location of the relocated train station is required to comply with Iarnród Éireann (IÉ) engineering requirements which included the following: • Location of new station platforms on straight track alignment; • A minimum platform length of 200m; • A minimum of two tracks through the station; • Platforms adjacent to each track; • A minimum platform width of 4.5m.
Only two potential locations were identified in the vicinity of the city centre that could facilitate a 200m straight platform these are: the proposed development area and an alternative location, located south of the former factory buildings ‘Dunlop site’. However, the later area (close to Dunlop site) was ruled for two reasons 1) constraints due to architectural and archaeological heritage, due to the proximity to the Abbey Church graveyard and associated National Monument Service (NMS) zone of notification and also proximity to Abbey Church, a protected structure. 2). According to PLUTS, there could be a potential landing point required for a bridge across the River Suir to the South Quays, Tower Hotel area. Therefore, this area in proximity to the former Dunlop site was not considered as a viable option.
The proposed development location is linear and could be deemed to be somewhat constrained, it is deemed to have the engineering capacity to meet the IÉ requirements and provide the access, connectivity and integration with the existing and future planned developments in the area. Therefore, considering the above factors, there was only one suitable section of track alignment identified in Waterford City (location of the proposed development) that complies with the identified engineering requirements and also delivers on the other sustainable development factors.
Furthermore, through the completion of the NQ SDZ site access and layout options which informed the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme (NQ SDZ), the engineering-led consultancy team provided an access and modal transfer proposal which is integral with the train station location and which meets WCCC and Iarnród Éireann requirements.
The NQ SDZ Planning Scheme (2018) Access Strategy (Figure 2.1) provides for the proposed Transport Hub, located on Dock Road with the objective of ‘delivering
Part VIII Report Page 15 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
seamless interchange between sustainable transport modes, connectivity and integration with complementary landuses, in the context of high quality public realm’ (PSI 1).
Figure 2.1 Waterford NQ SDZ Planning Scheme Transport Hub and Access Strategy
2.3 Station Design Options Considered Three options including a ‘Do-Nothing’ scenario were considered in the relocation of services from Plunkett Station and the design of a proposed transport hub station building and platforms. This includes consideration of transport and travel (including parking layouts), and the design of IÉ flood defences for each option (discussed in sections 2.4 and 2.4 respectively). The options are summarised below: • Option A: ‘Do-Nothing’ • Option B: Architect’s Option 1 • Option C: Architect’s Option 2 – “Preferred Option”.
NOTE: There is limited scope to consider alternative design solutions for the station platforms as they are linear, and the engineering constraints determine platform geometry i.e. platform height and widths. Therefore, the primary differences between the options considered relate to the station building design, the means of access, and public realm/ landscaping.
The associated works that include the re-configuration of the existing Bus Éireann depot and provision of additional parking are discussed separately as they informed the overall site boundary.
Furthermore, an integral part of the design considerations is the integration with the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme. 2.3.1 Option A - ‘Do- Nothing’ The ‘Do-Nothing’ Scenario would result in Plunkett Train Station remaining in operation at its current location. The implications for the train service operations and infrastructure should the relocation of the train station not proceed, are outlined in Section 1.2.2 of this Part VIII Report under the aspects relating to: The Station, Track, Signalling, Rock Cutting and Flooding.
Part VIII Report Page 16 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The isolated location on a busy road also places restrictions in creating a safe interchange between modes of travel and does not permit the encouragement of walking, cycling or public transport to/ from the existing location. The potential to address the access issues at the existing station are limited by the constrained nature of the existing site, the lack of space within the footprint of the junction and the lack of traffic capacity at this vital intersection to allow any meaningful traffic management solution. Due to these ongoing issues and constraints, the ability of Plunkett Station to fulfil its strategic transportation role in the development of Waterford City cannot be achieved in its current form.
The ‘Do-Nothing’ option was not considered to be a reasonable or a realistic alternative as it would not deliver the design requirements of IÉ or the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme nor does it supports sustainable integrated land use and transport planning that would facilitate the concentric model for the city into the future. The ‘Do-Nothing’ option would not meet the national, regional or local planning policy objectives for transport and sustainability for the city as identified in Section 1.3 of this Report. 2.3.2 Option B - Architect’s Option 1 Option B or Architects Option 1, developed by the architects (Sean Harrington and Associates), included the delivery of minimum design requirements, as a base benchmark that meets IÉ requirements. There is an eastern and western footbridge towards the NQ SDZ. The station building is of simple form with a flat roof as illustrated in Figure 2.2. The station platforms are external, accessible via the simple, solid, rectangular-shaped station building. The eastern footbridge (over the rail line), is uncovered and serves as the connection between station, proposed north plaza and NQ SDZ area.
The access stairs to the eastern footbridge is linear with a rectangular lift shaft provided to the proposed north plaza. Similarly, the station floor plan layout is linear in form. Discrete openings along the northern building façade are proposed as described in Figure 2.3.
Figure 0.2 3D representation of Transport Hub Building Option 1 with indicative NQ SDZ development in the background (located in the same location as the proposed development).
Part VIII Report Page 17 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 2.3 Option 1 – Station Layout/ Entrance 2.3.3 Option C - Architect’s Option 2 Option C, Architects Option 2, comprises a similar layout and configuration to Option B, but with more architectural expression and form. Option C meets the IÉ design requirements and Access Strategy of the NQ SDZ. There is an eastern and western footbridge towards the NQ SDZ, the station platforms are external and accessible via the station building. Option 2 includes more public realm features and includes subtle references to the cultural heritage of the area, thereby providing better integration with the existing and future public realm. It includes a canopy structure, a new north plaza area and public realm works.
The same design requirements as Option 1 are included in Option 2, with a greater emphasis on presenting the station building as a Gateway/ a statement building. It also functions to create a gateway from the north of the city to seamlessly integrate with the NQ SDZ area, overcoming the potential visual boundary imposed by the railway track which bounds the NQ SDZ.
The station building is of simple form with a flat roof as illustrated in Figure 2.4. One of the main differences between the two options is that the eastern footbridge (over the rail line), is covered. The generous roof canopy or horizontal plinth forms the roof structure and accentuates the stature and significance of the building, it will continue over the eastern footbridge/ NQ eastern SDZ entrance, which will serve to integrate the two areas.
The lift access (to the station building) is separately expressed as a circular form, which punctuates the horizontal plinth structure/roof canopy over a glazed lantern. The lantern is to be illuminated at night as a way finding beacon. Its inclusion is also reference to the tradition of Waterford Crystal. At night time, the fully lit lantern will be visible from the north of the River Suir, and in views from the south, including Dock Road, and Ferrybank. The circular lift structure in the roof structure is in alignment with Reginald’s Tower on the south quays and forms a reference to the medieval monument.
Part VIII Report Page 18 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 2.4 3D representation of the Transport Hub Option 2 with indicative NW SDZ development in background
The provision of an additional canopy immediately adjacent to the bus and coach set down areas will provide cover to those waiting/ arriving and also create a sheltered thoroughfare for those on the lowest level accessing the station or travelling onwards towards the SDZ. This canopy overlaps with the horizontal plinth station roof structure providing continuity of cover to those accessing the eastern footbridge via the North Plaza escalators. The proposal also includes flag masts along the northern approach fronting onto the proposed North Plaza/Dock Road.
To ease the level difference from Dock Road and the upper level of the footbridges, terraced landscaping in the form of form of horizontal plinth structures is proposed at the steps/ ramp areas, as illustrated in Figures 2.4 and Figure 2.5, this will serve to soften the station building. The design of eastern footbridge access stairs includes a slight curvature on plan, improving the stairs alignment with Rockshire Road and the set-down/ parking area east of the proposed station building.
The softer external features, including the curvature of the stairs, terraced landscaping and the circular lift shaft is repeated in the building facade and roof plan. Similarly, soft architectural features are repeated in the internal floor plan layout, notably the walls of the ticket sales office and the circular roof lights.
Part VIII Report Page 19 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 2.5 Option 2 – Station Layout/ Entrance 2.3.4 Assessment of Alternatives This assessment of alternatives considers the potential impacts of the station design options at a strategic level. All options were assessed by the design team in terms of function, economy and environmental impacts.
As discussed in Section 2.3.1 the ‘Do-Nothing’ option was not considered to meet the IÉ requirements, it does not support the integration objectives set out National and Local Planning policy towards support sustainable transport and land use integration. It would also not support initiatives to bring investment into the area and was not considered to be a viable alternative.
Function: The functionality assessment is based on meeting the design brief set out in section 2.1 of this Section, relating to IÉ requirements as well as reference to the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme. Both Option A and B design options meet the IÉ requirements. Integration with the objectives of the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme was also a key requirement and were addressed as part of both options. Therefore, both options are equally rated in terms of function.
Economy: The economy assessment relates to economic benefit, transport reliability and wider economic impacts including funding impacts. The site of the proposed station is linear with limited space available to all options due to the engineering requirements and the proximity of the NQ SDZ and Dock Road to the south and north, respectively. Option 1 and 2 were deemed to be capable of being constructed. Both options would improve reliability and would be capable of supporting wider economic and social impacts. Both options have the potential to increase transport connectivity and improve connections between communities and businesses in the south-east region. Both options considered were deemed to be capable of achieving the required exchequer funding to be brought forward to construction. Therefore, both options rated equally in the options assessment.
Environmental: The environmental assessment is based on the defined environmental topics detailed in this Part VIII Report, namely: population and human health, biodiversity, air quality, noise and vibration, biodiversity, archaeology, architecture and cultural heritage, soils, geology and hydrogeology, hydrology,
Part VIII Report Page 20 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
material assets, etc. Option B and Option C are located within the same footprint and with a largely similar construction methodology. The assessment of the environmental factors is deemed to be broadly the same across all topics and are not considered significant, details of the respective environmental topics and assessments are contained in Section 4 of this Report.
The main difference identified between the options is the visual impact and integration with surrounding land uses. Option C (Architects Option 2) design and use of canopy and horizontal plinth structures and landscaping is deemed to integrate better with the existing and proposed surrounding land use and is visually more attractive than Option B (Architects Option 1).
The design Option B does not have canopies and/ or shelters provided along the North Plaza to accommodate the bus and coach set-down areas running to the front of the station building and parallel to Dock Road. From a Population and Human Health perspective this option rates less favourably, as the absence of cover outside of the Station Building could be less comfortable option for the users of the Transport Hub, particularly in harsh weather conditions.
The design of Option C went further than Option B by providing a statement building with covered eastern footbridge, a canopy structure and shelter fronting onto the North Plaza. This is deemed to be more visually appealing, and would improve aspects of comfort and general amenity for train users and those travelling along the Dock Road and through the SDZ, and is likely to impact positively on Population and Human Health. The landscaping and public realm features proposed along the set down area (fronting the Station Building) will help integrate the different uses including the proposed greenway and the coach set-down areas and will have a positive Landscape and Visual impact along the adjoining Dock Road.
Furthermore, the proposed level changes introduced in Option C will help to make the proposed Station building more visually appealing from the northern approach along the Dock Road. Creating a ‘multifunctional gateway/ station building’ and 'to seamlessly link the structures on both sides of the railway line’ as required in the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme. 2.3.5 Preferred Station Building Option Based on the assessment above, Option B (Architects Option 2) is the preferred optimum solution for delivering a Transport Hub station building.
2.4 Parking Options Considered In the design of the proposed Transport Hub, the design of parking and set down areas were considered and assessed. Two alternatives were assessed as follows: 2.4.1 Parking Layout Option 1 An initial design, as seen in Figure 2.6 provided 12 no. car set down and 5 no. taxi spaces to the east of the Transport Hub station building. This design did not encroach upon the existing Bus Éireann Depot to the east of the site which is currently used as a bus park and owned by CIÉ. The layout was considered to be particularly tight and would provide limited room for the public to traverse the site.
Parking Layout Option 1 does not provide adequate coach parking facilities, which is considered essential to service the visitor/ tourism-related element of the NQ SDZ. To the front of the Transport Hub station building and platforms, a lay-by will be provided to accommodate 3 no. public bus set-down spaces, and 7 no. coach set down spaces.
Part VIII Report Page 21 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 2.6 Transport Hub Parking Layout Option 1 2.4.2 Parking Layout Option 2 Through discussion with CIÉ Bus Éireann, the possibility of expanding the layout into the Bus Depot became a potential option. Various configurations were developed in conjunction with CIÉ, to increase the car, taxi and coach set down capacity for the Transport Hub. The developed design as illustrated in Figure 2.7 provides improved accessibility to the proposed development whilst also maintaining the functionality of the Bus Depot. The proposed layout forming part of the Transport Hub has the capacity for 14 no. set down areas for cars, 7 no. taxi set down areas and 4 coach parking/ set-down bays. To the front of the Transport Hub station building and platforms, a lay-by will be provided to accommodate 3 no. public bus set-down spaces and 7 no. coach set down spaces.
The design also provides a more generous public realm and landscaping. The proposed design also has 30 no. bicycle parking spaces and sufficient space to expand bicycle storage to facilitate a public bike scheme, should they later be required at the site.
Figure 2.7 Transport Hub parking Layout Option 2
To maintain the operational viability of the now reduced Bus Depot site, additional parking will be provided in the former factory site (Dunlop site) including 10 bus spaces and 43 car spaces parking for the depot to ensure capacity.
Part VIII Report Page 22 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
2.4.3 Preferred Option Parking layout Option 2 was deemed to be the preferred option from a traffic and transportation perspective for a number of reasons which include: • Improvements in capacity of short-term car-based access including taxi queuing, car set down and bus set down areas to the Transport Hub; • Improvements in capacity and space available for bicycle parking; • Increase space available for the proposed Waterford New Ross Greenway to integrate with the Transport Hub; and • Increased space available to integrate with the Bus Depot and the re- configuration of parking layouts and expansion of parking provision into the adjoining site ensures the Bus Depot continues to operate at full capacity, ensuring a continued high level of support for existing bus services in Waterford.
The proposed layout maximises access, increasing lands made available to accommodate the multi-modal transportation needs of a Transport Hub. The traffic impacts resulting this option were not deemed to be significant as a result of the new set down areas. The preferred layout provides increased public parking and set-down facilities and is a vital element of the multi-modal vision for the North Quays. It also maintains the level of staff parking and bus parking within the Bus Éireann Depot, with the adjoining former factory site (Dunlop site) to provide replacement parking. While the preferred option will result in a greater land area required for the proposed development, it will include the development of the former factory site (Dunlop site).
2.5 Flooding Defence Considerations A Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment for the proposed relocation of the Transport Hub (Appendix C) found the proposed development to be within flood zones A and B and that flood defences are required to protect the proposed development from flooding and extreme weather events. The ‘Do-Nothing’ scenario was not considered to be an option as the vertical railway alignment is below the design flood level of 4.24mOD.
As part of an integrated design approach required by the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme, WCCC engineering and design team have considered the NQ SDZ design in developing the Transport Hub flood defence design options.
There is limited space available along the railway corridor and considering the 4.5m minimum clearance from the railway line to a structure, there is insufficient space to provide flood bunds (between the SDZ lands and the railway line). Therefore, the proposed types of flood protection measures to be provided along the railway corridor are limited to a cut-off wall solution comprising sheet pile walls, flood protection walls or groundwater barriers such as underground soil mix cut-off walls and/or underground sheet pile walls.
All design options were progressed under the premise that the NQ SDZ area will be developed and considered the construction of an undercroft structure within the SDZ lands, which has been factored into the design. This includes a basement level and series of podiums that would link to the Transport Hub.
The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for the North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme states that: “As part of the planning scheme it is proposed to move the Waterford (Plunkett) train station from its present isolated location west of Rice bridge into the North
Part VIII Report Page 23 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Quays. The relocated train station including the lobby, ticket hall and platforms may have a floor level below 4.42mOD under the condition that the train station is protected to 4.42mOD. Basement construction should provide impermeable solutions with possible pumping for seepage. All access points (which are considered prone to flooding) to the station shall be above 4.42mOD. Raising floor levels shall be the primary approach to reduce flood risk throughout the site. However, the implementation of hard flood defences (walls, embankments etc.) should be used as a supplementary defence method where required and considered appropriate, to protect the railway line and train station”.
In order to comply with the North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme SFRA as above, the flood defences when integrated with the SDZ undercroft structure will provide protection to the train station to 4.42mOD, this will be achieved by: • Integrating Type 2 groundwater barrier that comprises a Soil Mix (Soil-Cement- Bentonite) cut-off wall or Sheet Pile Wall with the SDZ undercroft structure; or • In the event that the Transport Hub is progressed before the development on the SDZ lands interim flood defence measures will be in the form of a wall/ bund to a minimum level of 4.42mOD between Flood Defence Systems i.e. Type 1 - Sheet Pile Wall or Soil Mix (Soil-Cement-Bentonite) cut-off wall and Type 3 - Reinforced Concrete Wall. This wall/bund will be maintained until the development of the SDZ lands is undertaken.
Therefore, the consideration of other options was limited as options were confined to addressing the requirements of the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme and associated SFRA. However, environmental considerations in particular; Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Biodiversity, and Noise and Vibration were all key considerations in the design development of the flood defence measures.
2.6 Conclusion An assessment of alternatives was carried out in order to identify any potential constraints that will affect the selection and development of a preferred solution for the relocation of the train station and associated works. The preferred option has been determined based on a consideration of, road and rail geometry, traffic engineering and road and train safety, land acquisition requirements and sustainable development principles. The assessment of alternatives was focused on meeting Iarnród Éireann design requirements and creating a feasible new civic space for passenger travel.
The assessment of the options considered environmental aspects however as the location of the proposed development was broadly the same there is little to choose between the various options in terms of potential environmental impacts. Parking Layout 2 Options was deemed to be the preferred option from a traffic and transportation perspective. The main environmental factors to consider between the Station Building options is from a comfort and landscape and visual perspective of each option. Alternative C (Architects Option 2) offered more of a responise and comfortable solution from a population and human health perspective and it also delivered a more visually attractive solution and better integration with the surrounding land use, Option C is deemed to be the preferred option.
Part VIII Report Page 24 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Section 3 Description of the Proposed Development
3.1 Introduction This section provides a description of the various elements of the proposed Transport Hub and associated works. The primary elements of the design, the proposed construction and operation methodologies and the relevant construction environmental management plans are described in this section.
Surveys, assessments and information that form the basis of this environmental assessment are based on the design of the proposed development as described in this section, which has been developed to a stage that permits a fully informed environmental assessment to be carried out. While further detailing will be required to fully inform procurement and construction, no design changes will be permitted that have the potential to undermine the basis of the assessment of the environmental impacts undertaken in this Part VIII Report.
3.2 Site Location and Description The proposed Transport Hub will be located on the north side of the City (and the River Suir) between the Dock Road and the North Quays Strategic Development Zone (NQ SDZ) site in the townland of Ferrybank, Waterford. It will be located 550m east of the existing Plunkett Railway Station. Figure 3.1 below illustrates the proposed development site boundary in the context of Waterford City’s south quays and the existing Plunkett Railway station.
Figure 3.1 Site Location of the proposed Transport Hub and Associated Works
The proposed development will extend for approximately 375m along the Dock Road and Fountain Street. The pedestrian entrance into the Transport Hub main concourse will be accessible by foot from the Dock Road at its eastern end. The southern boundary of the development currently bounds brownfield lands designated for development as part of the NQ SDZ. The proposed development has been designed to facilitate connection into the NQ SDZ via two pedestrian access points located at an eastern access (which is the access to the main Transport Hub concourse/ eastern
Part VIII Report Page 25 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
footbridge that extends over the railway tracks) and a western footbridge bridge over the railway tracks. 3.2.1 Existing Land Uses The total site area of the proposed development is 3.88 hectare (38,835m²). The existing land uses of the lands required for the proposed development include: • Transport infrastructure comprising parts of R711 Dock Road Dual Carriageway, existing rail line and associated railway infrastructure (Waterford to New Ross rail line); • Top Oil service station; • CIÉ/ Bus Éireann Bus Depot; • A vacant commercial unit along the Dock Road; • Former commercial/ warehousing uses associated with the former factory off Ferry lane (former Dunlop site (approved to be demolished as part of a separate planning application); • Ferrybank bus stop with shelter facilities by J.J. Kavanagh & Sons namely the 607 and 617 Bus routes (Waterford City Ballygunner routes); and • Ferrybank bring bank (glass bottle recycling facilities).
The railway line that will be used for the proposed development (located east of Plunkett Station) is currently sporadically used for goods (freight) and engineering trains only (Waterford to Belview Port). There was a twice weekly rail service connecting the North West Ireland region in/out of Port of Waterford chartered by DFDS logistics company and operated by Iarnród Éireann, but this operation is currently suspended. Low frequency rail traffic operates on the railway east of Plunkett Station i.e. one Iarnród Éireann freight/engineering train operates every two weeks for deliveries to/from Waterford Port to various Iarnród Éireann sites. 3.2.2 Plunkett Train Station Waterford train station or Plunkett Station is located on the north side of the city adjacent to Rice Bridge at a busy intersection where the R448, R711 and R680 regional roads merge at a roundabout. The station serves rail passengers from Waterford to/from Limerick Junction and Dublin.
There are two platforms at the west end of the station. These are platform 5 and 6 respectively. The main platform is quite long and due to a crossover, it was previously operated as two platforms however this is no longer feasible as the station has been restricted to one platform and passenger trains are not allowed access beyond a certain point due to an unstable rock face. The eastern end of the main platform is platform 3, the western end being platform 4. A single through-line runs between the platforms (3 & 4) and the rock face (Waterford to Rosslare line) and this is currently sporadically used for goods and engineering trains only. Historically there was also a second line, closer to the rock face, however this line has since been disused and incorporated into an extended cess (verge) area. The current passenger traffic line terminates on the southern side of platforms 3 & 4 at platform 5.
A large signal cabin (protected structure) is situated across the rail lines. The station building is a three-storey structure and includes a ticket office, Iarnród Éireann offices, welfare facilities and a waiting area. There are approximately 152 carparking spaces provided for Iarnród Éireann use adjacent to the station.
Part VIII Report Page 26 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The proposed development will involve the relocation of the existing services from Plunkett Station to the proposed Transport Hub. No works are proposed to the Plunkett Station however the station will no longer serve passenger movements once the proposed Transport Hub is operational.
3.3 General Site Layout The proposed development consists of distinct but related elements, including: • The Transport Hub/station building; • Flood defences; • Traffic, transport and connectivity (set down, parking including relocated bus parking and greenway); and • Integration with the North Quays Strategic Development Zone;
Refer to Appendix A for Site Layout Drawings.
3.4 Need for the Proposed Development 3.4.1 Current Location and Future Proofing Plunkett train station occupies an isolated location in the context of the city centre located across Rice Bridge on the north side of the city. The station is a significant interchange being the terminus for Intercity services to Waterford City from Dublin Heuston and Limerick Junction.
The current location of the train station does not lend itself to the concentric type of development that the City is proposed to embark on over the next 20 years. Furthermore, it is not deemed to be sustainable in terms of land use, transportation and environmental planning to continue to operate the railway station in an isolated and severed location that cannot be readily connected to other modes of transport.
The existing railway station is not capable of catering for the projected increase in population and economic and commercial activity to be realised in the City over the next 20 years. The following limitations have informed this conclusion: • There are acute difficulties with entering/exiting the train station by car or bicycle at peak travel times due to the level of traffic at the roundabout junction immediately outside the front of the station. This situation will deteriorate significantly as traffic volumes increase with population growth. • Lack of integration with other sustainable modes of transport makes travelling by train an unattractive option compared to car-based travel. This will seriously undermine efforts to encourage a modal shift away from the private car. • Restrictions on creating a comfortable environment for passengers due to the isolated location from other public transport modes, restricted parking and difficulties with ingress/egress all of which contribute to limiting usage levels. • Restricted options for future development at the current location. With the projected population growth, the current arrangement at Plunkett station will not be fit for purpose into the future. Restrictions include car parking, set-down spaces, bicycle parking and bus set-down space. 3.4.2 Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning The proposed development is being developed to future proof the transportation needs of the City towards sustainable, compact land use and transportation planning principles. It is widely accepted that land use and public transportation planning should
Part VIII Report Page 27 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
be integrated and harmonised in order to provide viable alternatives to car-based transport. Development is required to be concentrated in areas that are easily accessible by public transport. The current isolated and constrained location of Plunkett Station is exacerbated by a major roundabout at its entrance/exit which does not lend itself to applying the strategies of sustainable urban planning.
The principle of sustainable planning advocates mixed land uses located adjacent to the points of transit which would reduce land consumption, reduce carbon footprint and emissions, create good transport networks and in return a good quality of life in urban areas. This is the long term development strategy that Waterford City and County Council in association with Iarnród Éireann is aiming to implement through the redevelopment of the North Quays SDZ and the provision of a sustainable integrated transport hub that will support a modal shift towards walking, cycling and public transport, framed in the context of a compact sustainable concentric city model. The proposed development will provide opportunities to link with other sustainable transport schemes within the City, such as the Waterford bike scheme which is due to be operational by 2020.
3.5 Development Overview The proposed development will include the following key elements: - • The construction of a new rail station “transport hub”, including a plaza and set down parking in front of the station, and two pedestrian footbridges (east and west of the the station) to facilitate access to NQ SDZ; • Re-configuration of the car and bus parking layout of the existing Bus Éireann depot; • Construction of additional parking for Bus Éireann east of the depot; • Drainage network upgrades along the Dock Road and in the vicinity of the Transport Hub; • Construction of flood defences (along the southern boundary of the Iarnród Éireann railway).
The details of the proposed development and the likely construction sequence will comprise the following: • Site clearance to include demolition of:- the existing railway overbridge at the site, Top Oil Service station, a single storey commercial unit, level crossing signal cabin and part of Bus Éireann Depot Boundary wall; • Construction of a train station over a portion of the existing Waterford City to Rosslare railway, comprising; o A station building with floor space of 800m2 (internal) and 400m2 (covered external) that will comprise a concourse/waiting area, welfare facilities, a retail space 30.71m2, all associated facilities and a 22m long covered footbridge/concourse over the railway line located at the eastern end of the platforms (that will facilitate connection/integration with future development associated with the North Quays Strategic Development Zone (NQ SDZ); o A footbridge spanning 16.6m over the railway at the western end of the Transport Hub to facilitate connection/integration with future development associated with the NQ SDZ; o An external canopy structure approximately 105m long facing Dock Road with 15 no. flagpoles, facing a new set down and entrance ‘north plaza’ area.
Part VIII Report Page 28 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
o Two number platforms measuring approximately 200m in length accessed through the east footbridge via the station building; and o Emergency access from the southern platform, westwards along the rail line, to lead into the North Quays Strategic Development Zone. • Road and Drainage improvements and associated public realm works along 710m of the Dock Road/Fountain Street (R711). • Construction of approximately 840m of flood defence systems along the southern boundary of the existing Iarnród Éireann railway corridor; • Construction of pick up and drop off public parking facilities to the east of the station building, comprising approximately; 16 no. car set down spaces, 7 no. taxi set down spaces, 4 no. coach set down spaces and 30no. bicycle parking spaces; • Re-configuration of parking in the existing Bus Eireann Depot and construction of replacement spaces to the east of the existing bus depot site connected to the existing Bus Depot by way of an internal road; • Works comprising the integration of the Waterford to New Ross Greenway across the site; • Upgrades of drainage & foul sewer infrastructure along Dock Road and in the vicinity of the Transport Hub to facilitate future development; • Public realm improvements including lighting and landscaping; • Provision of boundary treatment and accommodation works and all ancillary works.
Refer to Development Drawings in Appendix A for details.
3.6 Architectural Design Waterford City has had a long history of train travel, dating back to 1864 with the opening of the Plunkett train station. The role of train travel as a mode of transport has an important future in Waterford as we transition to more compact sustainable development principles focus on sustainable modes of travel.
The proposed Transport Hub will be an important new civic development for Waterford City and the south-east region. The design aspirations include that the Transport Hub will serve as a new gateway/ entrance point from the north of the City, the NQ SDZ and the existing city core on the south quays. The Transport Hub will be the first impression of the Waterford’s urban city from the east approach (via Dock Road) and therefore a strong design quality for the proposed Station Building, North Plaza and public realm surrounding the proposed development. 3.6.1 Integration with the NQ SDZ The development of the adjoining NQ SDZ located to the rear (south) of the Transport Hub will be a very significant development for Waterford City. The integration with this significant future development has been an integral part of the design process of the Transport Hub. In the context of the permissible heights contained as part of the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme across the various development zone (western, central and eastern) the size and scale of the Transport Hub is very modest. However, the new Station Building, footbridges and the proposed north plaza will have sufficient presence in their own right against the proposed scale of the larger NQ SDZ development adjoining to the south.
Part VIII Report Page 29 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3.6.2 Building Composition and Materials The overall composition of the Transport Hub building is integral with the function of both the pedestrian and vehicular movement within the site, whilst also aiming to connect disparate aspects of the development, such as the two footbridges east and west (which are some 250m apart). The design of the building's plinth is composed of a series of horizontal bands that become more organic in both plan and elevation where they need to accommodate steps and ramps at each of the footbridges.
The horizontal wall is also expressive of movement and in particular the continuous horizontals of train travel. The plinth is to be finished in granite cladding and will create a robust finish on approach.
Figure 3.2 Proposed Station – North Elevation (with NQ SDZ potential heights in background (shaded in grey)
The canopy roof will be a significant feature of the Transport Hub building, that will help to convey the civic importance of the rail terminus, and the Transport hub’s function as a new gateway to the city. As you approach from the east the generous canopy continues westwards from the rail terminus along a high quality north plaza, which serves to connect both footbridges, whilst providing shelter for the adjacent bus stop and coach set down area directly in front of the Station building. At the highest level, common with the height of the rail terminus canopy, a series of tall flag masts introduce a rhythm of verticals that visually follow the line and height of the station. Finally, a number of native trees will intersect the canopy and flagpole arrangement, to soften the architectural language.
Part VIII Report Page 30 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 3.3 View from Fountain Street towards Dock Road (Eastern Approach)
It is proposed that the canopy will have an undulating soffit, with the lowest point over the ancillary accommodation to the south of the rail terminus concourse area, tapering out to a thin edge profile where the roof projects over the proposed north plaza, platforms and the eastern footbridge. The soffit is to be finished in coloured metal panelling, with colour and material consistent both inside and outside (colour to be agreed). Continuous clerestory glazing to 3 sides of the rail terminus will allow the roof to appear as if it floats above the station. A series of large circular roof lights will provide generous daylight, both to the transport hub concourse, and to the east footbridge.
Between the plinth and canopy, the remaining entrance level facades to the rail terminus will be muted in design. To Dock Road, the elevation will be solid, with the exception of a horizontal feature window to allow views from the concourse seating area towards the proposed North Plaza. This solid wall will wrap around return elevations, to create enclosures for lifts and to frame the curtain wall treatment for door openings and windows in the east and west elevations. The circular lift shaft at this level will be similarly finished in solid construction but this will feature a glazed lantern above canopy roof level.
From both the east footbridge and the platforms on the western approach, the entrance to the station concourse will be expressed as a curtain wall infill, framed between solid masonry elements. The curtain wall treatment may only be glazed where needed, with solid infill to give pattern and variety, and also to allow areas for the erection of services internally, such as information panels for example.
Materials will be robust, with minimal maintenance requirements. In choosing a texture for the granite cladding at plinth level consideration will be given to smoother finishes where any potential graffiti may be removed more easily. The entrance level band of solid masonry will be finished with a coloured render, or with a high-quality paint finish on rendered blockwork. 3.6.3 Station Spatial Arrangement The transport hub design and arrangement of spaces is reflective of their respective functions. Generous doors will be provided at the eastern entrance and will give access to the main eastern concourse space with ease of access to both the Iarnród Éireann ticket sales desk and ticket sales machine close to the main entrance. A retail space suitable for a small shop or café is also located at this eastern end of the building, to benefit train passengers and also footfall from those travelling through the
Part VIII Report Page 31 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
eastern concourse to access the NQ SDZ central area. Further ancillary spaces, which include public toilets, storage and staff areas will be located along the eastern concourse’s southern edge. 3.6.4 Station Capacity, Potential for Adaptability and Future Expansion of Building The central concourse space has been designed to accommodate 300-400 people waiting for a train, through a combination of seating and standing spaces. The station is designed so that all passengers will be retained in the concourse until such time as a train is ready to depart. The concourse will also allow for the flow of people from an arriving train to pass through the terminal and intersperse with departing passengers. The designated waiting area is within the centre of the concourse for standing passengers, with dedicated seating along the north facade, overlooking the North Plaza. It is anticipated that arriving passengers will leave the station along the southern edge of the concourse, where they will have direct access to toilet facilities and the retail space along this edge.
At the western edge of the concourse, a buffer zone is required to allow sufficient space for arriving passengers to enter and navigate the building, and for departing passengers to check timetables or automated displays on their way to a train on the platform. The platforms are accessed by steps from the concourse to an outer bridge, where lifts and stairs provide access to below. At the platform level, there are further ancillary storage facilities for the operation of the station, with additional plant space accommodated to the side of the platforms below concourse level.
While the concourse area has been designed, based on British Network Rail standards, to comfortably accommodate 300 passengers arriving, and 300 passengers waiting to depart. Should there be an unlikely requirement for the station to cater for 400 passengers each way on a rare occasion, this may still be accommodated however may be somewhat less comfortable.
In the longer term, a number of factors may contribute to a modal shift towards rail travel from Waterford. These could include further development and expansion of the rail network to other locations, the continued development and expansion of Waterford City, and societal change in travel patterns as a response to climate change. It is probable that more frequent services throughout the day, operating from both platforms would serve the increased demand for rail travel, without the need for a larger terminus. However, in principle, there is no reason why the Transport Hub concourse may not be extended westwards to provide for increased concourse level facilities. 3.6.5 Accessibility of the Station and Public Realm The function of the Transport Hub is to provide a multi-modal transport exchange. The design of the proposed development ensures the site is accessible to people travelling by all modes of transport. The site topography is generally flat however in order to traverse the railway line at the eastern and western footbridges steps, ramps and lifts are required to provide connectivity to land uses (NQ SDZ) located at the southern boundary of the proposed development.
The provision of stairways provides the most natural transition between levels for the height differentials (5m at the east bridge and 3m at the western footbridge). It is proposed that steps will be generous (of minimum 350mm treads).
The eastern footbridge is accessible by steps and escalator in both directions and is also complemented by a passenger lift. The passenger lift complies with Part M of the Building Regulations (Access and Use) at this location. Provision has also been made within this lift enclosure for a second lift at this location to account for maintenance and
Part VIII Report Page 32 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
any future development. The inclusion of escalators integrates with the plinth design and at the same time will ensure ease of movement between the north plaza and east concourse.
At the western footbridge, the stairs will be complemented by a gently sloped approach, which is again integrated within the design of the building’s plinth. The sloped approach/ ramp is proposed due to the lesser change in levels at this location. Access to both bridges from the NQ SDZ will necessitate a gently sloped approach, to raise from the lower SDZ development level of +8.75m OD to the higher levels of +9.85m OD for the east bridge, and +9.35m OD for the western footbridge.
Access to the platforms from the station building will be via stairs (again with generous 350mm treads), and passenger lifts. One passenger lift is proposed at the north and south platforms. The design also facilitates the inclusion of a second lift to the south platform should passenger numbers facilitate this requirement or for maintenance requirements. The need for an additional passenger lift to the north platform is unlikely, as access can easily be granted from the north platform to the north plaza, in the event of a lift failure. 3.6.6 Public Realm The public realm and access requirements through the site encourage footfall through- out the day and night and will ensure passive surveillance of the area. Final colours will be determined once finishes to the adjacent SDZ Development are known, but there may be a reference to the blue and white of the Déise at this significant new gateway to the City.
First and foremost, the public realm has been designed to be functional. It exists over two levels: the first level (ground level) comprising the north plaza and the second level comprising the elevated areas leading to the east concourse area and the western pedestrian bridge both leading to the NQ SDZ area. The public realm is designed to be legible and accessible by all.
The design of the north plaza can be described in three distinct parts: -
The first area is the entrance to the Transport Hub located at the foot of the steps at the east bridge/concourse area. This area will feature the greatest concentration of movement of people as it is the primary threshold to the station building and also to the adjoining NQ SDZ development. The pedestrian threshold area at this location is as generous as the site allows with the steps leading to the east bridge projecting from the plinth in an organically collecting pedestrians approaching from all directions. The combination of the generous pedestrian threshold, the presence of the steps and plinth, combined with the generous canopy over the station building and the east bridge enables this key gateway to be read by users from a distance as the main entrance. This ensures ease of way-finding, through legibility of the building and public space.
Immediately east of this north plaza area is an area for drop-off and collection by car, taxi, and overflow coach parking. The access road to this area also facilitates access to the Bus Éireann depot, so it will be reasonably heavily trafficked, and on the whole, will be much more vehicular focused. To mitigate the extent of car and coach parking, tree planting will be used to soften the view of this area from Dock Road. In addition, it is proposed that a continuation of paving surface or colour, in the form of a raised table, from the pavement at Dock Road may assist in providing comfortable and safe pedestrian access to the east bridge. The Waterford to New Ross Greenway will also terminate within this area, along the southern boundary with the railway line. Parking
Part VIII Report Page 33 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
for cycles will, therefore, be provided within this area, in close proximity to the Greenway, rail terminus, and general car parking.
The western section of the north plaza will accommodate drop off spaces for local buses serving the station and set down for coaches accessing the SDZ development. A slip road, parallel with Dock Road, will be provided to facilitate bus set down movements, with a generous, semi-covered plaza between the coach drop-off and the station platform boundary. This generous paved and the planted area will provide seating for those waiting on buses and will also serve as the key link between the eastern and western footbridges. Similarly, to the eastern bridge, the design of the horizontal plinth leading to the western bridge builds in intensity (in this instance to incorporate a gently sloped approach) to mark the threshold of the bridge. Tall street lamps on the bridge abutment will further distinguish the bridge as being of significance and help to orientate pedestrians approaching along the Dock Road.
Figure 3.4 Western Footbridge access with a view west towards the proposed ‘North Plaza’
The public realm on the bridges is functional and is designed for movement and are not necessarily a place to linger or relax. 3.6.7 Transport Hub/ Station Building The total site area of the proposed Transport Hub building and platforms is approximately 11,500m2 (excluding the bus depot locations, car parking areas, and flood defences).
The proposed Transport Hub Station Building will be a one storey building over the railway tracks. The building will be located off Dock Road, over the existing railway line. The western section of the northern platform will be located within the footprint of the existing ‘Top Oil’ petrol station. The building will consist of four main elements: • North and south platforms; • Retaining/ Boundary wall; • Station Building, including a new ‘north plaza’, east concourse/footbridge and bus set down area; and • West footbridge.
The design and construction details are described in the following sections.
Part VIII Report Page 34 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3.7 Transport Hub Construction Methodology Platforms There will be a platform provided at both sides of the rail lines. These platforms will be approximately 200m long. The level of the platform will vary from 4.0m OD (Ordnance Datum) to 4.5m OD and will typically be 915mm above the top of the railway line. The platforms will be constructed using precast ‘z-shaped’ concrete sections backfilled with a stone fill material. The platform surface will be macadam with tactile paving at the platform edge. The platforms will contain below-ground mechanical, electrical and drainage services. Sections of the platform may have localised canopy structures. The platform to the north of the tracks will be ground bearing and will sit on stone fill material. This will require an ‘excavate and replace’ of the existing ground. The eastern section of the northern platform will require approximately 2.0m depth excavation. The western section of the platform will be located within the footprint of an existing petrol station building and forecourt that will be demolished. Due to localised softer ground conditions, the southern platform will sit on a 400mm deep reinforced concrete (RC) slab/pile cap which will be supported by two rows of 355mm x 355mm precast concrete piles at approximately 5.4m centres.
Retaining / Boundary Wall There will be a boundary retaining wall between the back of the northern platform and Dock Road to the north. The proposed levels along Dock Road will vary from approximately 6.2m OD to 4.8m OD. The retaining wall will be a reinforced concrete wall and will typically be 1.8m above the proposed levels on the Dock Road. A galvanised and powder coated mesh fencing will be fixed to the top of the proposed wall.
Station Building, East Concourse and footbridge The station building and east concourse will be a raised structure with a finished floor level of 9.85m OD and a floor area of approximately 1,200m2. The Station structure will contain both internal and external elements and spans over the railway line. The train station offices, waiting areas and ancillary areas will be located within the building. The external area will provide pedestrian access via a 13.4m wide by 22m long footbridge over the railway line from Dock Road to the NQ SDZ Development and into the Station Building. The concourse will be constructed from precast concrete beams (985mm x 550mm) with a concrete infill and deck (150mm) (MY6 beams). These will sit on in-situ concrete beams that are supported by in-situ reinforced concrete (RC) columns. The substructure of these columns will consist of piles caps with 2 number bored concrete piles. At some locations, the columns will be replaced with a RC wall and similar substructure arrangement. Lift shafts will also comprise RC and will be supported by 9 number bored concrete piles. The envelope of the station will be blockwork cavity walls with a steel roof at a level of 17.98m OD which extends over the external section of the concourse.
West Footbridge The west footbridge is a raised structure with a finished level of 9.35m OD measuring 9.2m wide. The footbridge spans approximately 16.6m in a north-south direction over the rail line and the plan area is approximately 153m2. The footbridge will be constructed from 700mm deep precast concrete MY6 beams that are supported on bridge abutments and two rows of bored concrete piles. 3.7.1 Flood Defences The proposed development design includes the construction of a flood defence system along the existing railway corridor designed to future proof the development from risk
Part VIII Report Page 35 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
of flooding. There are three types of flood defence systems being proposed as shown on drawing no. WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40325 and WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE- DR-EN-40326 (Refer to Appendix A for the locations of the respective flood defences).
The proposed flood defence measures consist of the following: • Flood Defence System - Type 1: Sheet pile wall or below ground soil mix (soil- cement-bentonite) cut-off wall combined with a reinforced concrete (RC) wall above ground; o 320m in length to a depth of 5.5m; and o Minimum top of wall level of 4.24mOD. • Flood Defence System - Type 2: groundwater barrier comprising a soil mix (soil- cement-bentonite) cut-off wall and/or a sheet pile wall. o 370m in length to a depth of 5.8m; o To ground level only. (Groundwater barrier to be integrated with SDZ development undercroft structure providing protection from surface tidal flooding) (see Notes 1 and 2 below). • Flood Defence System - Type 3: Reinforced Concrete flood wall o 150m in length and embedded 1m into existing ground; o Minimum top of wall level of 4.24mOD. • An isolation structure is proposed at a suitable location east of the Transport Hub development which can be closed during a major flood event. The isolation structure will have a minimum level of 4.24mOD when deployed. This isolation structure will transverse the freight railway line (which is infrequently used) and will, therefore, provide a temporary measure which can be deployed during flood events. This “isolation structure” can comprise either: o Emergency measures: such a tubewall barrier, which is a temporary flood barrier that is lightweight, flexible and quickly deployed, making it ideal as a flood barrier for fast response to flood threats. These systems consist of air inflated tube sections that are interconnected by zips to form a continuous protective flood barrier. o Temporary measures such as removable flood-barriers (or 'demountables') are engineered to provide similar levels of protection to permanent flood defences, but with the advantage of being fully removable when not required. • Associated drainage measures e.g. back of wall drainage measures for drainage of the groundwater behind the flood defences. This will include the provision of standard drainage measures e.g. trackside drainage and filter drains which will discharge to the existing surface water drainage network.
Note 1: The proposed NQ SDZ undercroft structure is a box structure which will provide car parking/ delivery and internal access routes under the proposed NQ SDZ development. The undercroft structure can be described in simple terms as a watertight concrete box which will be founded on piles on/ or above the existing ground level. The train station building and platforms will be bounded on the south by this proposed SDZ North Quays undercroft structure. Along the railway line, the undercroft structure will form a barrier from below existing ground level (2.75mOD) to the proposed SDZ ground level (approximately 8.00mOD). The box structure will form a barrier to tidal events and provide protection to the train station and platforms.
Part VIII Report Page 36 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Note 2: Interim Measures: Flood protection for the Transport Hub is dependent on integrating the Flood Defence System Type 2 (groundwater barrier) with the proposed SDZ undercroft structure. It is envisaged that the Transport Hub including flood mitigation measures will be constructed before or at the same time as the NQ SDZ development. However, if the Transport Hub is progressed before the NQ SDZ development works interim flood defence measures will be required. These will be in the form of a wall/bund comprising Flood Defence System – Type 1 to Type 3. This wall/bund will be maintained until the development of the SDZ development is undertaken.
A separate Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment (SSFRA) has been undertaken to inform the design of the proposed development and is provided in Appendix C as part of this application.
3.8 Traffic, transport and connectivity The seamless integration with the existing and future transportation network is a key objective of the proposed development and will include: • Improved access and connectivity to the Waterford railway station from the city centre and northern suburbs; • Improved city centre bus connection (pick up and drop off – bus stops outside the Transport Hub); • Improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network including, development of a section of a shared greenway infrastructure to connect with the Waterford to New Ross Greenway and facilitate connection with future pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure to the NQ SDZ development site; and • Connectivity with the SDZ development site in accordance with the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme Access Strategy.
The train station building will be accessible to pedestrians from the Dock Road via a new north plaza area via steps, escalators, and a lift. The covered eastern footbridge over the railway line will connect Dock Road to both the station building (ticket office, concourse/waiting area, welfare facilities and platforms) and the NQ SDZ development. Pedestrian connectivity will be provided throughout the development primarily along the Dock Road and via the pedestrian crossing points at Rockshire Road junction and internally towards the set down area.
The proposed development also includes the construction of a pedestrian footbridge (over the railway line) at the western access connecting into the SDZ development accessible by steps and wheelchair ramp.
The proposed development will include a pick-up and drop-off (set down area) for local bus services and coaches along the Dock Road in front of the Transport Hub northern façade. Road improvements and public realm works will also be provided to ensure seamless integration with the planned Dock Road improvements. The development of this set down area includes for the provision of a 105m long x 2.6m wide covered walkway extending from the Station façade providing cover from the elements from the set down area to the station building and concourse. The internal Transport Hub/ building concourse area has been designed to accommodate 300 - 400 people at one time and this adequately allows for existing and future transport users.
Part VIII Report Page 37 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Parking The proposed development includes the construction of approximately; 14 short-term car set down parking spaces, 7 no. taxi waiting spaces and 4 coach/ bus set-down spaces pick-up and drop-off to the east of the station building (adjacent to the existing Bus Depot). The development will comprise of modifications to the existing Bus Depot site which requires the relocation of approximately 10 no. Bus Éireann bus spaces to the southeast of the existing Bus Éireann/ bus depot site to a new parking area to be constructed in the former factory off Ferry Lane (Dunlop Site) and connected to the Bus Depot by new internal road infrastructure.
The eastern access leading to the NQ SDZ central development area will facilitate pedestrian access to 200 car spaces that will be contained within SDZ development allocated for the use of the Transport Hub/Iarnród Éireann users, in accordance with the NQ Planning Scheme Access Strategy.
Long stay car parking to serve the Transport Hub will be required to be provided within the basement of the adjacent SDZ central zone of the development – to the south of the proposed development. This will have a large capacity (approximately 1500 cars) and the car park will be required to have access to the Transport Hub via the east and/or west footbridges to facilitate long-stay rail passengers/ staff accessing the proposed development.
Bicycle Parking There will be bicycle parking provided to the east of the proposed north plaza area. Approximately 30 covered dedicated cycle parking spaces will be provided which are located in landscaped areas. The arrangement of these spaces is to remain visible from Dock Road, to maximise passive surveillance of bicycle parking.
3.9 Demolitions The proposed development will involve the demolition of five number structures including; the existing bridge over the railway line from the Dock Road, the Top Oil filling station, a former commercial unit behind/below the petrol station, a level crossing/ signal cabin and part of boundary wall of the CIÉ Bus Depot along (R711) Fountain Street all as shown in Appendix A (Drawing no. WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR- EN-40315 & WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40316).
The development boundary contains a number of other structures and building which will be demolished as part of a previously granted Part 8 planning application in February 2019 and which have been assessed as part of the Cumulative Impact assessment contained in Section 4.11 of this report.
Part VIII Report Page 38 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 3.5 Location of Proposed Transport Hub Building Top Service Station – to be demolished)
3.10 Drainage Design The proposed development includes the construction of new surface water and foul drainage system. New surface water and foul drainage sewers are to be provided along the R711 (Dock Road), the proposed Transport Hub Access Road and the proposed greenway. The proposed sewers along Dock Road and the Transport Hub Access Road (serving the proposed train station and Dock Road) will discharge to the existing drainage network leading to the existing Ferrybank pumping station and existing outfall to the River Suir. Connections to the proposed sewers along the proposed greenway sections have been allowed for as part of this application however and will only be brought into use following the construction and commissioning of a future planned pumping station to facilitate the NQ SDZ to be developed by others and will be addressed as part of a separate planning application and is not considered further as part of this application. Refer to drawing in Appendix A Transport Hub Prop Surface Water & Foul Sewer Drainage Drawing number: WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR- EN-40320]
3.11 Landscaping The majority of the proposed new north plaza area will be paved in order to provide the efficient movement of people and connectivity to the Transport Hub and adjoining land uses by the various modes of travel across the site. The inclusion of planting in certain areas will enhance the design and the user experience of the Transport Hub area. The landscaping plan has been designed in order to: • Visually soften the ‘hard edges’: The horizontal elements of the plinth intensify at the step/ramp areas up to each of the pedestrian bridges and at the east bridge in particular. The wall at the east bridge is over 6 metres in height and will be finished in granite. The introduction of terraces and planting at this location will help to break up the scale of the plinth. There will also be soft shrubs planted at these locations and will be allowed to spread, and overhang planters below. • Add height and rhythm: A line of trees is proposed adjacent to the coach parking area. This will sit against the backdrop of flag masts and when viewed obliquely will tie in with the height of the rail terminus station building canopy to read as a continuation of the station building and increasing its presence and elevating its civic importance.
Part VIII Report Page 39 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• For the senses: Lower level planting will be provided particularly in the waiting/seating area adjacent to the coach parking spaces and will offer a calm respite from the activity and movement of the remainder of the Transport Hub site. • Improve the immediate environment: The Dock Road is a heavily trafficked urban environment. The use of trees, planting and improvements in public realm will serve to create a distinct sense place and reduce the pace through a visually attractive environment. Furthermore, at detailed design stage certain plant species will be considered in terms of their capacity to filter air pollutants common in urban environments.
Landscaping will be included as part of the station plinth level and between the east and western bridges at the North Plaza. Planting is proposed both on the boundary with the north platform wall and between trees and seating areas. In addition, the plinth design is proposed as a series of horizontal bands which diverge into terraces at the east and western bridges offering the opportunity for further planting. These planted areas are proposed as deep, generous platforms with good access for maintenance, but with sufficiently high walls between levels to prevent the potential for climbing on terraces.
It is proposed that the design of horizontal plinth walls, regular vertical masts, and repetitive street trees that have been generated within the Transport Hub site will continue out into much of the new public realm within the North Docks area. This will include the western and eastern footbridges facilitating pedestrian access to the NQ SDZ development and works in the vicinity of the greenway at Abbey Road. 3.11.1 Lighting Design The following standards and guidelines have been referenced to determine the specific design requirements proposed for the development: • BS5489-1:2013 Code of Practise for the design of road lighting • PD CEN/TR 13201-1:2014 Road Lighting – Guidelines on selection of lighting classes • IS EN 13201-2:2015 Road Lighting Performance Requirements • IS EN 13201-3:2015 Road Lighting Calculation of Performance • TII Design of Road Lighting for the National Road Network DN-LHT-03038 2018 • NRA Pedestrian Crossing Specification and Guidance
Suitable consideration shall be applied with regard to appearance and environmental aspects within the area relevant to the following; • Ecology • Nuisance light • Energy Conservation • Operational Costing • Light Pollution
Lighting design provides for low levels of lateral light spillage to avoid unwanted areas of illumination. Appendix J of this report provides further details regarding the Public Lighting.
Part VIII Report Page 40 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3.12 Maintenance and Operation The extent of land/structure ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance will be subject to agreement between CIÉ, Iarnród Éireann and WCCC. The operation and maintenance procedure will be agreed with CIÉ and Iarnród Éireann during the detailed design phase. 3.12.1 Waste and Water Supply Waste and water supply will be required for the proposed development and will be provided through existing Irish Water connections via the existing water and wastewater networks.
From briefings with Iarnród Éireann, it is understood that the majority of waste generated on-site will be collected from the cleaning of trains at the end of each journey. A bin store has been proposed at the north platform to provide for the safe short-term storage of waste, and this has been sized based on Iarnóod Éireann’s experience from the existing Plunkett Station. The bins can be easily transported from this collection point to the ‘north plaza’ for periodic collection (an exit at the east end of the north platform is at a common level with the ‘North Plaza’).
A lesser amount of waste will be generated from bins within the platform and concourse and the proposed bin store will provide for this waste collection. The retail unit within the concourse will also generate waste, which will be managed separately by the retail tenant. Space has been provided in the north platform bin store to allow for this waste storage. 3.12.2 Station Building Within the context of the Transport Hub site, there will be separate maintenance and operation of different areas. The rail terminus will be operated and maintained by Iarnród Eireann and this will include the concourse and platforms. The public plaza and bridges will be maintained by WCCC directly or by agency agreement and distinct lines of ownership and maintenance will be established prior to construction between all parties. In some case, building features of the rail terminus and east bridge will span site ownership boundaries but it is proposed that this will be agreed at the detailed design stage. Although there may be different interests within the site, the intent is that the design language between all elements will read as one, in a seamless fashion.
Tracks Ballast cleaning and other rail maintenance and are currently carried out as part of the maintenance operations of the rail line. This work will continue as part of the operational phase of the project.
Planting The majority of proposed planting is accessible from by hand/ at-grade, in particular in the vicinity of the coach parking area and to parts of the ramped access up to the western footbridge. Where planting is less accessible such as the terraces at either side of the east concourse/ footbridge steps the planters have been designed as a series of large ledges with planting arranged to the front of the planter and a fall arrest restraint system hidden at the rear.
The success of any planting proposal will rely on the correct selection of species, appropriate design and specification of planters and planting medium and on maintenance. Maintenance requirements will be dependent on species but where possible species will be selected where maintenance is low or where maintenance
Part VIII Report Page 41 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
periods are common across all species and will be decided at the detailed design stage.
Sustainable Design There are many significant drivers for sustainable design; - • The increasing cost required to provide services such as energy and water. • Stricter energy targets set under the Building Regulations now and into the future. • The desire to provide energy-efficient building development to demonstrate energy awareness and efficiency of use. • Policies contained in the Waterford City Development Plan 2013 – 2019 and Strategic Environmental Assessment.
JV Tierney & Co. Mechanical and Electrical and Sustainable Engineers have been commissioned to develop a Sustainable and Energy Strategy for the Transport Hub is to ensure that the buildings will meet the principles of the Government’s ‘National Climate Change Policy’, and Waterford City Development Plan 2013 - 2019 and that it exceeds the requirements of the Building Regulations Part L (Conservation of Fuel and Energy) and maximises the reduction in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions thus demonstrating the Client’s commitment to Climate Change.
The Sustainable and Energy Strategy for the proposed development will seek to incorporate appropriate and effective economic and environmental measures. In this respect, at the detailed design stage the Strategy that will be considered to meet sustainability and energy requirements includes the following: • Improve the energy efficiency of the building; • Targeting natural daylight factors that meet CIBSE recommendations. Good natural daylight creates a positive environment and contributes to the well-being of the occupants; • Extend the sustainable approach from the building to the site throughout the construction and handover process; • Adopt the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle throughout the design, construction and operational phases of the development. • Maximising the use of passive design measures by the use of enhanced fabric u-values in excess of Part L coupled with the delivery of an enhanced air permeability rate. These measures are critical to improving and meeting the low carbon and energy efficiency targets outlined above, and; • The design of energy-efficient M&E systems and plant that are high efficiency and registered on the SEAI Triple E register of products – Air Conditioning units, Condensing Boilers, Lighting (LED efficiency), PV Panels, etc. that will minimize the consumption of energy and maximize the air quality within the buildings: o Efficient use of natural light to offset the use of artificial light. Use of high- efficiency light fittings, LED lights, etc. for dimming, presence/ absence detection; o Efficient use of natural light to offset the use of artificial light; o Use of high-efficiency light fittings, LED lights, etc. for dimming, presence/ absence detection; o Lighting Management Plan that uses automatic presence/absence detection in the Landlord space, and;
Part VIII Report Page 42 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
o High-efficiency heating system in the form of possible air to water heat pumps. • During design and construction phases, environmental assessment methodology will be used by the design team to ensure that the buildings are developed holistically. • An integrated Water Management and Conservation Plan that incorporates the use of low water consumption equipment to ensure the minimal use of potable water, efficient sanitary appliances (low water WC cisterns, push spray taps). • Encouraging the use of public transport by using principles of environmental methodologies to reduce the reliance on cars and encourage a shift to more carbon lowering modes of transport. • Whole life cycle approach to the selection of materials used in the Transport Hub with specific regard to their carbon footprint and associated impacts.
The additional investment required to deliver a sustainable and energy-efficient design in line with the Waterford City Development Plan and national climate change targets will add long term value for the building’s owners. These benefits will require less energy, less services and therefore less resources to operate than is required for existing developments and will make the buildings more energy-efficient and will ensure that they are sustainable buildings into the future.
Solar PV The preliminary solar PV proposal has been developed by JV Tierney & Co. Mechanical and Electrical and Sustainable Engineers. The key considerations include: • Roof Orientation in order to calculate annual Solar Output. • Roof Pitch in order to calculate annual Solar Output. • Services routes. • Routes of DC cable to be kept to a minimum to maximise solar performance.
The proposal consists of: • 70.56 [m2] of Roof Mounted Solar PV; • The array consists of 42 No. 325[W] Mono QCell Solar PV Panels; and • Max Output generating 13.65kWp.
3.13 Outline Construction Stage Sequence and Methodology 3.13.1 Overview of Works The main construction elements and activities of the proposed development are as follows: • Demolition and site preparation including site clearance, and boundary security; • Establishment of site access routes and site compounds within the development site; • Construction of approximately 840m of flood defence systems; • Construction of Transport Hub (including station building, platforms, set down areas, plaza, landscaping and finishes); • Construction of bus/car-parking areas and associated works in CIÉ/ Bus Éireann (bus depot) lands and former factory site; • Permanent trackwork’s and signalling (by others);
Part VIII Report Page 43 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• Decommissioning of existing Plunkett Station (by others); and, • Installation of surface and wastewater drainage network improvements. 3.13.2 Outline Construction Stage Sequence and Methodology The construction methodology is preliminary and subject to change following the detailed design and preparation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) by the appointed contractor. Access to properties will be maintained throughout the construction phase. However, there may be restrictions to some properties, and/or disruption to utilities during certain periods but these will be minimised to avoid significant impacts. These will be detailed as part of the CEMP, Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Stakeholder Management Plan (SMP) which will be developed by the contractor and agreed with Waterford City and County Council at contract award stage.
The anticipated construction duration for the proposed Transport Hub will be 22 to 26- months (phased). The construction of the proposed development is anticipated to take place in the following sequence: 1. Establish site compound, mobilise construction plant and commence site clearance works; 2. Demolition of Structures: Demolish existing railway overbridge, Top Oil service station, and single storey commercial building. Decommission existing level crossing and demolish adjacent signal cabin (Refer to Building Demolition Plan Drawing numbers: WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40315 and WPIP-ROD- ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40316 in Appendix A; 3. Construct flood defences parallel to the railway and along the Iarnród Éireann boundary with the NQ SDZ site (refer to drawing numbers: WPIP-ROD-ENV- S2_AE-DR-EN-40325 and WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40326). The sequencing of works will need to be coordinated with the NQ SDZ developer during the detailed design phase. It is envisaged that the below-ground flood defences that comprise sheet pile and/or soil mix (soil-cement-bentonite) cut-off walls will be constructed in advance of any SDZ piling adjacent to the railway- SDZ boundary interface. The works will likely take place in the following order: o Soil mix cut-off wall: excavate guide trench for alignment, blend and mix soils with a cement-bentonite grout to treat the soil insitu to create the seepage barrier wall. o Sheet piles: drive sheet pile cut-off wall. o Construct reinforced concrete flood wall; 4. Install surface water and foul sewer networks along the Waterford to New Ross Greenway that will facilitate the future connection of a new pumping station (subject of a separate planning application) in the former factory (Dunlop Site) to replace the existing pumping station on Frank Cassin Wharf which may be required as part of the development of the NQ SDZ; 5. Excavate to formation level, commencing at the east footbridge. As the excavation works progress westward, bored concrete piles will be installed to support the east footbridge. This will be followed by west footbridge piling operation (circa 100); 6. Install circa 110 no. driven precast concrete piles to support the south station platform; 7. Construct east and west footbridges, platforms and the northern platform boundary wall;
Part VIII Report Page 44 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
8. Erect and fitout the Transport Hub Station Building (step 9 will be ongoing at the same time); 9. Install surface water and foul sewer networks along Dock Road to connect to the combined foul sewer immediately north of the existing railway level crossing; 10. Re-configuration of parking layout to CIÉ Bus Éireann Depot, and provision new coach/car parking area east of the Bus Depot on the site of former factory off Ferry Lane (former Dunlop site). 11. Demolition of part of the existing Bus Depot boundary wall along Fountain Street Dock Road adjacent the Bus Depot entrance and replace with new wall and entrance; 12. Construct road within bus/car parking and set-down areas including kerbs, road pavement construction, road marking and drainage; 13. Construct station canopies, plaza drainage and paving, terraced landscaping and other finishes throughout; and, 14. Commissioning of the station and platforms by Iarnród Éireann, post-handover.
The draft construction with approximate task durations and approximate completion dates of the proposed development are set out in Table 3.1 below:
Table 3.1 Draft Construction Sequence and Program
Works element Duration of Start Completion task (approx.) (approx.) * (approx.)** Mobilisation, site clearance and demolition 3 months Apr-20 Jun-20 Earthworks - Excavation to formation level 1 month Jun-20 Jun-20 Install surface water and foul sewer network along 1 month Jul-20 Jul-20 the proposed Waterford to New Ross Greenway Flood Defences: 4 months Jun-20 Sep-20 Sheet piling and/ or Soil Mix Cut-Off Wall Transport Hub: 9 months Jul-20 Mar-21 Piling (platforms, footbridges and station building) Platforms and Retaining Walls Footbridges (pile cap, abutment, bridge deck) CIÉ Bus Éireann Depot and former factory off Ferry 4 months Mar-21 Jun-21 Lane (Dunlop Site): Resurfacing, road marking, boundary walls etc. Transport Hub: 6 months Apr-21 Sep-21 Station building structure Install surface water and foul sewer network along Dock Road Drop-off/ set-down area (plaza) to north of station building Transport Hub: 6 months Oct-21 Mar-22 Station fitout and commissioning Total Construction Phase 24 months approx. April 2020 -March 2022
Part VIII Report Page 45 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Works element Duration of Start Completion task (approx.) (approx.) * (approx.)** Notes: * denotes start of respective month ** denotes end of respective month
3.13.3 Operational Stage Programme and Sequence Once the proposed development and the NQ SDZ development are completed, Iarnród Éireann will begin the operation of the Transport Hub. The Bus Depot, public realm areas and greenway connections will all be operational once developed.
Table 3.2 Decommissioning of Plunkett Railway Station
Works element Duration of Completion task (approx.) (approx.) Plunkett Train Station will be decommissioned once the proposed 1 day 2022 development and the NQ SDZ development is complete. The station will no longer be accessible to the public for rail travel once the new Transport Hub is built and operational. However, these areas will continue to be accessible and operational for Iarnród Éireann related activities and staff use. Note: Instead of trains stopping at the former station they will pass by the existing train station enroute to their respective destinations (Limerick Junction/ Dublin). Other associated activities will include: Prior to 4-6weeks. Alterations/replacement of existing vehicular and pedestrian operation information signage throughout Waterford City and its environs. Significant public information programme to be undertaken prior to the changeover.
To facilitate the construction of the flood defences, station footbridges, platforms and station building, the railway line east of Plunkett Station will be closed to all train movements except for Iarnród Éireann engineering trains.
The permanent trackwork, including the reinstatement and realignment of double track in the vicinity of the proposed new railway station and signalling, works to facilitate the new station/track layout is not included as part of these works and is within the remit of Iarnród Éireann. Similarly, the decommissioning of the existing Plunkett Station once the new Transport Hub is built and operational is not included as part of these works and is within the remit of Iarnród Éireann.
Operational Stage The hours of operation of the Transport Hub will be similar to the existing Plunkett Train Station, between the hours of approximately 05.00 to 21.00 Monday to Saturday and 8.00 to 21.00 Sunday. The proposed north plaza, eastern footbridge and western footbridge will remain open 24 hours per day to pedestrians.
As is currently the case, it is assumed that a 22000 Class InterCity Railcar (ICR) i.e. a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) that services Waterford will continue in operation. While freight train movements have reduced in recent years it is assumed that a 201 Class Locomotive or 071 Class locomotive will be used for freight operations. The maximum speed of these trains is 120km per hour (while travelling light) and 80km per hour when operating certain freight services.
Part VIII Report Page 46 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3.14 Construction Materials The proposed development will involve reuse of existing materials where possible, export of materials that cannot be reused (hazardous and non-hazardous) and importation of required good quality fill material. Export materials will be approximately 22,700m3. Import materials will be approximately 28,500m3. Based on the site investigations and construction methodology the excavation of construction materials will be as follows: • Non-hazardous inert material will be approximately 45% of total excavation and will be suitable for reuse provided its mechanical properties satisfy the required characteristics for fill material. • Approximately 25% of the total excavation will be hazardous material will be categorised and disposed of to a licenced waste facility in accordance with the relevant waste management legislation. • Non-hazardous material but exceeding inert levels for landfill disposal will be approximately 30% of total excavated materials.
The Transport Hub will require mostly good quality granular fill which will be imported from nearby quarries.
3.15 Construction Traffic The main construction activities, including the station building/structures, retaining walls and associated car parking areas will take place off the existing road network. The tie-in points along the Dock Road (R711) and public realm works to the existing roads and junction will involve the development of a CEMP which contains the outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to ensure all traffic movements are maintained.
The main haulage routes will be along the R711 Dock Road, R448, N29 and N25. Haulage will be limited as much as possible from using the R680 (over Rice Bridge and the south quays). There will be a requirement for a number of deliveries of materials to site and removal of materials from the site via these haulage routes.
There will be a requirement for a small number of deliveries of materials to site and removal of materials from the site via Dock Road. Peak construction traffic will occur during the importing and exporting of material. The export material (including earthworks and demolition material) is approximately 22,700m³ and the import material is approximately 25,500m³. This will generate up to 5,250 truck movements, which equates to less than 70 truck movement a day at the peak of excavation in the development. The number of daily truck movements will reduce following this peak for the remainder of the excavation phase. The haulage of these materials will generally take place outside normal peak traffic times on the surrounding road network, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be required to be provided by the appointed contract and the local authority in advance of construction.
Construction Traffic Phasing As part of the Waterford City Public Infrastructure Project and the NQ SDZ regeneration project, it is likely that a number of infrastructure projects will take place concurrently. Traffic management and phasing of works and transport/haulage routes will be required to be co-ordinated by all stakeholder through the various construction stages. The appointed contractors Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be required to be agreed and approved by WCCC prior to construction.
Part VIII Report Page 47 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Bus Traffic The Bus Depot will remain operational throughout the construction works. A replacement bus stop will be provided along the Dock Road for the duration of the works to serve J.J. Kavanagh & Sons 607 and 617 (Waterford City – Ballygunner) routes.
Rail Traffic As already discussed above, the railway line that will be used for the proposed development (located east of Plunkett Station) is currently sporadically used for goods (freight) and engineering trains only (Waterford to Belview Port). Low-frequency rail traffic (approximately 2 trains fortnightly) operates on the railway east of Plunkett Station i.e. one Iarnród Éireann freight/engineering train operates every two weeks used for deliveries to/from Waterford Port to various Iarnród Éireann sites.
There was a twice-weekly rail service connecting the North West Ireland region in/out of Port of Waterford chartered by DFDS and operated by Iarnród Éireann, but this operation is currently suspended.
3.16 Employment It is estimated that between 20 and 30 jobs will be created as part of the construction phase.
Construction Working hours Normal working times should be set at 07:00 to 19:00 hrs Monday to Saturday. Works other than the pumping out of excavations, security and emergency works will not be undertaken outside these working hours without the written permission of the Contracting Authority.
Operational Employment Employment figures during the operational phase is likely to be similar to the existing Plunkett railway station.
There is likely to be ad hoc maintenance and security staff required as part of the operational stage of the proposed development.
3.17 Construction Environmental Management Plan Prior to any demolition, excavation or construction a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be produced by the successful contractors for each element of the proposed development. The CEMP will set out the Contractor’s overall management and administration of a construction project. An Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan CEMP has also been prepared as part of this Report, see Appendix D of this Report. The CEMP will be developed by the appointed Contractors during the pre-construction phase, to ensure commitments included in the statutory approvals are adhered to, and to ensure that it integrates the requirements of the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (CESCP), Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) and the Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan (C&D WMP). The Contractors will be required to include details under the following headings: • Details of working hours and days; • Details of emergency plan - in the event of fire, chemical spillage, cement spillage, collapse of structures or failure of equipment or road traffic incident within an area of traffic management. The plan must include contact names and
Part VIII Report Page 48 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
telephone numbers for: Local Authority (all sections/departments); Ambulance; Gardaí and Fire Services; • Details of chemical/fuel storage areas (including location and bunding to contain runoff of spillages and leakages); • Details of construction plant storage, temporary offices; • Construction traffic management plan (to be developed in conjunction with the Local Authority’s – Roads Section) including details of routing of network traffic; temporary road closures; temporary signal strategy; routing of construction traffic; programme of vehicular arrivals; on-site parking for vehicles and workers; road cleaning; other traffic management requirements; • Truck wheel wash details (including measures to reduce and treat runoff); • Dust management to prevent nuisance (demolition and construction); • Site run-off management; • Noise and vibration management to prevent nuisance (demolition and & construction); • Landscape management; • Management of contaminated land, including asbestos and assessment of risk for same by suitably qualified, trained and licenced personnel; • Management of demolition of all structures and assessment of risks for same; • Stockpiles; • Project procedures & method statements for: o Site clearance, site investigations, excavations and working with asbestos containing materials (ACMS) if necessary; o Management and removal of ACMs if necessary; o Demolition and removal of buildings, services, pipelines (including risk assessment and disposal); o Diversion of services; o Excavation and blasting (through peat, soils and bedrock); o Piling; o Construction of pipelines; o Temporary hoarding & lighting; o Borrow pits and location of crushing plant; o Disposal of surplus geological material (peat, soils, rock etc.); o Earthworks material improvement; and o Protection of watercourses from contamination and silting during construction.; • Site Compounds.
The production of the CEMP will also detail areas of concern with regard to health and safety and any environmental issues that require attention during the construction phase. The adoption of good management practices listed in the CEMP on site during the construction and operation phases will also contribute to reducing environmental impacts.
Part VIII Report Page 49 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3.18 Environmental Operating Plan The Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) is defined as a document that outlines procedures for the delivery of environmental mitigation measures and for addressing general day-to-day environmental issues that can arise during the construction phase of a construction project. Essentially the EOP is a project management tool. It is prepared, developed and updated by the Contractor during the project construction stage and sets out mitigation measures proposed by environmental assessments. An Outline EOP is contained in Appendix H and will be further developed by the Contractor. TII/ NRA have created Guidelines for the Creation, implementation and maintenance of an Environmental Operating Plan and this should be referred to by the contractor in the preparation of their EOP.
Before any works commence on site, the Contractor will be required to prepare an EOP in accordance with the National Roads Authority (NRA), now known for operational purposes as Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), guidance document Guidelines for the Creation and Maintenance of an Environmental Operating Plan. Details within the plan will include: • All environmental commitments and mitigation measures included as part of the planning approval process and any requirements of statutory bodies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) as well as a method documenting compliance with the measures; • A list of all applicable environmental legislation requirements and a method of documenting compliance with these requirements; and • Outline methods by which construction work will be managed to avoid, reduce or remedy potential adverse impacts on the environment.
To oversee the implementation of the EOP, the Contractors will be required to appoint a person to ensure that the mitigation measures included in this Report, the EOP and the statutory approvals are executed in the construction of the works and to monitor that those mitigation measures and planning conditions are functioning properly.
3.19 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan The Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (CDWMP) will be included within the CEMP, clearly setting out the Contractor’s proposals regarding the treatment, storage and disposal of waste. An outline CDWMP has been prepared for the proposed development and is contained in Appendix I. The outline CDWMP is a live document that will be amended and updated to reflect current conditions on-site as the project progresses. The obligation to develop, maintain and operate a CDWMP will form part of the contract documents for the project. The plan itself will contain, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Details of waste storage to be provided for different waste; • Details of where and how materials are to be disposed of - landfill or other appropriately licensed waste management facility; • Details of storage areas for waste materials and containers; • Details of how unsuitable excess materials will be disposed of where necessary; and • Details of how and where hazardous wastes such as oils, diesel and other hydrocarbon or other chemical waste are to be stored and disposed of in a suitable manner.
Part VIII Report Page 50 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3.19.1 Relationship with Other Projects The proposed Transport Hub is being developed in the context of a number of approved, planned and future projects to include: • SDZ roads and access infrastructure (Modifications to Dock Road, Fountain Street and Abbey Road) (planning approved) • Rock face stabilisation and protection works (planning approved) • Waterford to New Ross Greenway (planning approved), • Part 8 Bilberry to Waterford City Centre Greenway link (in the planning process) • River Suir Sustainable Transport Bridge (in the planning process) • NQ SDZ development site (due to be lodged) • Flood defences west of Plunkett railway station (at the design stage) • Upgrade of railway line (at the design stage by Iarnród Éireann)
Refer to Drawings Proposed Development with Future Planned Projects Drawing no. WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40303 which illustrates some of these projects with respect to the proposed development.
Other Consents Required • Commission for Railway Regulation Approval.
Part VIII Report Page 51 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Section 4 Environmental Considerations and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Traffic and Transport 4.1.1 Introduction This chapter of the EIAR comprises of quantifying the existing traffic and transport environment and details results of the assessment work undertaken to identify any effects on the Traffic and Transport environment arising from the proposal. 4.1.2 Methodology The adopted methodology responds to best practices for carrying out traffic and transport assessments as set out in a series of publications including: • Waterford City Development Plan 2013- 2019; • ‘Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines’ (May 2014) TII Publications; • ‘Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments’, The Institution of Highways and Transportation (1994); • EPA Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports;
The scope of this traffic and transport assessment was developed in consultation with Waterford City & County Council’s Roads, Parking and Transport Department. 4.1.3 Relevant Characteristics of the Proposed Development The proposed Waterford Transport Hub will be located in the north of the Waterford City, bounded by the R711 Dock Road to the North, the proposed North Quays SDZ development to the south and west, and Abbey Road to the east. The proposed development is located 550m to the east of the existing Plunkett Railway Station. The site encompasses the existing Bus Éireann Bus Depot and Ferrybank bus stop.
The Transport Hub will be accessed through a modified Rockshire Road junction in addition to pedestrian, cyclist access from the proposed Sustainable Transport Bridge to the south via the North Quays SDZ.
The Transport Hub includes the following: • A plaza along the Dock Road that will connect the various modes including interchange between walking, cycling, bus, train and car. • Two pedestrian bridges will connect across the railway line between Dock Road and the North Quays SDZ development. One located at the eastern end of the Hub will include from the plaza level a lift, stairs and an escalator to the station concourse level over the railway and into the SDZ. The second at the western end of the station will include from the Plaza level a stair and ramp leading to the bridge and into the North Quays SDZ development. • A bus stop with capacity for 3 large buses and a coach set-down with capacity for up to 8 large coaches, provided in a service road that is parallel to Dock Road and will be entered via the Rockshire Road and existed via a signalised left-out slip lane back onto the Dock Road westbound carriageway; • A set-down area to include 14 no. car spaces, 7 no. taxi spaces and 4 no. coach parking bays, accessed via Rockshire Road Junction;
Part VIII Report Page 52 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• Extension of the Waterford - New Ross Greenway from Abbey Road into the Transport Hub plaza. • Approximately 30 no. covered dedicated cycle parking spaces; • Car and bus parking layout modifications to the existing Bus Éireann depot facilities which will continue to provide maintenance services including the provision for on-site parking for buses and staff. The reconfigured parking layout of Bus Depot will provide 45 bus spaces and 12 car spaces within the existing site and the construction of 10 bus spaces and 43 car spaces at the former factory (Dunlop site) located east of the existing bus depot.
The proposed site layout is shown on drawing number WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR- EN-40302 Transport Hub Proposed Development and drawing number WPIP-ROD- ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40303 Proposed Development with Future Planned Projects, included in Appendix A, which illustrates how the Transport Hub will be accessed and integrated with the surrounds. 4.1.4 Receiving Environment Surrounding Road Network The proposed development area is bounded to the north by the R711, known as Dock Road; which links the N29 at Slieverua (County Kilkenny) to Waterford City (via Rice Bridge and roundabout). See Figure 4.1.1 below.
SITE LOCATION
Figure 4.1.1 Map of Site and Surrounding Road Network (source: Open-Street map)
The R711 Dock Road is a dual carriageway road, with a posted speed limit of 50km/hr in the vicinity of the site. Along the boundary of the site it contains two traffic lanes, 3- 3.5m wide, in both directions. There are continuous footpaths on both sides of the R711, mostly with an average width of between 2 and 3m. However, on the southern edge of the carriageway the path narrows to a 1m width in places. There are no facilities for cyclists.
Images of the layout and conditions of both Dock Road and Abbey Road are provided in Plate 4.1.1 and Plate 4.1.2 below.
Part VIII Report Page 53 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.1.1 Dock Road towards Plate 4.1.2 Dock Road view east towards Rockshire Road Junction Abbey Road
Existing Traffic An Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) link count survey was carried out on Tuesday the 25th of October 2016. The survey took place for 12 hours between 7 am and 7 pm and occurred on the roads in the vicinity of the development site – including the R448 (to the east of Rice Bridge), R680 (Rice Bridge), Rockshire Road, R711 (at Ferrybank Sports Grounds), and Abbey Road.
The peak hours for traffic in the vicinity of the development are as follows: • Weekday AM Peak: 08:00 – 09:00 • Weekday PM Peak: 17:00 – 18:00
Schematics of the observed 2016 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.1.2 and Figure 4.1.3 on the following page.
The results show the Dock Road dual carriageway carries approximately 1,600 vehicles per hour in the AM peak and 2,000 vehicles per hour in the PM peak.
The junctions along Dock Road and at Rice Bridge are the overall determinant of traffic capacity on the local road network. Queues are often observed extending back from Rice Bridge along Dock Road in both directions (eastbound and westbound) in the AM Peak. There are no known capacity issues with the other junctions along Dock Road. Plunkett Station is accessed directly from the Dock Road and Rice Bridge Roundabout.
Part VIII Report Page 54 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.1.2 Existing 2016 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Part VIII Report Page 55 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.1.3 Existing 2016 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Part VIII Report Page 56 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The surveys and link counts were used to determine the turning movements at junctions intersecting Dock Road bounding the site. Turning counts for the AM and PM peak hours for the key junctions along Dock Road are included Figure 4.1.4 below.
2016 AM PEAK HOUR 2016 PM PEAK HOUR Junction A Rice Bridge / Dock Road
Junction B Dock Road / Rockshire Road
Junction C Dock Road / Abbey Road
Figure 4.1.4 Existing Junction Turning Movements
Part VIII Report Page 57 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Public Transport Access Waterford Plunkett Train Station is located approximately 550 metres from the development site, and is serviced by both the Dublin – Waterford, and Waterford – Limerick Junction trains. Typically, 7 trains arrive and depart for Dublin Heuston each day between Monday and Saturday. A summary of the trains stopping in Waterford train station have been provided in Table 4.1.1.
Waterford Bus Station is located on the South Quays and will be easily accessible from the site via the proposed Sustainable Transport Bridge that is to be built over the river as a central feature of the proposed public infrastructure being provided to facilitate the development of the North Quays Strategic Development Zone. The bus station is currently well serviced, with Bus Éireann and other services providing connections to the surrounding regional area, and further afield. A summary of the buses servicing Waterford Bus Station is provided in Table 4.1.2. Bus Éireann and the National Transport Authority (NTA) have recently enhanced the bus services in the Waterford City area, where 5 re-numbered routes, W1 W2, W3, W4 and W5 will serve the City with increased hours of operation and frequency.
In the current environment, the 607 and 617 serve the Ferrybank area, where the proposed Transport Hub is located. No bus stop serves Plunkett Station directly; the closest bus stop is located approximately 350m away, and Waterford bus station is located approximately 550m away. Both locations are located to the south of Plunkett Station, on the opposite bank of the Suir.
Table 4.1.1 Train Services Terminating in Plunkett Station
Service No. of Weekday Trains daily (1 way) Plunkett – Dublin Heuston 7 Plunkett – Limerick Junction 2
Table 4.1.2 Bus Services Terminating on the Waterford South Quays
No. of Route Peak Weekday Route Name No. Frequency Buses daily (1 way) W1 The Clock Tower - Merchants Quay via WIT 20 mins 47 W2 The Clock Tower - Meaghers Quay via WIT 20 mins 46 The Clock Tower - Meaghers Quay via St Johns W3 20 mins 47 Park W4 Peter Street - Brownes Road 30 mins 34 W5 Waterford Hospital - Oakwood 30 mins 34 607 Ballygunner – Abbey Park 1 hour 10 617 Ballygunner - Slieverue 1 hour 16 360(A) Waterford - Tramore 30 mins 30 (X)4 Dublin - Carlow - Waterford 1 hour 12 Rosslare Europort - Waterford - Cork - Killarney - 40 1 hour 12 Kerry Airport - Tralee 55 Limerick - Waterford 1 hour 8
Part VIII Report Page 58 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
No. of Route Peak Weekday Route Name No. Frequency Buses daily (1 way) 73 Waterford - Athlone - Longford 1 per Peak 2 355 Cahir - Clonmel - Carrick on Suir - Waterford 1 hour 7 362 Waterford - Dungarvan 1 daily 1 365 Waterford – Thomastown (Thurs Only) 2 daily 1 370 Waterford - New Ross - Duncannon - Wexford 30 mins 5 New Ross - Foulksmills - Wellington Bridge - 372 1 daily 1 Wexford 600 Cork to Dublin via Waterford & Kilkenny 2 hours 10 608 / 610 Waterford - Passage East 1 hour 30 mins 3 609 Waterford - Portlaw 1 hour 30 mins 4 610 Suirway Bus Depot - Waterford 1 daily 1 611 Waterford - Dunmore East 1 hour 30 mins 7 627 Ballygunner – The Clock Tower 30 mins 12 736 Waterford -Carlow-Dublin City -Dublin Airport 1 hour 20 mins 14 736 Waterford -Carlow-Dublin City -Dublin Airport 1 hour 20 mins 14
Pedestrian & Cycle Access Access to Plunkett Station from Waterford City is via Rice Bridge for all pedestrians and cyclists. Figures 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 represent isochrone maps in 5-minute intervals of travel accessibility by bicycle and on foot to Plunkett station.
Part VIII Report Page 59 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.1.5 Walking isochrone map from Plunkett Station
Figure 4.1.6 Cycling isochrone map from Plunkett Station
Current access for those cycling and walking to Plunkett Station is passable. The existing infrastructure provides no signalised pedestrian crossing points at the Rice Bridge Roundabout for the heavily trafficked Rice Bridge and Dock Road arms.
Part VIII Report Page 60 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Furthermore, pedestrians are only able to cross Rice Bridge / Bridge Street via a signalised pedestrian crossing to the south of the Suir. This restricts pedestrian access to Plunkett Station for those coming from the southeast of the city and poses a higher safety risk.
Similarly, no cycle lane infrastructure exists to the north of the South Quays to Plunkett Station. Given four traffic lanes are present in each arm in and out of Rice Bridge Roundabout, this must discourage cyclists from accessing the station. 4.1.5 Road Safety Data relating to any collisions on the R711 or Abbey Road in the vicinity of the development site, during the 10-year period between 2005 and 2015 was collected from the Road Safety Authority online mapping tool and analysed.
The RSA online mapping tool outlines the pattern and location of road collisions in Ireland, where personal injury was involved. Details regarding the date, severity level, circumstances of each collision are provided, along with the type of vehicle involved.
The locations of collisions on the road networks in the vicinity of the development site are visible in Figure 4.1.7 below.
Figure 4.1.7 Road Collisions Data from RSA
Between 2005 and 2015, there were 14 minor collisions on R711 Dock Road in close proximity to the site. 2 further serious collisions occurred at the Dock Road / Abbey Road junction in 2013 and at the Rockshire Road junction in 2015.
Waterford City Development Plan 2013 - 2019 The Waterford City Development Plan 2013- 2019 sets out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the functional area of Waterford City and has been guided by the PLUTS. The development of alternative means of transport to the use of the private car is a major element of the Development Plan and PLUTS and national planning and transportation policy and guidance.
Some of the key relevant Development Plan transport policies and objectives to be considered as part of the development options include the following:
Roads Objective: • “To provide an appropriately designed and constructed pedestrian river crossing located in the vicinity of the Clock Tower to provide accessibility to the North Quays and facilitate future development”. (OBJ 6.2.7) (P.90)
Part VIII Report Page 61 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Green Routes: (These include the provision of new bus network, service improvements, new bus lane and bus priority – see PLUTS Strategy 2004 for more detail). • “It is an objective of the City Development Plan to extend the scheme of green routes to the Dock Road / Ferrybank Dual Carriageway and to re-align and widen Abbey Road. The open space areas within the neighbourhood include lands adjoining the River Suir at Christendom.” (P.102) • “It is an objective of the strategy to complete the implementation of all remaining Green Routes phases during the lifetime of the new Plan.” (P.85)
Walking and Cycling: • “To provide a citywide cycle network to link all areas of the city to each other via main routes. Existing and proposed extension of the City’s cycle network is also outlined on the zoning objectives map. The proposed network is both radial and orbital, with some elements located off street in amenity areas”. (OBJ 6.2.1) • “To expand the network to connect the city centre to any proposed North Quay development with a foot/cycle bridge”. (OBJ 6.2.2) • “To provide cycle and walking networks between neighbourhood areas, further negating the need for car-based journeys”. (OBJ 6.2.4) (P.87) • “To further develop the existing network of cycleways on the existing road network, within and between the neighbourhoods, and within selected amenity areas”. (OBJ 6.2.14) (P.91) • “It is an objective to provide for a sustainable riverside walk along the northern bank of the Suir, as part of the redevelopment of the North Quays, from Rice Bridge to the City boundary, which would run through this area of open space, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive for the protection of otter & bat species.” (P.102)
Part VIII Report Page 62 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.1.8 Waterford City Development Plan 2013 – 2019, Map B – City Centre Extract
Part VIII Report Page 63 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Waterford PLUTS The Waterford City Development Plan 2013- 2019 sets out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the functional area of Waterford City. The development strategy for Waterford City has been guided by the Planning Land Use and Transportation Study (PLUTS) since 2004. The PLUTS seeks to implement integrated land use and transportation strategy for the city and its environs. Some of the highlights of the PLUTS strategy are as follows: • A new city centre, sustainable transport bridge for pedestrians, cyclists and city centre bus service which will link the redeveloped North Quays with the existing City Centre. • Provision of a rail-passenger platform on the North Quays as part of a new Public Transport Interchange. • Development of a high-quality bus-based public transport system in the City supported by Park and Ride facilities located north and south of the River.
In accordance with the Development Plan, the most direct method of tackling congestion is by providing alternative transport choices to encourage a modal shift to public transport and non-car modes, while also focussing local transport policy on developing improved public transport services and other sustainable modes. 4.1.6 Predicted Impacts Operation Traffic All traffic generated by the proposed Transport Hub, other than the long stay car parking that is to be provided for within the North Quays SDZ development, will access via the signalised Rockshire Road junction. This additional traffic consists of regular bus services and coach, taxi and traffic dropping off passengers at the station. A provision for the relocation of the W1, W2, W3 and 360(a) bus route termini from Waterford Bus Station and the Clock Tower on the south quays to the Transport Hub is included in the estimate. In addition, the 607 and 617 routes servicing the existing site are also included. Passenger drop-off and taxi generation were derived using figures from the National Heavy Rail Census Report 2017 (published by the National Transport Authority (NTA) in July 2018) and Central Statistics Office (CSO) modal split data from the 2016 census for Waterford City. The traffic generation detailed in Table 4.1.3 also includes current bus depot activity.
Table 4.1.3 Transport Hub Traffic Generation
AM Peak (8:00-9:00) PM Peak (17:00-18:00) Site Traffic Generation Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Rockshire Road Junction – Bus Depot / Transport Hub Access Total: 48 56 47 47
The additional traffic associated with the long stay train station car park, which is to be located within the North Quays SDZ development has been considered in the North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme and the associated traffic forecasts are considered below.
The predicted turning movements for traffic generated by the development and exiting the site via the Transport Hub were generated using a combination of the ANPR survey data for the AM and PM Peak hour.
Part VIII Report Page 64 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Traffic Forecasts An approved planning permission to upgrade the road infrastructure along Dock Road and Abbey Road to facilitate the future development of the Waterford North Quays SDZ has been factored into this analysis. The volume of traffic accessing at the SDZ through the proposed Eastern and Western access junctions was estimated in the Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone, Traffic & Transportation Impact Assessment, February 2018. A summary of the predicted traffic generation for the North Quays SDZ is detailed in Table 4.1.4.
The generated traffic incorporates both traffic estimates based on TRICS data. Long stay car parking to serve the Transport Hub will be provided within the North Quays SDZ, which will have a greater parking capacity than the existing Plunkett Station. Pedestrian access will be provided to the Transport Hub via the east and west footbridges to facilitate rail passengers and staff accessing the proposed development.
Table 4.1.4 North Quays SDZ Traffic Generation
AM Peak (8:00-9:00) PM Peak (17:00-18:00) Site Traffic Generation Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Western Access Junction – Dock Road / Former Hotel Site Total: 104 43 131 189 Eastern Access Junction – Abbey Road Total: 556 139 188 547
In addition to the above development traffic and for the purposes of assessing traffic growth on the surrounding road network the traffic survey baseline data has been factored up to an opening and design year using expansion factors taken from Unit 5.3 ‘Travel Demand Projections’ within the Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) Project Appraisal Guidelines (PAG).
The opening year and design year have been taken as follows: • Opening year: 2021 • Design year: 2036 (15 years after opening year)
Assuming a “Central” (or medium) growth scenario, the following growth factors were determined for both the opening and the design year: • Opening year (2021): Growth Factor: 1.071 • Design year (2036): Growth Factor: 1. 1.264
Predicted turning counts at the critical junction (Rockshire Road), for the post development in the opening (2021) and design (2036) year, are shown in Figure 4.1.9 and Figure 4.1.10.
Part VIII Report Page 65 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Opening Year (2021) AM Peak PM Peak Rockshire Road Junction without development
Transport Hub Rockshire Road Junction with development (SDZ Only)
Rockshire Road Junction with SDZ and Transport Hub development
Figure 4.1.9 Opening Year (2021) Rockshire Road Junction Turning Movements
Part VIII Report Page 66 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Design Year (2036) AM Peak PM Peak Rockshire Road Junction without development
Transport Hub
Rockshire Road Junction with development (SDZ Only)
Rockshire Road Junction with SDZ and Transport Hub development
Figure 4.1.10 Design Year (2036) Rockshire Road Junction Turning Movements
Part VIII Report Page 67 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Traffic Impact Analysis Table 2.1 within the TII Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines (PE-PDV-02045) indicates that a full traffic assessment is required where ‘Traffic to and from the development exceeds 5% of the traffic flow on the adjoining road where congestion exists or the location is sensitive’. The Rockshire Road junction sees an increase of 3.5% in the total movements when the proposed development traffic is included. This value represents the highest increase of movements through the junction at any time. As this value is below the 5% threshold this assessment has determined the increase in traffic to the Rockshire Road junction, and by extension, the surrounding network will be minimal.
In reality, the vehicular traffic figures when considering the North Quays SDZ will likely be lower when active and public transport modes are taken into consideration, as well as the implementation of the wider transportation objectives in the Waterford City Development Plan.
The potential mode change from car to walking and cycling is significant. The construction of the proposed new SustainableTransport Bridge would potentially increase the walking catchment from the City Centre to the areas north of the River Suir. This potential reduction in traffic would more than offset the traffic generated by the proposed North Quays SDZ development, hence the traffic impacts as analysed is considered to be the worst-case scenario.
Active Modes & Public Transport The location of the Transport hub will improve active mode connectivity with surrounding areas including the City Centre, the North Quays SDZ development, Ferrybank, Abbeylands and Rockshire. The relocation of the station to the south of the Dock Road will also reduce the number of crossings required to access the South Quays.
The proximity of the Transport Hub to the city centre is advantageous, that will encourage high uptake of pedestrian and cycle modes. The proposed new Sustainable Transport Bridge is required to integrate the North Quays SDZ redevelopment and Transport Hub with the city centre. The bridge is to be located in line with Barronstrand Street/Clock Tower to provide a continuous link connecting the city centre retail spine to the North Quays SDZ and beyond. The layout of the bridge in relation to the Transport Hub can be seen in Figure 4.1.11 below.
Part VIII Report Page 68 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.1.11 Pedestrian access to the North Quays via the proposed Sustainable Transport Bridge.
The benefits of the proposed Sustainable Transport Bridge will be maximised by providing regular links between the surrounding areas including Ferrybank, Abbeylands and Rockshire to the city centre. The new and upgraded junctions on the Dock Road will incorporate high-quality pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities to the SDZ lands to increase permeability from residential areas to the north and east. The principal pedestrian and cycle access to the site will be provided at the Rockshire Road junction and from within the SDZ via the proposed East and West pedestrian bridges. Access will also be available via the proposed greenway along the disused Waterford to New Ross railway line, to the east of the SDZ site.
The proposed bridge crossing at the River Suir will also provide a pedestrian and cyclist link to the proposed development from Waterford City centre. This will enable pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the need to travel further west to Rice Bridge and will provide a shortcut to the city centre from the north. The proposed bridge also provides a direct connection with existing cycle lane infrastructure in the city, providing a continuous cycle lane from the city to the proposed site. The proposed Transport Hub would, therefore, be in a more beneficial position to provide those using active travel modes to access rail services.
Bus The Bus Depot will remain operational throughout the construction works. A replacement bus stop will be provided along the Dock Road for the duration of the works to serve J.J. Kavanagh & Sons 607 and 617 (Waterford City – Ballygunner) routes. No significant impacts are likely.
Part VIII Report Page 69 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The provision for expanded bus services operating from the Transport Hub to tie in with the train services may reduce car dependency in accessing the station. Similarly, the proposed use of a shuttle vehicle across the future Sustainable Transport Bridge would facilitate the connection between Transport Hub and the South Quay and Clock tower bus stops, reducing journey time for passengers and further facilitating modal shift toward public transport both within Waterford City and in the wider surrounding region.
Rail Traffic Services to and from Plunkett Station will not be affected during the construction of the proposed development. Existing services will terminate in the proposed Transport Hub following the commissioning of the new station. No change in the frequency of services (7 trains to and from Dublin and 2 trains to and from Limerick Junction on a typical weekday, with a reduced level of service on a Sunday) are expected both during construction and following the completion of the Transport Hub but the Transport Hub provides the capacity for expansion of the train services.
The improved location of the train station in the development will enhance access to the site for those using active modes or public transport. This will positively impact travel to and from Waterford, providing a better connection to a wider catchment of people outside of Waterford City and providing better connectivity for tourists arriving by train to the city. This would complement Irish Rail’s long-term strategic plan for Waterford, to provide an hourly service to Dublin in addition to a peak hour commuter service to Carlow & Kilkenny.
Construction Stage Traffic The main construction activities will take place off the existing road network. The tie- in points and management of traffic to and from the site will involve the development of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to ensure all traffic movements are managed and maintained.
There will be a requirement for a small number of deliveries of materials to site and removal of materials from the site via Dock Road and Abbey Road. Peak construction traffic will occur during the importing and exporting of material. The export material (including earthworks and demolition material) is approximately 22,700m³ and the import material is approximately 28,500m³. This will generate up to 5,250 truck movements, which equates to less than 70 truck movement a day at the peak of excavation in the development. The number of daily truck movements will reduce following this peak for the remainder of the excavation phase. The haulage of these materials will generally take place outside normal peak traffic times on the surrounding road network, a CTMP will be required to be provided by the appointed contract and the local authority in advance of construction. Given the modest volume of construction traffic, this will not have a significant effect on traffic in proximity to the site.
Summary of Predicted Impacts. The conclusions of this assessment are as follows: • The anticipated two – way traffic flow to and from the Transport Hub development at the upgraded Rockshire Road junction access onto Dock Road during am peak hour is 104 vehicles, while the pm peak hour is 94 vehicles. The anticipated increase represents a 3.5% increase in traffic at the Rockshire Road junction in the opening year. Further junction analysis is therefore unnecessary due to the slight increase in traffic in the overall junction.
Part VIII Report Page 70 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• The relocation of the train station to the proposed location will encourage a modal shift and will facilitate improved public transport links to the station, in addition to reducing cycle and walking journey times to the City via the proposed Sustainable Transport Bridge. • During the construction stage most of the works can be undertaken offline (off the existing road network). Given the volume of construction works it will not have a significant effect on traffic in the area. 4.1.7 Mitigation Measures Construction Stage • The contractor will be required to prepare a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and associated CTMP that maximises the safety of the workforce and the public and minimises traffic delays, disruption and maintain access to residences and businesses, and must meet the approval of the Waterford City & County Councils’ Roads Department. The CTMP will address temporary disruption to traffic signals, footpath access and the management of pedestrian crossing points. The CTMP will also address haulage routes, delivery and staff access to the site. The contractor shall provide an appropriate information campaign for the duration of the construction works. • As part of the Waterford City Public Infrastructure Project and the North Quays SDZ regeneration project, it is likely that a number of infrastructure projects will take place concurrently. Traffic management and phasing of works and transport/haulage routes will be required to be co-ordinated by all stakeholder through the various construction stages. The appointed contractor’s CTMP will be required to be agreed and approved by Waterford City & County Council prior to construction.
The following restrictions will be adhered to in the CTMP unless agreed otherwise with Waterford City & County Council’s Roads Department: • The Contractor shall provide and maintain temporary traffic management in accordance with the Department of Transport Traffic Signs Manual. • Access to local properties shall be maintained at all times. Works to any accesses shall be planned in consultation with the property owners to minimise disruption. • Existing footways and cycle tracks shall be maintained at all times except where such footways and cycle tracks are at the point of being removed for the completion of the Works. In such circumstances, the Contractor shall provide temporary footpath or cycle track diversions, with sufficient advance signage informing people of the diversions.
Operational Stage The proposed road and junction upgrades that are necessary to accommodate the future development of North Quays SDZ have been determined to ensure that the surrounding road network is capable of accommodating the additional traffic. The traffic analysis shows a minor increase of traffic at the Rockshire Road junction at the Transport Hub access. The surrounding road network will operate satisfactorily and therefore no further mitigation measures are considered necessary.
Part VIII Report Page 71 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.2 Population and Human Health 4.2.1 Introduction This Section addresses the potential impacts on population and human health as a result of the construction and operation phases of the proposed development. Actual and perceived impacts of the proposed development may arise on population and human health from various aspects of the proposed development. These impacts are also dealt with throughout this Part VIII Planning Report, in particular the following Sections of this report: Landscape and Visual (Section 4.6), Noise and Vibration (Section 4.7), Air Quality and Climate (Section 4.8); Material Assets and Land (Section 4.10) and Interactions, Major Accidents and Cumulative impacts (Section 4.11). 4.2.2 Methodology A study of the predicted impacts on population and human health generally addresses impacts at the community level rather than for individuals or identifiable properties. The assessment of impacts at a local level has focused on the communities adjacent to, or in the general environs of, the proposed development. The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this Report and the impact assessment carried out in this section is informed by the assessments carried out for other sections of the report namely; Traffic and Transport, Hydrology (Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment), Material Assets, as well as Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology.
Under this section, particular emphasis has been given to the impacts on local vehicle journeys, pedestrians, cyclists and local residents in terms of the following five headings: • Journey characteristics: an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on journey time, journey time reliability and travel patterns. • Community severance: an assessment of the impact of the proposed development with regard to community severance, including impacts on the use of community facilities, particularly those used by older people, children or other vulnerable groups. The category includes both new severance and relief from existing severance. • Amenity: An assessment of the impact on general amenity arising from the proposed development including traffic conditions and people’s exposure to traffic (i.e. safety, noise, dirt, air quality). This category also includes impacts on sites used for amenity purposes and general impacts on local quality of life. • Economic impacts: an evaluation of the proposed development in the context of economic prospects and employment. • Human Health: considered with reference to and interactions with other environmental receptors contained in corresponding sections such as air, noise, traffic, as appropriate. 4.2.3 Relevant Characteristics of Proposed Development The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this Part VIII Report and comprises; the Transport Hub, the associated parking areas (CIÉ Bus Depot and associated parking areas), demolition works and construction of flood defences. The construction stage of the development will result in noise and air emissions and an increase in construction traffic within the surrounding area. The operational stage will provide transport infrastructure for the general public and will provide a means of integration with the surrounding environment.
The proposed development has been designed having regard to the following design standards:
Part VIII Report Page 72 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS); • Iarnrod Eireann Track Standard I-PWY-1101 (Requirements for Track and Structure Clearances); • Iarnrod Eireann Track Standard I-PWY-1141 (Passenger Platforms and Barrow Paths); • Official Journal of the EU Commission Regulation (EU) No. 1300/2014 (interoperability standards relating to accessibility for rail travel); • Network Rail UK Station Capacity Planning Guidance (November 2016); • Network Rail Station Design Principles (March 2015); • Building Regulations Technical Guidance Documents Parts A-M; • Universal Design Standards - Centre for Excellence in Universal Design (2015); and • Changing Places standards as described at www.changingplaces.ie 4.2.4 Receiving Environment There are no inhabitants within the proposed development boundary. As per Sections 3.2.1 Existing Land Uses and Section 4.1 Traffic and Transport of this Report, the existing land uses of the lands required for the proposed development primarily comprise transport infrastructure including the R711 Dock Road Dual Carriageway and the existing rail line and associated railway infrastructure (Waterford City to Belview Port / Port of Waterford freight line). Other land uses within the development boundary include a service station which will be decommissioned and demolished, a former warehousing / commercial building, a Bus Depot for CIÉ/ Bus Éireann and an area used for a bring bank/bus shelter. There are also a number of wayleaves within the development boundary relating to CIÉ, The Port of Waterford Company, and Waterford City and County Council/ Irish Water. The existing landownership and wayleaves associated with the proposed development are illustrated in Drawing number WPIP- ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40310_[S1-P03] entitled ‘Trans Hub Land Owner and Wayleaves’ in Appendix A of this Report. Waterford City and County Council and CIE own all of the lands associated with the proposed development area.
The 2016 census revealed that the population of Waterford City and its environs in 2016 was 53,504 persons, showing a 12.7% increase in population since 2011 (CSO, 2019). According to the Draft Southern Regional Spatial Economic Strategy (RSES), the minimum target population for 2040 in Waterford City and suburbs is 81,000 persons i.e. a 66% increase in population is anticipated from 2016 population figures. The Draft Southern RSES identifies housing development and provision of employment opportunities as focal topics for achieving the desired population in Waterford City by 2040.
The proposed development is located within the Ferrybank townland of Waterford. According to the 2016 census, the population is 858 persons. The Ferrybank suburban area, north of the development building, comprises the majority of the recorded population. There are residential properties within Ferrybank, with some located along the northern boundary of Dock Road. There are a number of low-density residential properties located on Sion Row, immediately west of the Top Oil petrol station. There are also educational, institutional and community uses located along the Dock Road, Abbey Road and Rockshire Junction in proximity to the proposed development namely; Abbey Community College, the Church of Ireland Abbey Church and Graveyard, Ferrybank Secondary School, Saint Joesph’s Home, Our Lady of Good Counsel,
Part VIII Report Page 73 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Power’s Funeral Directors and a range of neighbourhood facilities including shops, pharmacy, general practitioner practice and restaurants.
The lands to the south of the proposed Transport Hub have been designated as part of the North Quays ‘Strategic Development Zone’ for which the North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme allows for the provision of significant mixed-use development. Consequently, it is anticipated that the population in the vicinity of the Ferrybank townland will increase in the future.
The CIÉ Bus Depot is within the proposed development area while Bus Éireann and other private coaches, which create an extensive bus network for Waterford City and wider, regional areas, operate from Merchant’s Quay on the south quays.
The existing Plunkett Train Station is situated on the north side of the City, approximately 500m from the City centre and approximately 550m west of the proposed Transport Hub. There are currently a number of issues with the existing station including: • Poor access for pedestrians and cyclists; a signal-controlled junction is provided on the west arm of the Rice Bridge Roundabout, while there is an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing to the east of the roundabout across the dual carriageway; • No connectivity between rail services and scheduled bus services at Plunkett Station. The station has no bus stop nor adequate opportunity to install one; • The absence of an adequate set down area leads to set downs and collections being made by way of double parking in the car parking area which blocks in cars already parked and interferes with the operation of the taxis; • Instability of the rock face adjacent to the tracks which have caused the closure of platforms for safety reasons; and • Flooding is causing reputational damage and preventing upgrading of signalling which is, in turn, becoming obsolete
The train station services two rail corridors: the Waterford to Dublin and the Waterford to Limerick Junction rail corridors. According to the National Heavy Rail Census Report 2017 (NTA, 2018), approximately 460 persons in total use these rail corridors daily.
The Waterford to Dublin rail corridor provides 8 trains to, and from Waterford City daily between Monday and Saturday. The Waterford to Limerick Junction rail corridor is only serviced twice daily between Monday and Saturday. On average, only 25 persons use this rail corridor (see Table 4.2.1). This amounts to 10 no. scheduled arrivals and 10 no. scheduled departures on the busiest days.
On a daily average, 435 persons use this rail corridor (NTA, 2018). On average, the peak AM train departing Waterford carries 109 passengers while the peak PM train arriving into Waterford services 163 passengers (see Table 4.2.1) as derived from the figures provided in the Heavy Rail Census Report (NTA, 2018). On average, 25 persons use this rail corridor between Waterford and Limerick Junction (see Table 4.2.1).
Furthermore, the railway line that will be used for the proposed development (located east of Plunkett Station) is currently sporadically used for goods (freight) and engineering trains only (Waterford to Belview Port). Low-frequency rail traffic (approximately 2 trains fortnightly) operates on the railway east of Plunkett Station i.e.
Part VIII Report Page 74 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
one Iarnród Éireann freight/engineering train operates every two weeks used for deliveries to/from Waterford Port to various Iarnród Éireann sites.
Table 4.2.1: Average Daily Passenger Numbers for Waterford – Dublin and Waterford – Limerick Junction rail corridors
Waterford – Limerick Waterford - Dublin Total Time Jn Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures 06:00 - 07:00 0 109 0 0 0 109 07:00 - 08:00 0 109 0 13 0 121 08:00 - 09:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00 - 10:00 54 0 0 0 54 0 10:00 - 11:00 0 54 0 0 0 54 11:00 - 12:00 0 0 13 0 13 0 12:00 - 13:00 54 54 0 0 54 54 13:00 - 14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 - 15:00 0 54 0 0 0 54 15:00 - 16:00 54 0 0 0 54 0 16:00 - 17:00 0 0 0 13 0 13 17:00 - 18:00 54 0 0 0 54 0 18:00 - 19:00 0 54 0 0 0 54 19:00 - 20:00 163 0 0 0 163 0 20:00 - 21:00 54 0 13 0 67 0 21:00 - 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 435 435 25 25 460 460
The existing Plunkett Train Station provides car parking spaces to accommodate for 152 cars. The isolated and restricted location of the train station denies the possibility for any future service expansion to accommodate the population increase in the City. 4.2.5 Predicted Impacts The predicted impacts on Population and Human Health will be assessed with respect to the construction and operation phases of the proposed development.
Construction Phase Impacts on Population and Human Health The construction phase of the proposed development will temporarily have impacts on traffic, the visual amenity, noise and air quality. The volume of these emissions, however, is not likely to be significant as the construction works will be short term and will be subject to the application of standard construction health and safety measures.
All works will be subject to the implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) and Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and a Stakeholder Management Plan (SMP) which will be required to be prepared by the appointed contractor and agreed with Waterford City and County Council prior to construction works. These plans will ensure risks to
Part VIII Report Page 75 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
human health including risks to noise, air quality, water quality, traffic and the visual amenity will be controlled on-site during construction.
Journey Characteristics: The construction activities will be carried out off the existing road network. However, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be implemented for the works involving tie-in points and upgrades to the existing roads in order to maintain all traffic movements and therefore impacts will not be significant on journey characteristics.
Severance: The majority of construction works will occur offline of the existing road network and no roads will be closed during construction. There will be no new community severance from the construction phase of the proposed development.
Economy: The construction phase of the proposed development will create employment opportunities for the local population and will have a short-term positive impact on the local economy. It is estimated that between 20 and 30 jobs will be created as part of the construction phase. Additionally, local purchasing of construction materials and the expenditure of construction workers will also have a positive impact on the local economy.
Human Health: Potential human health risks have been assessed in this Part VIII report and are detailed in the relevant sections of this report (Section 4.8 Air Quality, Section 4.7 Noise and Vibration, Section 4.5 Hydrology etc.). Risks to human health are low during the construction phase and will be addressed and managed as part of the CEMP, EOP, SMP and CTMP accordingly. The proposed development is not likely to create significant risks to human health.
Major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances pose a significant threat to humans and the environment. Such accidents can give rise to serious injury to people or serious damage to the environment, both on and off the site of the accident. Trans- Stock Warehousing and Cold Storage Ltd. is an Upper Tier Seveso site located within 700m of the proposed development. Due to the nature of construction works at this location, primarily associated with the construction of an at-grade parking area for cars and buses., it is not likely that the proposed construction works will pose a risk to human health. A copy of the Part VIII application will be submitted to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) for comment as appropriate.
Operational Phase Impacts on Population and Human Health Journey Characteristics: The operational phase of the proposed development will result in a small increase in traffic at Rockshire Road Junction, however according to the Traffic and Transport Section 4.1 of this report, the traffic increase will be minimal and will not have significant effects on the operation of the roads network. The improved accessibility of the proposed Transport Hub will improve the journey characteristics and journey amenity of those using public transport within the City particularly from a safety perspective with designated set down and pick up facilities. Furthermore, improvements in rail travel can provide a more attractive, convenient, time-efficient and less stressful mode of transport that the private car as people can now work from the trains saving time travelling while also working on the WiFI connected trains. The integration with the Waterford to New Roos Greenway and other proposed transport infrastructure, refer to Appendix A - Pedestrian and Cycle Routes (Drawing no. WPIP-ROD-ENV-S”_AE-DR-EN-40341) illustrates the proposed development with future projects including the Waterford to New Ross Greenway, Sustainable Transport Bridge (in planning) and the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme – indicative pedestrian and cycle routes. All of these improvements will greatly improve
Part VIII Report Page 76 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
the pedestrian and cycle network, which will result in improvements in journey characteristics and general amenity value.
Severance: The proposed Transport Hub will improve the integration of sustainable modes of transport, particularly integration with the public transport network within Waterford City, providing improved transport infrastructure for the City and the southeast region. It will reduce community severance which currently exists between the north and south of the City and within the Ferrybank area. It will create a multi- modal transportation network in the City due to the proximity of the rail to improved bus services and to the future Waterford to New Ross greenway and wider pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure upgrades. Existing private wayleaves by CIE, Irish Water and WCCC will not be affected as part of the proposed development.
Amenity: The proposed Transport Hub will have a positive impact on the general amenity for users. The segregation and connectivity between different modes of sustainable transport will likely improve the general amenity of those who are using the infrastructure as well as the general amenity of the City. It will also reduce journey times for the residents of Waterford City by providing more direct and safer routes and improved options relating to the availability of quality pedestrian and cycle modes of transport in the City. The pick-up and drop-off facilities at the proposed station building will make sustainable transport more accessible, improving journey amenity across different modes.
Economy: There will be no change to Iarnród Éireann employment as a result of the operational phase of the proposed Transport Hub. A small retail space will be developed within the main concourse of the proposed Transport Hub that will sell convenience goods for rail users and passerby by, it will result in approximately 2-5 employment opportunities.
Human Health: The relocation of services to the Transport Hub will result in improvements in safety and comfort due to improved access to the rail and road infrastructure that is associated with accessing a transport interchange. The impact of additional traffic movements at Rockshire Road Junction, within the Transport Hub site and the relocation of the train services, have been taken into account and are not significant. The Air Quality and Climate section found that the proposed development will not result in a significant impact on human health (refer to section 4.8). Furthermore, the Noise and Vibration section found that there will be no significant effects on human health. The proposed development has also been designed in accordance with a number of design standards as listed in Section 4.2.3 while an Evacuation and Emergency Response Plan and Outline Fire Strategy have been prepared and are included as Appendix F of this Report.
The proposed Transport Hub presents an opportunity to support the transition towards a more sustainable means of transport thus, having a positive, long-term effect on population and human health.
The operation of the proposed development is likely to have a long-term, significant, positive effect on population and human health. 4.2.6 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures Construction Mitigation and Monitoring Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for the construction phase of the proposed development are as follows:
Part VIII Report Page 77 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Environmental Operating Plan (EOP), Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Stakeholder Management Plan (SMP) will be implemented as part of the construction stages to account for all works associated with the construction of the proposed development, including pre-construction site clearance works. These documents will address likely human health risks and ensure construction practices and measures are put in place to minimise any effects on road users. The overall aim is to minimise risk to population and human health during construction works; • A CTMP will be submitted for approval to the Waterford City and County Council Road and Traffic Division by the appointed contractor prior to the commencement of any construction works as part of the Environmental Management Plan. This plan will ensure that temporary traffic works and road safety measures will be put in place during the construction of the proposed development and in particular during the construction of the two proposed junction tie-ins. The plan will ensure that the required diversions and traffic management measures are put in place to minimise the impact on local road users. The CTMP will also inform the Contractor of the relevant guidance documentation which will need to be followed during construction phase; • A Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan will also be prepared by the contractor and approved by Waterford City and County Council prior to the works. This will address all types of material to be disposed of and will ensure that the removal of waste from site is carried out in line with the relevant waste and environmental management legislation; • All construction areas, including the proposed temporary construction compounds, will be suitably fenced and screened. Access to the site will be limited to authorised personnel in the interest of public health and safety; and • Safe working practices, in accordance with the relevant legislation, will be in place during the Construction Phase to protect the workers and visitors to the construction sites.
Operational Mitigation and Monitoring Measures • Implementation of the Evacuation and Emergency Response Plan; • Implementation of the Fire Strategy and; • Appropriate integration with associated transport infrastructure and NQ SDZ development in the area. • Appropriate lighting design and public realm design including street furniture at detailed design stage to detract against loitering and/ or ant-social behaviour. • 24/7 CCTV of the proposed North Plaza and pedestrian thoroughfares; and • Ongoing maintenance of public realm areas in the interest of health and safety. 4.2.7 Residual Impacts The residual impacts are the final or intended effects which occur after the proposed mitigation measures have been implemented.
The potential for impacts on population and human health during the construction stage will be mitigated through the measures outlined in section 4.2.6 and are likely to have imperceptible residual effects.
Overall it is considered that during the operational stage, there will be significant positive long-term effects associated with the proposed development on population
Part VIII Report Page 78 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
and human health. The proposed development will involve improved connectivity to the train station. After the development of the North Quays Strategic Development Zone the new Transport Hub will become active and will result in improving pedestrian and cyclist access and improved comfort and safety for those using the rail service in Waterford City. The proposed Transport Hub will be accessible from the proposed Sustainable Transport Bridge and will facilitate integration between different modes of public transport in Waterford City which will encourage sustainable travel into the future. The location of the proposed Transport Hub and Sustainable Transport Bridge will help integrate the existing city centre and proposed North Quays extension of the city centre into a single viable economic unit. It will support the concentric planning model. 4.2.8 Difficulties Encountered There were no difficulties encountered throughout this assessment. 4.2.9 References National Transport Authority, (2018). National Heavy Rail Census Report 2017Census 2016 Results. Available at: https://www.cso.ie/en/census/
Part VIII Report Page 79 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.3 Biodiversity 4.3.1 Introduction This section examines the ecology of the receiving environment within and surrounding the proposed Transport Hub and assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development on Biodiversity. The methods employed to establish the ecological baseline within and around the proposed development are described in this section. The ways in which habitats, species and ecosystems are likely to be affected by the proposed development are explained and the magnitude of the likely effects predicted, taking into account the conservation condition of the habitats and species under consideration. Standard protection and enhancement measures are also proposed, and any residual effects are assessed, taking into account the mitigation and enhancement measures proposed.
An Appropriate Assessment (AA) Screening Report has been submitted with this Part VIII planning application which examines whether or not the proposed development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, in view of best scientific knowledge, is likely to have a significant effect on one or more Natura 2000 sites. The conclusion of the AA Screening Report is reproduced below in italics: “In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, Part XAB of the Planning and Development Acts, the relevant case law, established best practice and the Precautionary Principle, this AA Screening Report has examined the details of the Project and the relevant European sites and has concluded, on the basis of objective information, that the Project, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, in view of best scientific knowledge, is not likely to give rise to impacts which would constitute significant effects in view of the Conservation Objectives of the Lower River Suir SAC or any other European site. In light of this conclusion, it is the considered opinion of ROD, as the author of this AA Screening Report, that Waterford City & County Council, as the Competent Authority, may find in completing its AA Screening in respect of the Waterford City Transport Hub that the Project, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, is not likely to have a significant effect on the Lower River Suir SAC or any other European site, in view of best scientific knowledge and the Conservation Objectives of the site concerned. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the author of this AA Screening Report that the Competent Authority may determine that AA is not required in respect of the Project.” 4.3.2 Methodology 4.3.2.1 Establishing the Study Area The extent of the study area is defined by the ecological features likely to occur within an effects distance from the proposed development. The study area included a 100m buffer around the proposed development boundary and 150m along the River Suir to take potential disturbance to Otter into account. 4.3.2.2 Desk Study During the preparation of this report, a desk study was undertaken which involved thorough reviews of existing information relating to biodiversity in the vicinity of the proposed development. A number of web-based geographic information systems (GISs) were used to obtain information relating to the natural environment surrounding the proposed development. These included the National Parks and Wildlife Section Map Viewer (NPWS, 2019), which provided information on the locations of protected sites, the National Biodiversity Data Centre’s Biodiversity Maps (NBDC, 2019), which provided recent and historic records of rare and protected species in the area, and
Part VIII Report Page 80 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Ordnance Survey Ireland’s GeoHive, which provided additional information on the wider environment. 4.3.2.3 Field Surveys An ecological walkover survey of the study area was conducted by suitably qualified ecologists from ROD on 25th September 2018. This included a habitat/botanical survey and a protected species survey. The surveys and subsequent assessment were based primarily upon the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (CIEEM, 2018) and the TII/NRA Guidelines on Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna on National Road Schemes (TII/NRA, 2009). Habitats present were classified in accordance with A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000) and mapped following Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping (Smith et al., 2011).
The protected species survey was designed to record evidence of European Otter (Lutra lutra) and other protected species, adhering to the methodology outlined in Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2008). The survey also aimed to identify habitats with potential to support important assemblages or significant populations of birds of conservation concern.
As part of the multidisciplinary survey, a bat roost suitability assessment was carried out following Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins (ed.), 2016).
Survey Limitations Standard survey methods were followed. However, any biases or limitations associated with these methods could potentially affect the results collected. Whilst every effort was made to provide a full assessment and comprehensive description of the study area, population fluctuations may not be fully reflected due to the instantaneous nature of the field surveys. However, the field surveys together with the background knowledge provided by the desk study, provides a robust representation of the baseline for the habitats and species within the study area. 4.3.3 Receiving Environment The proposed development will be located on the North Quays of Waterford City, between the Dock Road and the North Quays Strategic Development Zone (NQ SDZ) site. The North Quays are currently semi-derelict and disused. The landscape is composed of industrial-scale wharves, a railway line and Dock Road (R711). There has been an extensive programme of demolition on the North Quays in recent years resulting in the presence of large areas of open space and hard standing on the wharves. Property boundaries are defined by walls, scrub and hedgerows. The site of the proposed development has been highly modified from its natural state over centuries of urbanisation and navigation and is urban in its character. The River Suir is located 25m south (at its closest point) of the proposed development. 4.3.3.1 Desk Study Results Biodiversity Ireland Database Table 4.3.1 lists the rare and protected species recorded by the NBDC within the tetrad pertaining to the study area (S61B). Table 4.3.2 lists the Invasive Alien Species (IAS) recorded within this tetrad.
Part VIII Report Page 81 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.3.1 NBDC Records from within the Study Area
Common name Scientific name Status Mammals Red Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris WA Badger Meles meles WA Otter Lutra lutra HD-II Amphibians Common Frog Rana temporaria HD-V Smooth Newt Lissotriton vulgaris WA Reptile Common lizard Zootoca vivipara WA Birds Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus BoCCI-Red Common Gull Larus argentatus BoCCI-Amber Stock Dove Columba oenas BoCCI-Amber Redshank Tringa totanus BoCCI - Amber Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo BoCCI-Amber Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata BoCCI-Amber Swallow Hirundo rustica BoCCI-Amber
Table 4.3.2 Invasive Species Recorded within the Study Area
Common name Scientific name Three-cornered leek Allium triquetrum Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica Giant Knotweed Fallopia sachalinensis Himalayan Knotweed Persicaria wallichii Grey Squirrel Scirius carolinensis Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus
Bat Data A bat fauna study of the north quays site (Kelleher, 2014) included a desk study, details of which are outlined below.
The existing bat records within 10 km of the proposed development (sourced from BCI’s National Bat Records Database) revealed that seven of the ten known Irish species have been observed locally. These include Common Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and Soprano Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Leisler’s Bat (Nyctalus leisleri), Brown Long-eared Bat (Plecotus auritus), Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis daubentonii), Natterer’s (Myotis nattereri) and Whiskered Bat (Myotis mystacinus) as shown in Table 4.3.3. Roosts of some of these species are also known within this radius but none are in the vicinity of the proposed development.
Part VIII Report Page 82 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.3.3 Status of Bat Species within 10 km of the Proposed Development
Common name Scientific name Presence Roosts Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Present 3 known Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Present 1 known Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii Potential - rare 0 known Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri Present 4 known Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus Present 3 known Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros Absent N/A Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii Present 0 known Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri Present 1 known Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus Present 2 known Brandt’s bat Myotis brandtii Potential - rare 0 known Source: Aardwolf Wildlife Surveys Bat Fauna Survey (Kelleher,2014)
A bat study was undertaken by Andrew Harrington on behalf of Waterford City and County Council prior to the demolition of buildings on the north quays in June and July 2017 (Harrington, 2017). During the surveys on the 1st July 2017 (dusk) and 2nd July 2017 (dawn), only one Pipistrelle bat was recorded during these surveys on the north quays. 4.3.3.2 Field Survey Results Habitats The following habitats were recorded within the study area:
Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3) The majority of the development footprint is hard standing in the form of roads, footpaths, the railway line and the north quays. The majority of the surrounding area comprises built areas that comprise the urban centre of Waterford City and include hotels, shops, roads, pavements and other urban developments. Generally built habitats are not considered of high ecological significance and do not offer high-quality habitat.
Scrub (WS1) An area of scrub was recorded south of the junction between Fountain Street and Abbey Road at the northeast corner of the proposed development site. Scrub provides nesting and sheltering habitat for birds.
Tidal rivers (CW2) The proposed development is located 25m north of the River Suir, which is part of the Lower River Suir SAC. At this location the River Suir is tidal and at low tide, the intertidal riverbed is exposed. This habitat has links to the Annex I habitat Estuaries [1130] and the River Suir at this location corresponds to this Annex I habitat.
Lower salt marsh (CM1) One area of lower salt marsh is present on the north bank of the River Suir beside the quay wall. This habitat is subject to more prolonged submersion by sea water and is more strongly saline than upper salt marsh (CM2). The species recorded in this habitat were Common Cordgrass (Spartina anglica), Sea Aster (Aster tripolium), Sea Plantain
Part VIII Report Page 83 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
(Plantago maritima), Sea Arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima) and Sea Purslane (Halimione portulacoides). This habitat is not within the proposed development site boundary.
Protected Species Otter During the multidisciplinary walkover surveys, no signs of Otter activity were recorded within the development footprint. A survey undertaken for the SDZ Planning Scheme and proposed River Suir Sustainable Transport Bridge (PL93 .303274) recorded evidence of Otter including spraints and prints beneath the North Quay wall (See Plate 4.3.1). Otter are active in this area, although there are no holts or couches.
Plate 4.3.1 Otter prints beside the North Quay Wall
Bats The Bat suitability assessment conducted during the walkover survey did not identify any potential roosts within the study area. The buildings/ structures surveyed did not have potential to support roosting bats based on their structure and lack of cracks and crevices. Previous bat surveys undertaken for the SDZ Planning Scheme and future River Suir Sustainable Transport Bridge (PL93 .303274) indicate low levels of bat activity in the area.
Other Mammals No signs of other protected mammals in the vicinity of the proposed development were recorded.
Birds The habitat assessment undertaken as part of the multidisciplinary walkover survey did not identify habitats that support important assemblages or significant populations of breeding or wintering birds. Vegetation associated with the scrub habitat within the site provides suitable nesting habitat for birds.
Part VIII Report Page 84 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Reptiles and Amphibians The multidisciplinary walkover surveys did not record any evidence of Common Frog (Rana temporaria), Smooth Newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) or Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara) within the study area. There are no waterbodies within the study area.
Flora No rare or protected plants were recorded in the study area.
Invasive Species Two species subject to restrictions as listed on the Third Schedule of the Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations were recorded within an area of the proposed development footprint. As detailed and shown in Table 4.4.4 and Plate 4.3.2 below, Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) and Himalayan Knotweed (Persicaria wallichii) were recorded along the northern boundary of the proposed development on the Dock Road. Common Cordgrass (Spartina anglica), which is also subject to restrictions as listed on the Third Schedule of the Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations was recorded on the bank of the River Suir within the study area, but outside the proposed development footprint. A number of examples of non-native invasive species not subject to such restrictions, including Butterfly Bush (Buddleja davidii) and Traveller’s Joy (Clematis vitalba), were recorded within the development footprint.
Table 4.4.4 Invasive Alien Species Subject to Restrictions within the Footprint of the Proposed Development.
Stand Ref ITM Coordinates Description JK1 0660798 0612988 This mixed stand contains Japanese Knotweed (500m2) and Himalayan Knotweed (100m2). The stand is on the north side of the dock road between the road and the rear of numbers 10-13 Bishopsgrove. The stand runs for 50m along the embankment and is 10-20m deep. The plants are all young.
Part VIII Report Page 85 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.3.2 Invasive Alien Species (Standard Ref. JK1) 4.3.4 Predicted Impacts Construction Impacts The impacts of the proposed development will be limited because the lands affected primarily comprise built land. Vegetation removal and the demolition of the ruins will be required in order to facilitate construction of the Transport Hub and associated structures. Scrub, treeline and hedgerow habitat will be removed to accommodate the works. The loss of approximately 2,800m2 of vegetation including treelines and scrub is considered a Permanent Slight Negative impact within the study area.
Vegetation clearance and building demolition could result in the loss of nesting birds and habitat degradation. This would constitute a Short-term Significant Impact within the study area.
Construction activities have the potential to spread Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Knotweed within and outside the development site. This is considered to constitute a Moderate Negative Impact which could lead to effects outside the site were it to occur.
During construction works, there is potential for generation of contaminated surface water runoff arising from rainwater coming in contact with temporarily exposed contaminated material. This contaminated runoff could, in the absence of controls, infiltrate to groundwater through excavations, or to the surrounding existing drainage network, ultimately discharging to the River Suir which is 25m south of the proposed development at its closest point, with the potential to negatively affect water quality. In addition, deep excavations which encounter contaminated material may require dewatering of potentially contaminated surface water or groundwater. This pumped water could, in the absence of control measures, discharge overland to the River Suir. Should contaminated surface water or groundwater enter the River Suir the associated impact rating is assessed as Slight to Moderate Negative Impact.
Part VIII Report Page 86 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Construction activities including demolition of existing structures and piling could result in noise and vibration impacts which could cause disturbance to both aquatic and terrestrial species including Otter.
Excessive artificial lighting of the construction area also presents the risk of light disturbance for both aquatic and terrestrial species. Prolonged or repetitive disturbances have the potential to cause barriers to connectivity for species moving upstream and downstream past the construction area.
Operational Impacts Aspects of the operation of the proposed development with the potential to cause environmental and ecological effects include the presence of artificial lighting and increased human presence.
A small amount of habitat will be lost as a result of the proposed development. The habitats which will be affected include buildings and artificial surfaces, treelines, hedgerow and scrub. These habitats do not represent rare or protected vegetative communities/associations and do not support important populations of rare or protected species at the local level or higher. Therefore, the loss or damage of these habitats is not considered to be significant. 4.3.5 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures In order to ensure the construction and operation of the Transport Hub does not impact on the environment, the following mitigation measures will be included within the Works Contract to ensure protection of the environment, in particular flora and fauna.
Construction Mitigation and Monitoring Measures • Any vegetation clearance or demolition of buildings required to be undertaken in the period beginning on 1st March and ending on 31st August shall only be undertaken subject to prior inspection and monitoring and directed by a suitably qualified ecologist. • An invasive species management plan to prevent the spread of any Japanese Knotweed or Himalayan Knotweed within or outside the works area will be produced by the contractor and submitted to WCCC for approval prior to any works. • Routine practice and procedures to prevent pollution of the environment will apply. These include: o During the construction stage, standard construction and site management practices will be implemented by the contractor (e.g. CIRIA Guideline Document C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Site. o All material including oils, solvents and paints will be stored within temporary bunded areas or dedicated bunded containers; o Refuelling will take place in a designated bunded area away from surface water gullies, drains and water bodies, in the event of refuelling outside of this area, fuel will be transported in a mobile double skinned tank; o All machinery and plant used will be regularly maintained and serviced and will comply with appropriate standards to ensure that leakage of diesel, oil and lubricants is prevented; o Spill kits and hydrocarbon absorbent packs will be available and drip trays will be used during refuelling;
Part VIII Report Page 87 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
o Excavated material will be segregated into inert, non-hazardous and/or hazardous fractions (in accordance with Council Decision 2003/33/EC, the EPA water classification criteria at certain licensed landfills in Ireland); and, o The excavation and handling of inert material will be carefully managed in such a way as to prevent any potential negative impact on the receiving environment.
Operational Mitigation Measures • In order to compensate for the loss of nesting bird habitat, replacement habitats i.e. 100m of treeline/ hedgerow, scrub and buildings, 20 nest boxes of varying types should be installed in suitable locations to be agreed with Waterford City and County Council prior to construction. • Bird-friendly glass (e.g. www.ornilux.com), which will reduce the reflectivity of glass facades and windows, will be used on all external glass surfaces. • The lighting design will incorporate measures to minimise light spillage and disturbance to nocturnal species. Lighting will be restricted to the minimum extent and timeframe necessary. There will be no lighting onto water and no upward lighting. • Landscaping will use native species only as proposed in the Architectural Design Statement (Appendix B) for this proposed development. 4.3.6 Residual Impacts Provided that the proposed development is constructed and operated in accordance with the design, best practice and mitigation that is described above, the proposed development will not result in significant impacts in the short, medium or long term on biodiversity. 4.3.7 References CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
Colhoun K. & Cummins S. (2013) Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2014– 2019. Irish Birds 9: 523-544.
Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practise Guidelines (3rd Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.
Fossitt, J.A. (2000) A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny.
Harrington (2017) R & H Hall Flour Mill, Ferrybank, Waterford City - Bat survey report. Waterford City and County Council
Kelleher C. (2014) Former Flour Mill Plant, Ferrybank, Waterford – Bat Fauna Study. Waterford City Council.
NBDC (2019) Online Mapping System: Advanced Reporting. http://maps.biodiversityireland.ie/#/Home National Biodiversity Data Centre.
NPWS (2019) Online Map Viewer. http://webgis.npws.ie/npwsviewer/ National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Dublin.
Part VIII Report Page 88 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.4 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology 4.4.1 Introduction This section assesses and evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed development (as detailed in Section 3), on soils, geology and hydrogeology (groundwater) within the study area (i.e. within the planning application site boundary). The likely significant impacts of the proposed development on these resources are assessed and where required, mitigation measures are put forward to avoid, reduce or minimise the impact of the proposed development.
Existing geological and groundwater conditions are described, with the predicted impacts arising from the proposed development assessed on the basis of the construction and operational phases of the development. The mitigation measures and the residual impacts are provided in separate subsections.
In this section, the proposed development area is divided into three sub-sections, namely; i) the rail corridor and flood defences west of the proposed train station, ii) the proposed Transport Hub, and iii) the parking areas east of the Transport Hub. The division is carried out purely for clarity and ease of reading, as the three sub-sections exhibit different ground conditions, and there are different structures/works proposed causing different potential impacts. 4.4.2 Summary of Available Information Mapping and Aerial Photography Geological mapping from the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI), covering the subsoils and solid geology of the location of the proposed bridge was reviewed using the online viewer at www.gsi.ie/mapping. The GSI digital mapping details the quaternary geology along with aquifer vulnerability, groundwater resources and recharge, known groundwater wells and existing ground investigation information.
Open source (Google Earth, Bing Maps) and Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSI) aerial photography was analysed in order to identify large scale ground characteristics.
Site walkovers were carried out by ROD’s senior geotechnical engineers on multiple occasions throughout 2018 and 2019, including during the ground investigation works.
Ground investigations The site investigation surveys available for this area include: • IGSL (2019a): Geotechnical Factual Report, Development of Public Infrastructure at Waterford’s North Quays including a Pedestrian Bridge over the River Suir (including Additional Works 2019) • IGSL (2019b): Geotechnical Interpretative Report, Development of Public Infrastructure at Waterford’s North Quays including a Pedestrian Bridge over the River Suir (including Additional Works 2019) • O’Callaghan Moran & Associates (2019): Tier 2 Site Investigation and Tier 3 Risk Assessment, North Quays Waterford Port
The ground investigations outlined above were undertaken for the entire Waterford City Public Infrastructure area, which includes the future Transport Hub location and nearby surrounding locations (along the Dock, Fountain Street and Abbey Road; along the wharves; and at the location of the future Sustainable Transport Bridge). A very high density of ground investigation and associated laboratory testing was executed at the Transport Hub area, particularly at the location of the proposed railway station.
Part VIII Report Page 89 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The ground investigation works specific to the Transport Hub development area included the following: • Rail corridor and flood defences west of the proposed train station: ten cable percussion and rotary core boreholes, four window samples, and one trial pit; • Proposed train station: geophysical survey including Ground Penetrating Radar, 11 cable percussion and rotary core boreholes, four window samples and three trial pits; • New parking areas to the east of the train station: four cable percussion and rotary core boreholes and three trial pits.
All exploratory holes were also used to obtain samples for the environmental laboratory tests.
A minor batch of works, including one borehole and five window samples, will be carried out at the Top Oil station site at the northern part of the proposed Transport Hub in Quarter 1 2020. Additional environmental sampling is also planned for the proposed parking areas to the east of the proposed train station, namely in vicinity of the existing Bus Éireann bus depot, the former Dunlop factory, and the historical gasometer location to the east of the train station.
The amount of ground investigation is deemed very good for the development of this size and complexity. 4.4.3 Receiving Environment The description of existing conditions is based on desk study information and ground investigations undertaken in the nearby area as outlined in the above sections.
Topography and Usage The area is largely flat with the existing ground levels ranging from approximately +2.5mOD to +3.5mOD (Ordnance Survey) along the existing rail tracks. The wharves to the south of the tracks are also flat and on a similar level. The Top Oil site and Dock Road to the north of the proposed development are at ground levels between +5.5mOD and +7mOD, retained by masonry and concrete walls and a simple earthwork slope where the Dock Road falls away and the level difference is minor. The levels for the footprint of the proposed parking area and bus depot to the east of the planned train station rise from approximately +3.5mOD to +6.0mOD from west to east. The easternmost part of the parking area to the southeast of the planned Abbey Road roundabout falls from approximately +8.0mOD to +3.0mOD.
The existing land uses of the proposed development site include transport infrastructure comprising parts of R711 Dock Road Dual Carriageway, existing rail line and associated railway infrastructure (Waterford City to Belview Port/ Port of Waterford freight line). The Top Oil Service station is currently located within the site boundary adjacent to the Dock Road, while the eastern extent of the proposed development will occupy lands of the former Dunlop site. The railway infrastructure within the site was previously used for port-related activities.
Bedrock Geology The bedrock geology consists of the Ballylane Shale Formation, described as green & grey slate with thin siltstone of Ordovician Age, according to GSI’s 1:100,000 Bedrock Geology map. This was confirmed in all ground investigation boreholes. The GSI map shows two faults with north-south orientation near but outside of the proposed
Part VIII Report Page 90 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
development area, one to the east and one to the west. No signs of faulting were encountered in boreholes.
Quaternary Geology Section 1: Rail corridor and flood defences west of the proposed train station This is a narrow corridor that largely follows the existing rail track from the proposed train station in the east, towards Rice Bridge Roundabout to the west. The corridor detaches from the rail line at the Dock Road viaduct and follows the viaduct’s south wall.
The ground conditions typically comprise of up to 2.5m of granular Made Ground of heterogenous composition overlying 2m of soft alluvial silts overlying the weathered bedrock. The depth to bedrock increases from east to west, from approximately 2m to 6m.
Section 2: Proposed train station The bedrock levels in this section fall rapidly from north to south, i.e. towards the river. Due to that, the thickness of the overburden increases from north to south as well. The ground composition also changes going south as soft ground associated with riverbank and flood plain alluvium is encountered. Apart from the main north-south trend, lower bedrock levels were also found at the eastern extremity of the proposed development (under the main concourse).
The uppermost layer is entirely made up of the Made Ground, typically 2m thick, of heterogenous composition, including gravel, railway ballast and reworked glacial till. The Made Ground is thicker in localised areas where higher ground levels had to be achieved, such as at the Top Oil and Dock Road footprint. At the northern parts of the proposed development, the Made Ground is underlain by a layer of stiff cohesive glacial till typically 2m thick, which in turn overlies the bedrock. At the southern parts of the proposed development, the Made Ground is underlain by up to 4m of very soft alluvium composed of peat, silt and loose sand; overlying competent glacial till (both cohesive and non-cohesive); overlying the bedrock. The thickness of the very soft alluvium increases going south, i.e. approaching the river Suir.
Section 3: Parking areas to the east of the proposed train station The ground conditions in this section comprise typically up to 1.5m of granular Made Ground overlying up to 8m thick deposits of firm to stiff cohesive glacial till, overlying the bedrock. Up to 4m thick succession of soft alluvial strata (peaty silts) is identified between the Made Ground and glacial till in the southernmost parts of the eastern parking area within the former Dunlop site.
There are no Geological Heritage features, quarries or commercial mineral deposits within the boundaries of the development, or which will be impacted by the proposed development.
Groundwater Groundwater Resources The proposed development site is located within the Mullinavat Groundwater Body which is classified as being Poorly Productive Bedrock Aquifer - Bedrock which is generally unproductive except for in local zones. There are no groundwater source protection areas delineated by Geological Survey Ireland (GSI) in the vicinity of the site.
Part VIII Report Page 91 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Groundwater Vulnerability GSI Groundwater vulnerability mapping for the development site indicates that groundwater vulnerability ranges from Extreme (E) at the western extents of the development site to Moderate (M) at the eastern extents of the site.
Groundwater Recharge GSI groundwater recharge mapping indicates that there is an average recharge capacity of 100mm/year at the development location due to the presence of a notional recharge cap. The recharge cap is applied due to the inability of the poorly productive bedrock aquifer to receive infiltrating water.
Groundwater Elevations Groundwater was monitored during site investigations with elevations ranging between 3mOD and -2.7mOD recorded within the bedrock during advancement of rotary core drilling and a subsequent monitoring regime. A shallow water table also exists within the overburden with water seepages and inflows recorded during advancement of cable percussion boreholes up to 0.4m BGL. Groundwater flow is generally from north to south towards the River Suir which is along the southern boundary of the Waterford North Quays site. Groundwater levels are known to be responsive to tidal fluctuations in the River Suir
Groundwater Abstractions GSI groundwater mapping indicates that there are 2 No. wells within 1km of the proposed development. These include a well for domestic purposes extending to 22.3m in depth and a well for industrial purposes, at a depth of 22m. There are no recorded public water supplies or group water schemes on the GSI database within the study area.
Groundwater Quality The Water Framework Directive monitoring period 2010 – 2015 indicates that groundwater in the Mullinavat GWB is classified as being of ‘Good’ status.
Groundwater samples were collected from 8 No. boreholes and 1 No. trial pit during site investigations and were analysed for a range of parameters including major anions/cations, metals, phenols, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Speciated Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, sulphate and cyanide.
Elevated levels of sodium, potassium, magnesium, sulphate, suspended solids and electrical conductivity were identified in most samples which is most likely associated with the brackish nature of the groundwater immediately adjacent to the River Suir which is saline in the port area. Elevated levels of iron, manganese and ammonia were also identified which may be associated with natural conditions within the soils/bedrock beneath the site and/or organic sources of pollution such as leaking foul sewers.
Phenol exceeded the EPA Interim Guideline Values (IGVs) for drinking water in one sample but was not detected anywhere else and PAH’s were not detected in any sample. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons were detected at two locations, BH-216 (500ug/l) and RC-243 (1200ug/l). BH-216 is down hydraulic gradient of the railway line and Top Oil service station while RC-243 is in the east of the subject lands and is down gradient of the railway line. Elevated arsenic, boron, chromium and mercury were identified at three locations (BH-206, RC-222 and RC-223) with BH-222 and RC-223
Part VIII Report Page 92 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
down gradient of a former gasometer which was located north of the Irish Rail line just to the south of Rockshire Road.
Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) / Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Sites designated under the Natura 2000 and within 2km are listed in Table 4.4.1 below – the site is located immediately adjacent to the Lower River Suir SAC.
Table 4.4.1 Designated Sites
Natura 2000 Sites Distance from Site Lower River Suir SAC South of the study area, minimum distance of 25m.
There are no GWDTE present in the vicinity of the site.
Ground contamination The area has a history of industrial and/or commercial usage (roads, railway, and port- related activities associated with the former Waterford Port), with site investigation indicating a presence of contaminated soils at isolated locations.
Tier 1, 2 & 3 Investigations and Assessments have been undertaken for the wider Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) area, incorporating the Transport Hub area, in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency Guidance Document, Code of Practice (CoP) for Environmental Risk Assessment for Unregulated Waste Disposal Sites (2007).
The Tier 1 Assessment identified potential contamination sources and therefore a Tier 2 Site Investigations and a Tier 3 Risk Assessment were undertaken. The Tier 2 Site Investigation and Tier 3 Risk Assessment did not identify significant soil, groundwater or ground gas contamination associated with the historical or current site uses in the redevelopment area.
The suitability for use limits (S4UL) for commercial development was not exceeded in any of the soil sampling locations across the study area. The suitability for use limits for residential development was exceeded in nine out of one hundred and fifteen of the samples analysed of the entire surveyed North Quays SDZ area. Only one sample out of twenty-two sourced from the proposed train station zone exceeded the S4UL residential limits (arsenic). Two samples out of twenty sourced from the west rail corridor exceeded the S4UL residential limits (arsenic and polyaromatic hydrocarbons). Only one sample out of twelve sourced from the eastern parking areas exceeded the S4UL residential limits (arsenic).
The Hazardous Waste Online Classification Engine, developed in the UK by One Touch Data Ltd, was used to determine the waste classification. This tool was developed specifically to establish whether the waste is non-hazardous or hazardous and has been approved for use in Ireland by the Environmental Protection Agency. The classification engine excludes asbestos which was independently verified. Asbestos was not detected in any sampling. Approximately 7% of soil samples, or seven out of one hundred and two taken, were classified as hazardous and have been assigned a List of Waste Code (LoW) 17-09-03 (soil and stones containing hazardous substances) across the entire SDZ area. Only two out of nineteen samples sourced from the proposed train station zone were classified as hazardous. Both samples exceeded the limit for the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). Three samples out of twenty sourced from the rail corridor from the west were classified as hazardous
Part VIII Report Page 93 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
(TPH and lead). None of the twelve samples sourced from the proposed parking areas to the east of train station was classified as hazardous.
The material from the areas that the samples were collected must be sent for treatment/disposal to a licensed Hazardous Waste Management facility. The remaining samples are classified as LoW 17-05-04 (soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17-05-03). Where inert Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) levels were exceeded (further four samples in the proposed train station area, six in the rail corridor to the west and two in the proposed parking areas to the east), the materials in these areas will require disposal in a licensed Non-Hazardous Landfill. Soils in the remaining areas are suitable to be retained and reused on-site for landscaping purposes. If removal from the site is required, then soils must be taken for recovery to a permitted waste recovery site.
The last batch of the ground investigation and environmental testing will take place in Quarter 1 2020. The results will provide the updated picture on the potential ground and groundwater contamination at the Top Oil site, Bus Éireann bus depot and the Dunlop factory. The current ground contamination results down hydraulic gradient from the Top Oil site and in the vicinity of the Bus Éireann bus depot and the Dunlop factory showed no ground contamination, however, it is conservatively assumed that some level of contamination will be present at the Top Oil site. The same is valid for an isolated historical gasometer location north of railway line and south of Rockshire Road (to the east of the train station) although this location will see no significant earthworks. Overall, no significant ground contamination has been identified in the proposed development area. 4.4.4 Predicted Impacts The construction works are likely to result in significant short-term handling of the in- situ and imported soils. These will be predominantly related to the major structures of the proposed development, namely the foundations for the bridges, concourse and platform; and the removal of the existing access bridge and the Top Oil site. Particular attention is given to the excavation and disposal of the poor-quality and potentially contaminated soils that will form inert, non-hazardous and hazardous waste; however other actions have also been considered in this section.
Construction Phase – Soils and Geology The large majority of the construction works with potential impacts on the soils and geology will take place at the train station section. Shallow excavation (<1.2m) of the in-situ soil is required throughout the footprint of the proposed train station. More significant excavation will take place at the specific locations of the existing Irish Rail access lane bridge (including the abutments and adjacent earthworks), location of the existing Top Oil site road widening, and at the lift shaft locations. Any overburden material excavated is likely to be a combination of topsoil, Made Ground, and glacial tills. The total volume of export material (including earthworks and demolition material) is approximately 22,700m3. The volume of material to be imported is approximately 28,500m3. Ground investigations indicate that localised zones of contaminated soil are present, and where this soil is planned to be excavated, measures outlined in the mitigation measures of this chapter will be implemented.
There will be the excavation of in-situ material and importation of the good quality granular fill. The replacement of the contaminated land with imported clean material will result in a slight permanent positive impact on the soils and geology of the development site.
Part VIII Report Page 94 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Both footbridges, concourse and lift shafts will be founded on bored concrete piles (600mm diameter) socketed into the underlying bedrock. Loading, stresses and deformation applied to the bedrock will be well within the capacity of the rock mass and tolerance required for these structures. Piling and rock excavation will, therefore, have a negligible impact on the existing bedrock conditions.
The soft ground present under the southern platform footprint is at risk from excessive consolidation and settlement when loaded, with potential negative impacts to the structures in that area. This risk has been removed through design by using the precast concrete driven piles under the southern platform to mitigate against both excessive settlements and excess ground excavation, with more details on this outlined in the mitigation section of this chapter.
The works on the parking areas planned to the east of the train station involve only simple surficial works of limited volume. The soil handling in this section will be minimal as only shallow excavation and potential importation of good quality granular fill will be employed. While no contaminated soil was encountered in this area during site investigation, any such soil potentially encountered will be dealt with using the measures outlined in the mitigation measures section.
Ground gas monitoring took place during the site investigations and generally low levels of methane and carbon dioxide were found. The Tier 3 Risk Assessment determined the ground gas risk to be low with recommendations for further monitoring prior to works.
Construction Phase – Hydrogeology Construction Contamination There is a potential risk of localised contamination from construction materials leeching into underlying soils by exposure, dewatering or construction related spillages resulting in a permanent negative impact on the soils and potentially the underlying aquifer. The magnitude of this impact is small as the requirement of good construction practices will necessitate the immediate excavation/remediation of any such spillage resulting in a very low risk of pollution to the soils and consequently the underlying aquifers.
Ground Contamination Localised pockets of ground contamination have been identified to be present across the site. Whilst the extent and level of such contamination were found to be relatively low, unmitigated there is potential for impacts to human health, groundwater and surface water bodies, which are in connectivity with the groundwater table. The potential impacts and the severity of same have been assessed using the Source- Pathway-Receptor model as per EPA guidelines. A Tier 3 Contaminated Land Risk Assessment was carried out by O’ Callaghan Moran & Associates as part of the Site Investigations and did not find significant soil, groundwater or ground gas contamination associated with the historical or current site uses in the proposed development area. A summary of the main predicted constructional impacts to the potential receptors identified in the risk assessment are presented below.
Human Receptors Human beings are at risk from contaminated land either from dermal contact or ingestion of contaminated material and/or groundwater. There are no groundwater supplies at the site, and none are proposed as part of this development. Given the proposed development including transport hub, roads and parking areas are at existing
Part VIII Report Page 95 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
ground level, there will be no connection between the subsoils and the proposed end- users of the site and as such the source pathway receptor linkage will be absent.
During the construction phase, there is potential for dermal contact and/or ingestion of contaminated material by construction workers. Normal good construction practice requires the use of personal protective equipment which will minimise the risk posed however specific mitigation measures will be required as set out in Section 4.4.5.
Groundwater Resources The bedrock aquifer and overlying subsoils beneath the site are receptors. Due to the poor productivity of the bedrock aquifer and proximity to the river which is saline in this area, there are no groundwater wells on or adjacent to the site. Given that groundwater at the site is brackish/saline it is unsuitable for potable use and therefore a source pathway receptor linkage is absent.
Piling required to construct the foundations of the structures will require temporary coring and excavation into the bedrock which could open a direct pathway for ingress of contamination into the bedrock aquifer. The number and scale of these piles is very small when compared to the size of the aquifer and the open holes will be filled with concrete relatively quickly once opened and therefore the risk is of a brief nature and is insignificant once good construction practices are implemented.
River Suir SAC The primary receptor is the River Suir SAC. Connectivity between the subsoils and/or weathered bedrock beneath the site and the River Suir is known to exist (particularly at extreme high tides) and therefore there is potential for infiltrating rainwater to make contact with contaminated material either during or post construction and discharge to the River Suir. The majority of the proposed development will comprise concrete/hardstanding during operation, thus preventing infiltration. However, some portions of the site will remain permeable and will allow infiltration during and post- construction, as is currently the situation.
Groundwater Flood Risk A groundwater flood risk to the proposed development has been identified through the permeable granular material in the uppermost layers of the in-situ subsoil during high flood events in the River Suir refer to the site-specific Flood Risk Assessment included in Appendix C as part of this planning application. The resulting proposed flood protection measures involve severing connectivity between these permeable materials and the River Suir along the southern boundary of the site – refer to Section 4.5.3 of this Report for further details. This will involve the installation of impermeable barriers extending to depth consisting of sheet piling and/or a below ground soil mix (soil- cement-bentonite) cut-off wall combined with a reinforced concrete (RC) wall above ground. The construction of the proposed cut-off wall (below ground soil mix trench with RC wall above ground) will involve the excavation and subsequent backfilling of a 320 – 370m long trench of up to 5.5 – 5.8m in depth. The trench will be backfilled with a mix of excavated soil, bentonite and cement thus creating a barrier to groundwater flooding from the River Suir. Where excavated soil is locally found to be contaminated, it is not proposed to reuse this material for backfilling of the trench. Instead, clean imported fill material will be used and the excavated contaminated material disposed of in line with the regulations. The remainder of the flood defence wall will consist of driven steel sheet piles which will pose a very low risk of temporary nature to the underlying bedrock during construction from contaminated material driven down to depth along with the piles. Whilst the installation of this flood defence wall is primarily aimed at mitigating flood risk to the proposed development, it has the added benefit of
Part VIII Report Page 96 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
significantly reducing the connectivity of contaminated groundwater in the subsoils beneath the site and the River Suir. The source-pathway-receptor linkage is therefore significantly reduced (but still present).
Operational Phase – Soils & Geology There are no significant impacts predicted on soils and geology during the operational phase.
Operational Phase – Hydrogeology The excavation and removal of a portion of the contaminated materials present at the site during construction works will reduce the on-going risk posed to the identified receptors. During the operational phase, a significant proportion of the site will be in hardstanding thus preventing infiltration of rainwater and mobilisation of contamination beneath the site towards either the bedrock aquifer or the River Suir. In addition, the installation of the groundwater flood defence wall along the southern perimeter of the site boundary will further prevent movement of potentially contaminated groundwater towards the River Suir. Given the poorly productive nature of the bedrock aquifer in this area and the known salinity issues, any risk to this resource is mitigated due to the absence of a receptor (i.e. no groundwater abstractions). The nature of the contamination has shown it to be strongly bound to the subsoils and therefore the leachability to groundwater is low. Whilst some evidence of shallow groundwater contamination was found during the site investigations the pathways and connectivity to either the bedrock aquifer and/or the River Suir will be all but severed by the installation of the flood defence wall and the construction of hardstanding areas. The proposal to maintain some contaminated material beneath the site will present an on- going but extremely low risk to the identified receptors.
The natural infiltration of groundwater across the site and subsequent discharge to the River Suir will be almost entirely severed across the site due to the inclusion of the flood defence wall. Groundwater head behind the flood defences will be managed through standard drainage measures e.g. trackside drainage and filter drains which will discharge to the existing surface water drainage network. 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures outlined in this section are proposed to eliminate or reduce the impacts related to soils, geology and hydrogeology. Particular attention is given to the contaminated soil. The mitigation measures are separated into the construction stage and operation stage.
Construction Stage A project-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) will be prepared by the Contractor for the development in line with the Outline CEMP and EOP appended to this report (Refer to Appendix D and H).
The construction works will be carried out with the least feasible disturbance of the soils, minimising the amount of the excavated soil. The inert excavated soil will be reused wherever possible. This includes the construction activities related to the construction of the Transport Hub, but also the adjacent components of the Waterford Public Infrastructure project. For example, the construction of the new Abbey Road and associated infrastructure will require quantities of general fill that will be generated during the Transport Hub excavation activities, for instance excavating below the train station’s northern platform.
Part VIII Report Page 97 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Where applicable, design measures were put forward to minimise the excavation of soil that cannot be reused due to their mechanical properties or contamination. The train station’s southern platform will be founded on driven precast concrete piles. The piles will carry the load to the competent stratum (weathered bedrock), thus avoiding the excavation and replacement of the compressible and locally contaminated soft soil. In addition, driven piles require no excavation and produce no arisings that need to be disposed of.
All waste produced as part of the proposed development will be dealt with in accordance with the relevant waste and environmental management legislation and in accordance with the recommendations of the Tier 3 Assessment. The contractor will be required to submit a C&D Waste Management Plan to the local authority for approval which should address all types of material to be disposed of. Where soil stripping and excavation occurs, the resulting excavated soil fractions will be segregated into material that can be disposed of in the appropriate manner in accordance with Waste Management legislation. The ground investigations indicate that a large portion of the excavated soil will be classified as an inert waste. Excess topsoil, inert soil, and all hazardous soil waste will be separately removed off site to an appropriately licenced facility by a licensed contractor. Non-hazardous waste exceeding inert Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) will be sent to a licensed non- hazardous landfill for disposal/recovery.
Construction personnel will be required to wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and carry out other protective measures outlined in the CEMP prepared by the Contractor when handling hazardous waste. All associated hazardous waste residuals will be stored within temporary bunded storage areas prior to removal by an appropriate EPA approved waste management contractor for off-site treatment/recycling/disposal. Any other building waste will be disposed of within on- site skips for removal by a licensed waste contractor. For the importation of topsoil and imported good-quality granular soils materials, the material will be sourced from nearby sites where possible, in order to reduce transport distances.
The potential for the groundwater flood impact will be mitigated through the construction of the flood defences, whose underground elements will include steel sheet piles and cut-off walls in the form of soil mix trenches. These elements will stop the unwanted seepage of flood water through the in-situ permeable granular layers and will protect the proposed development from groundwater flooding. Natural circulation of the groundwater behind the flood defences will be kept with the aid of standard drainage measures including the provision of standard drainage measures e.g. trackside drainage and filter drains which will discharge to the existing surface water drainage network.
To minimise any impact on the underlying subsurface strata from material spillages, all fuels, oils, solvents and paints used during construction will be stored within specially constructed dedicated temporary bunded areas or within bunded containers. Refuelling of construction vehicles and the addition of hydraulic oils or lubricants to vehicles, will take place away from surface water gullies or drains. Spill kits and hydrocarbon absorbent packs will be stored in the site compound and operators will be fully trained in the use of this equipment. Fuel for vehicles will be stored in a mobile double skinned tank. Silt and sediment barriers to be installed at the perimeter of earthworks construction areas to limit transport of erodible soils outside of the site.
Where applicable, all excavated and/or stripped surfaces will be covered with a required depth of topsoil to encourage the growth of the vegetation after the construction stage, in order to eliminate erosion and negative visual impacts.
Part VIII Report Page 98 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Operation Stage There are no mitigation measures associated with the Operation Stage of the proposed development for Soils, Geology or Hydrogeology. 4.4.6 Residual Impacts There are no significant residual impacts on Soils, Hydrology or Hydrogeology predicted as a result of the proposed development.
Part VIII Report Page 99 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.5 Hydrology 4.5.1 Introduction This section describes the natural characteristics of the site of the proposed Transport Hub and its immediate surroundings, in terms of hydrology. This Section assesses the likely significant impacts of the proposed development on the hydrology of the study area during the construction and operational phases. 4.5.2 Receiving Environment Local Hydrology The study area is located in the townland of Ferrybank, in Waterford City, adjacent to the River Suir. The River Suir rises in South Tipperary, flowing south-east for 185km before discharging into the Atlantic Ocean at Waterford Harbour. The Suir Catchment is approximately 3,600km2. Waterford City is on the lower reaches of the Suir which exhibits a tidal influence at this point due to its proximity to the sea.
Water Quality The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitors river water quality as part of the WFD. The River Suir is classified as a transitional water body due to its tidal influence and is designated as the ‘Middle Suir Estuary’ within the study area. The water quality status of the ‘Middle Suir Estuary’ for 2010-2015 is designated as ‘poor’, and at risk. The EPA has designated the River Suir at this location as being a nutrient-sensitive area. Nutrient sensitive areas are those waterbodies listed in accordance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWT) Directive 91/271/EEC on Urban Waste Water Treatment and S.I. 254 / 2001, S.I. 440/2004 and S.I. 48/2010. The EPA’s latest trophic status assessment (2010-2012) indicates that the ‘Middle Suir Estuary’ is eutrophic.
According to the South East River Basin District Management Plan, in order to meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), water quality in the Waterford Estuary needs to be restored to ‘good’ by 2021. The plan also states that groundwater quality in the River Suir needs to be restored to ‘good’ by 2027.
The EPA Envision web-portal indicates that there are no Q-Value monitoring points on the River Suir that are in close proximity to the proposed development. There are 6 no. National Water Monitoring Stations located within the River Suir, in close proximity to the development site, however, no monitoring data was available from the EPA website.
The Luffany Stream is located approximately 100m east of the proposed development and flows in a southerly direction into the River Suir at this location, from Abbeylands. At the time of writing, there is no water quality information available from the EPA and it is “under review” by the EPA. St. John’s River flows from the south banks of the River Suir and enters the River Suir at Adelphi Quay. It is reported as being of poor status and ‘at risk’ of deteriorating or being at less than ‘good’ status in the future.
By 'risk’ it is meant that there is an overall risk that a waterbody will not achieve good ecological or good chemical status/potential at least by 2021. The WFD requirements are to ensure that waters achieve at least good status/potential and that their status does not deteriorate. Extended timescales have been set for certain waters due to technical, economic, environmental or recovery constraints.
Having identified the status of waters as part of the River Basin Management Plan, the next stage is to set objectives for waters. Objectives consider waters that require
Part VIII Report Page 100 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
protection from deterioration as well as waters that require restoration and the timescales needed for recovery. Four default objectives have been set: - • Prevent Deterioration • Restore Good Status • Reduce Chemical Pollution • Achieve Protected Areas Objectives
These objectives are refined based on the measures available to achieve them, the latter's likely effectiveness, and consideration of cost-effective combinations of measures.
Aquifer and Groundwater Vulnerability The proposed development is located on a poor aquifer bedrock which is generally unproductive except for local zones. According to the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) the subsoil permeability is classified as moderate. GSI Groundwater vulnerability mapping for the proposed Transport Hub development site indicates that groundwater vulnerability ranges from Extreme (E) at the western extents of the development site to Moderate (M) at the eastern extents of the site. The proposed Transport Hub is located on made ground within the Mullinavat Groundwater body. The GSI report this area has a recharge coefficient of 20.00% with an average recharge of 100mm/ year.
Water Abstraction There are no recorded public groundwater supplies or group water schemes within the development boundary according to the GSI database. There are 2 no. recorded boreholes within 1km of the development site which are used for industrial and domestic use.
Existing Drainage Outfalls There is 1 no. existing combined outfall (which combines surface water runoff from the western end of the R711 Dock Road with foul\ combined sewer flows from local residential and commercial properties) which traverses the Transport Hub site and crosses under the railway line through the SDZ lands and enters the River Suir via the existing quay wall.
There is also 1 no. existing storm water overflow (from the existing Ferrybank Pumping Station) which is located to the south-east of the Transport Hub building and discharges to the River Suir (when the capacity of the existing wastewater pumping station is exceeded).
Flooding Waterford Flood Alleviation Scheme has previously addressed flood areas through the construction of flood defences along the south quays of the River Suir from Grattan Quay to Adelphi Quay and along the north bank of St. John’s River as far as the Courthouse in 2010.
The Waterford City Development Plan 2013-2019 identifies that the extents of the Proposed Development are located within Flood Zones A and B illustrated in Error! R eference source not found.Figure 4.5.1 below. The Flood Risk Management Guidelines (2009) define the Zones A, B and C as follows:
Flood Zone A – where the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is highest (greater than 1% or 1 in 100 for river flooding or 0.5% or 1 in 200 for coastal flooding);
Part VIII Report Page 101 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Flood Zone B – where the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is moderate (between 0.1% or 1 in 1000 and 1% or 1 in 100 for river flooding and between 0.1% or 1 in 1000 year and 0.5% or 1 in 200 for coastal flooding.
Flood Zone C – where the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is low (less than 0.1% or 1 in 1000 for both river and coastal flooding). Flood Zone C covers all areas of the plan which are not in zones A or B”. (DEHLG, 2009).
Figure 4.5.1 Flood Zones A & B Source: Waterford City Development Plan 2013-2019. Note – Blue is Flood Zone A, cyan is Flood Zone B and Transport Hub Development Boundary is outlined in red
The Office of Public Works (OPW) Fluvial and Tidal Flood Extent Map 2016 indicates that the proposed development, particularly at the proposed Transport Hub building is subject to Fluvial and Tidal flood events as illustrated in Figure 4.5.2.
Part VIII Report Page 102 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.5.2 Fluvial and Tidal Flood Extent Data (CFRAM)
A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for the Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) was undertaken in February 2018. The SDZ lands are immediately adjacent to the proposed Transport Hub. The findings of the SFRA found that the SDZ lands, along with the Transport Hub lands are subject to flooding for 1% and 0.1% AEP events as illustrated in Figure 4.5.3 below.
Figure 4.5.3 Flood Zone Mapping for SDZ Site and surrounding lands - Blue is Flood Zone A, Cyan is Flood Zone B and Orange is Flood Zone C (Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone SFRA)
Part VIII Report Page 103 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.5.3 Characteristics of the Proposed Development The following section outlines the relevant characteristics of the proposed development during the construction and operation phases in relation to the Hydrological environment. Refer also to the following project drawings in Appendix A: • Transport Hub - Proposed Surface Water & Foul Sewer Drainage (WPIP-ROD- ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40320) • Transport Hub - Proposed Flood Defences - Site Layout Plan Sheet 1 (WPIP- ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40325) • Transport Hub - Proposed Flood Defences - Site Layout Plan Sheet 2 (WPIP- ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40326)
Surface Water Drainage The proposed development will provide a new surface water drainage pipe network along Dock Road and the Transport Hub access road which will temporarily connect to the existing surface water drainage network east of the Transport Hub (which currently discharges to the 900mm diameter combined network and the existing Ferrybank pumping station). This surface water network will include: • Runoff from the proposed Transport Hub building, access bridges and northern platform which will be collected and discharged to the proposed surface water pipe along the Transport Hub access road. • Runoff from the proposed southern platform which will be collected and conveyed either to the proposed Irish Rail trackside drainage or alternatively will be pumped to the surface water drainage network east of the Transport Hub via a rising main crossing under the railway line.
New surface and foul water sewers will be provided along the alignment of the greenway to facilitate future development of the SDZ lands and the possible future replacement pumping station, however it is proposed as per this development to maintain the existing surface water drainage flow regime, and to tie into the existing surface water and combined sewer systems within the proposed development area.
Flood Defence Systems The proposed development includes the construction of new flood defence systems along the existing railway corridor as shown in the Drawings; Transport Hub - Proposed Flood Defences - Site Layout Plan Sheet 1 and Sheet 2 (WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR- EN-40325 and WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40326 respectively), of Appendix A. Elevations and cross sections are also provided in the drawings of the Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment in Appendix C.
The proposed flood defence measures consist of the following: • Flood Defence System - Type 1: Sheet pile wall or below ground soil mix (soil- cement-bentonite) cut-off wall combined with a reinforced concrete (RC) wall above ground; o 320m in length to a depth of 5.5m; o minimum top of wall level of 4.24mOD. • Flood Defence System - Type 2: groundwater barrier comprising a soil mix (soil- cement-bentonite) cut-off wall and/or a sheet pile wall. • Flood Defence System - Type 3: Reinforced Concrete flood wall o 150m in length and embedded 1m into existing ground;
Part VIII Report Page 104 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
o minimum top of wall level of 4.24mOD. • An isolation structure is proposed at a suitable location east of the proposed Transport Hub which can be closed during a major flood event. The isolation structure will have a minimum level of 4.24mOD when deployed. This isolation structure will traverse the freight railway line (which is infrequently used) and will therefore provide a temporary measure which can be deployed during flood events. This “isolation structure” can comprise either: o emergency measures: such a tubewall barrier, which is a temporary flood barrier that is lightweight, flexible and quickly deployed, making it ideal as a flood barrier for fast response to flood threats. These systems consist of air inflated tube sections that are interconnected by zips to form a continuous protective flood barrier (see example in Plate 4.5.1) or; o temporary measures such as removable flood barriers (or 'demountables') are engineered to provide similar levels of protection to permanent flood defences, but with the advantage of being fully removable when not required (see example in Plate 4.5.2). • Associated drainage measures e.g. back of wall drainage measures for drainage of the groundwater behind the flood defences. This will include the provision of standard drainage measures e.g. trackside drainage and filter drains which will discharge to the existing surface water drainage network.
Plates 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 Example of a Tube wall Barrier and demountable flood barrier
Note 1: The proposed North Quays Strategic Development Zone (NQ SDZ) undercroft structure is a box structure which will provide car parking\ delivery and internal access routes under the proposed NQ SDZ development. The undercroft structure can be described in simple terms as a watertight concrete box which will be founded on piles on\ or above the existing ground level. The train station building and platforms will be bounded to the south by the proposed undercroft structure. Along the railway line the undercroft structure will form a barrier from below existing ground level (+2.75mOD) to the proposed SDZ ground level (approx. +8.0mOD). The box structure will form a barrier to tidal events in combination with the flood defences proposed as part of the proposed Transport Hub and will provide protection to the train station and platforms.
Note 2: Interim Measures: Flood protection for the Transport Hub is dependent on integrating the Flood Defence System Type 2 (ground water barrier) with the proposed SDZ undercroft structure. It is envisaged that the Transport Hub including flood mitigation measures will be constructed before or at the same time as the NQ SDZ development. However, if the Transport Hub is progressed before the development on the SDZ lands then interim flood defence measures will be required. These will be in the form of a wall/bund between the Flood Defence Systems – Type 1 to Type 3.
Part VIII Report Page 105 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
This wall/bund will be maintained until the development of the SDZ lands is undertaken. 4.5.4 Predicted Impact on Hydrology The predicted impacts on hydrology as a result of the construction and operation phases of the proposed development prior to mitigation, are assessed in the following paragraphs.
Construction Phase Impacts: Construction activities pose a significant risk to watercourses, particularly due to contaminated surface water runoff from construction activities entering adjacent watercourses.
Construction activities alongside surface waters, can contribute to the deterioration of water quality and can physically alter the riverbed and bank morphology with the potential to alter erosion and deposition rates locally and downstream. The closest point on the development boundary to the River Suir is located at the western extent of the development. At this location, the development boundary is approximately 25m from the River Suir. Activities close to the watercourse channel can potentially lead to increased turbidity through re-suspension of bed sediments and release of new sediments from earthworks. Given that the proposed works are not located immediately adjacent to the river, the potential impact is deemed to be not significant.
Water Quality: Given that there is a buffer (minimum 25m) between the proposed development and the River Suir, no impact on the existing water quality of the river is predicted. Accidental spillages of cement-based products and hydrocarbons from construction plant, uncontrolled, can have a slight to moderate short term impact to the river or exposed groundwater bodies during construction.
During construction works there is potential for generation of contaminated surface water runoff arising from rainwater coming into contact with temporarily exposed contaminated material. This contaminated runoff could, in the absence of construction site management and best practice construction measures, then enter open excavations where groundwater is exposed or the surrounding existing drainage network, ultimately discharging to the River Suir and negatively affecting the water quality. In addition, deep excavations which encounter contaminated material may require dewatering of potentially contaminated water. This pumped water could, in the absence of construction site management and best practice construction measures there could be discharge to the River Suir. Should contaminated surface water or groundwater enter the River Suir the associated impact rating is assessed as slight to moderate.
Flood Risk: As part of the proposed development no construction works will take place within or immediately adjacent to the River Suir. As part of the development, flood defence systems are to be provided along the southern extents of the development boundary. These flood defence systems include the installation of approximately 320m of sheet piling to a depth of 5.5m below existing ground level and 370m of cement bentonite clay barrier to a depth of 5.8m below existing ground level. As outlined in Section 4.5.3, interim flood defence measures, consisting of walls/bunds between Flood Defence System – Type 1 to Type 3 are proposed if the Transport Hub is progressed before the development of the SDZ lands. The volume of groundwater displaced as a
Part VIII Report Page 106 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
result of these measures is negligible relative to the receiving waterbody and will result in an imperceptible impact as a result of the proposed development.
A separate Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment (SSFRA) has been undertaken to inform the design of the proposed development and is available in Appendix C as part of this application.
Operational Phase Impacts: Morphological Changes to Surface Watercourses & Drainage Patterns: The existing surface water drainage pathways will be slightly altered on site however, surface water will continue to ultimately discharge to the River Suir. The impact is therefore deemed to be slight.
Hardstanding Runoff: The current condition of the development site predominantly consists of hardstanding areas. There will be a slight increase in hardstanding areas as a result of the proposed Transport Hub development, however the slight increase in flow rates to the River Suir would have an imperceptible impact on the risk of flooding in this area as the River Suir is dominated by tidal flooding.
Water Quality: The proposed development will provide a newly constructed closed surface water drainage system. Runoff from the development will be collected and conveyed to the existing combined sewer network which discharges to the existing Ferrybank Pumping Station which has a SWO (storm water overflow) to the River Suir. Therefore, the existing drainage regime will be maintained.
The new surface water pipe along the Greenway will facilitate the separation of the surface water runoff from the Dock Road and Bus Eireann depots out of the wastewater (combined sewer network) in future, in the event of the construction of a new pumping station for the Ferrybank area.
Flood Risk: The proposed development is located within Flood Zone A and Flood Zone B. The OPW “The Planning System and Flood Risk Management – Guidelines for Planning Authorities” (The Guidelines), 2009 states that for Flood Zone A, the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is highest (greater than 1% or a 1 in 100 return period for river flooding or 0.5% or a 1 in 200 year return period for coastal flooding).
A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment is included as part of this planning application, and the main findings of the flood risk assessment are as follows: • the most prevalent flood risk to the site is from extreme tidal inundation events or tidal events in combination with extreme fluvial events; • there is a risk of groundwater flooding to the west of the site and in the vicinity of the Transport Hub. Boreholes undertaken to the east of Plunkett Station indicated that groundwater levels in several boreholes respond rapidly to tidal levels. This could potentially cause flooding where groundwater levels exceed ground level and inundate the track. This is a risk particularly during extreme high tide events.
Part VIII Report Page 107 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
A Design Flood Level (200 year flood event including Climate Change) of 4.24m OD has been calculated for the Railway Corridor East of Plunkett Station and Transport Hub based on: • A combined 200 year tide and 2 year fluvial flood: 3.39m OD. • A 0.55 m climate change allowance plus isostatic tilt factor. • A 0.3 m allowance for freeboard to account for modelling uncertainties and local wave effects.
The proposed flood defences will therefore have a minimum top of wall level of 4.24m OD across the proposed development as per Section 4.5.3. The interim flood defence measures proposed, if the Transport Hub is progressed before the development of the SDZ, will also be designed to have a minimum top of wall/bund level of 4.24mOD.
The combined 1000 year tide and 2 year fluvial combination flood event including climate change amounts to a level of 4.183m OD. The proposed Design Flood level of 4.24m OD is therefore above this 1000 year flood level including climate change.
The impact associated with flooding during the operational stage is therefore deemed to be not significant. 4.5.5 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Hydrology Construction Phase Prior to construction the Contractor will be required to: • Prepare a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) which has to be agreed with Waterford City and County Council prior to the works commencing. • The CEMP will detail procedures for the control, treatment and disposal of potentially contaminated surface water and will set out robust and comprehensive procedures, including monitoring systems and oversight required throughout the construction phase. • The contractor will be required to implement industry best practice pollution prevention measures in accordance with guidance documents (for example CIRIA Guideline Documents C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites and C648 Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects), during both construction and operation in order to control the risk of pollution to surface waters. In addition, pollution of aquatic systems during the construction phase will be reduced by the implementation of a suite of protection measures as outlined in the Biodiversity 4.3.5 of this Report.
Operational Phase for Hydrology No additional mitigation measures are required for the operational phase of the proposed development. 4.5.6 Residual Impacts for Hydrology Construction Phase Construction will be required to be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.5.4 and the CEMP and EOP as adopted by the contractors and agreed by Waterford City and County Council prior to construction. If these measures are adopted, the risk of any residual impact on water quality as a result of construction is imperceptible.
Part VIII Report Page 108 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Operational Phase There are no significant impacts predicted as a result of the operational phase. 4.5.7 Difficulties Encountered No difficulties were encountered. 4.5.8 References EPA Envision Geo Portal – Online Mapping [Accessed 28/05/19]
Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) – Online data and map viewer [Accessed 28/5/19]
Waterford City Development Plan 2013-2019
OPW Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM) mapping
Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Part VIII Report Page 109 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.6 Landscape and Visual 4.6.1 Introduction Murray & Associates conducted the landscape and visual assessment for the proposed Transport Hub. The proposed site is located in Waterford City centre, on the North Quays.
The proposed development comprises of the following elements: - • The construction of a new Transport Hub; • Alterations to the layout of the existing Bus Éireann depot; • Additional off-site parking for Bus Éireann; • Drainage network upgrades along the dock road and in the vicinity of the Transport Hub; • Flood defences (along the boundary of the Iarnród Eireann rail line).
The landscape and visual assessment of the proposed development is a means of appraising the effect the proposed development would have on the receiving environment in terms of quality of landscape – both physically and visually. The assessment aims to indicate the layout and design of the proposed development which would present the least overall landscape and visual impact.
As part of the assessment, the site and its environs were visited in February, March and April 2019.
This report has been prepared by Mark Boyle, BAgrSc (LH), MLArch, MILI, director of Murray & Associates, Landscape Architecture. Mark Boyle is a full member of the Irish Landscape Institute and has been carrying out landscape and visual impact assessments for Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)/Environmental Impact Assessment Reports (EIAR) and as standalone reports since commencing practice with Murray & Associates in 1998. 4.6.2 Methodology 4.6.2.1 Terminology Landscape impacts are defined as changes in the fabric, character and quality of the landscape as a result of the development. This includes direct impacts to landscape receptors and greater effects that can alter the wider distinctiveness of the landscape. Landscape receptors are the physical or natural resource, special interest or viewer group that will experience an impact. The sensitivity (of a landscape receptor) is the vulnerability to change. The extents of the landscape impacts have been assessed by professional evaluation using the terminology defined as per Tables 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3 and 4.6.4. The terminology is based on the criteria set down in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd Edition, by The Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Assessment published by E&FN Spon, 2013). Landscape impacts are assumed to be permanent.
Table 4.6.1 Extent of Landscape Impact
An effect capable of measurement but without noticeable consequences. Imperceptible There are no noticeable changes to landscape context, character or Effects features.
Part VIII Report Page 110 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
An effect which causes noticeable changes in the character of the Not landscape but without noticeable consequences. significant There are no appreciable changes to landscape context, character or features. An effect which causes noticeable changes in the character of the landscape without affecting its sensitivities. Slight Effects There are minor changes over a small proportion of the area or moderate changes in a localised area or changes that are reparable over time. An effect that alters the character of the landscape in a manner that is Moderate consistent with existing and emerging trends. Effects There are minor changes over some of the area (up to 30%) or moderate changes in a localised area. An effect which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity alters a Significant sensitive aspect of the landscape. Effects There are notable changes in landscape characteristics over a substantial area (30-50%) or an intensive change over a more limited area An effect which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity Very significantly alters the majority of a sensitive aspect of the environment. Significant Effects There are notable changes in landscape characteristics over a substantial area (50-70%) or a very intensive change over a more limited area An effect which obliterates sensitive characteristics. Profound Effects There are notable changes in landscape characteristics over an extensive area (70-100%) or a very intensive change over a more limited area
Visual impacts relate solely to changes in available views of the landscape and the effects of those changes on people viewing the landscape. They include the direct impact of the development on views, the potential reaction of viewers, their location and number and the impact on visual amenity. The intensity of the visual impacts is assessed by professional evaluation using the terminology defined as per Tables 4.6.2, 4.6.3 and 4.6.4.
Table 4.6.2 Extent of Visual Impact
Imperceptible There are no changes to views in the visual landscape. Effects An effect which causes noticeable changes in the character of the visual environment but without noticeable consequences. Not significant The proposal is adequately screened due to the existing landform, vegetation or constructed features. An effect which causes noticeable changes in the character of the visual environment without affecting its sensitivities. Slight Effects The affected view forms only a small element in the overall visual composition, or changes the view in a marginal manner. An effect that alters the character of the visual environment in a manner Moderate that is consistent with existing and emerging trends. Effects The proposal affects an appreciable segment of the overall visual composition, or there is an intrusion in the foreground of a view.
Part VIII Report Page 111 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
An effect which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of the visual environment. Significant Effects The proposal affects a large proportion of the overall visual composition, or views are so affected that they form a new element in the physical landscape. An effect which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity significantly alters the majority of a sensitive aspect of the visual Very environment. Significant Effects The proposal affects the majority of the overall visual composition, or views are so affected that they form a new element in the physical landscape. Profound An effect which obliterates sensitive characteristics. Effects The view is entirely altered, obscured or affected.
Table 4.6.3 Quality of the Landscape and Visual Impact
Neither detracts from nor enhances the landscape of the receiving Neutral Impact environment or view Positive Improves or enhances the landscape of the receiving environment or a Impact particular view Negative Detracts from the quality of the landscape or view Impact
Table 4.6.4 The Duration of the Visual Impact
Temporary Impacts lasting one year or less Short-term Impacts lasting one to seven years Medium-term Impacts lasting seven to twenty years Long-term Impacts lasting twenty to fifty years Permanent Impacts lasting over fifty years
The landscape and visual assessment methodology will be utilised in conjunction with a professional evaluation of the proposed development to determine the degree of impact.
The term ‘study area’ as used in this report refers to the site itself and its wider landscape context in the study of the physical landscape and landscape character. This may extend for approximately 1km in all directions from the site in order to achieve an understanding of the overall landscape. In terms of the visual assessment, the study of visual amenity may extend outside the study area, from areas where views of the site are available, but the majority of visual impacts for a development of this nature would be most significant within 500m. 4.6.2.2 Methodology The methodology employed in the landscape and visual impact assessment is as follows: 1. Desktop survey of detailed maps, aerial photography and other information relevant to the study area, including: the (I) Waterford City Development Plan 2013 – 2019; (II) Waterford County Development Plan 2011-2017;
Part VIII Report Page 112 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
(III) The Waterford North Quays Planning Scheme 2018 has also been reviewed, along with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report (part of the preparation of the Planning Scheme for the Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone (S.I. No. 30 of 2016)), February 2018; and (IV) Ferrybank Belview Local Area Plan 2017. 2. Site survey and photographic survey to determine landscape character of the general study area and specific landscape of the site. 3. Assessment of the potential significant impacts of the proposed development utilising the plan and elevation drawings of the development to determine the main impacting features and the degree to which these elements would be visible in relation to observations made during the field survey. In determining visibility, the views to and from the proposed Transport Hub are considered based on the heights, finishes, design and other visual characteristics of the proposed structures and setting. 4. The proposal of mitigation measures, where relevant. These will be defined as measures which will be generally implemented and specific landscape measures which would be site-specific and address particular landscape or visual issues identified. 5. An evaluation of the impacts of the proposed development with and without amelioration. For the purposes of assessment the predicted visual effects of the development are assumed at 10 years following the completion of the proposed development.
The assessment follows prescribed methodologies, as set down in the following publications: 1. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition, by The Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Assessment published by E&FN Spon (2013), 2. Advice notes on Current Practice in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements, published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2003), and 3. Guidelines on the information to be contained in environmental impact statements, published by the EPA (2002).
The Draft EPA Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports (EPA, 2017) and Advice Notes for preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EPA. 2015) were also consulted. 4.6.3 Receiving Environment 4.6.3.1 Site Setting/Landscape Character The site of the proposed Waterford Transport Hub will be north of the City Centre on the southern boundary of the Dock Road in the townland of Ferrybank, Waterford. It is located approximately 300m north of Waterford city centre (south quays) and 550m east of the existing Plunkett Train Station.
The North Quays were an industrialised port until the 1990s and the area is now predominantly disused and semi-derelict in visual terms. The disused industrial buildings and wharves have been demolished. Rail and crane track lines remain on the waterfront, with a dual carriageway road (Dock Road) above retaining walls to the north, and the land rises steeply up from the river level, most notably to the north-west
Part VIII Report Page 113 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
to the peak of Mountsion, and the cliff-like edifice along the approach road to Waterford from the west (R448) and around the existing train station to the west of the site.
Residential developments of a suburban character are located to the north and east of the North Quays, and Plunkett Railway Station is to the west of the North Quays. The residential areas are elevated above Dock Road and the North Quay. The topography rises to a ridge partially encircling the western and northern limits of visibility within 200-400m, defining the horizon and is often punctuated with areas of tree cover. A large derelict building, a former hotel, dominates the ridge to the northwest of the site.
Waterford City Centre to the south (southwest to southeast) is set on the side of a hill which falls towards the river. The city rises to a maximum ground level of 70m OD in the vicinity of Carraig Glas Heights to the northwest of the city centre, with the commercial centre around Broad Street and Arundel Square and O’Connell Street c.10-20m OD. In views from elevated areas to the west of the city looking north, north- east and east, there are distant views towards Kilkenny and Wexford counties, with varied topography and hills on the horizons. 4.6.3.2 Landscape Planning Context and the Waterford City Development Plan 2013 – 2019. The Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone Planning Scheme 2018 also sets out several policies relevant to the landscape and visual assessment of the proposed Transport Hub.
The Waterford City Development Plan 2011-2017 notes the importance of the Quays as a waterfront: “The width of the river, the length of the Quays, their uniformity and the activities along the South Quays make for an element of major visual and townscape importance”.
The proposed Transport Hub is planned in the context of several other adjacent developments, all part of the Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone, notably the Waterford Sustainable Transport Bridge and the development of a mixed use new urban quarter on the North Quays in accordance with the Waterford North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme (NQ SDZ PS) 2018. Guidance in relation to the form and height of these developments is also set down in the Planning Scheme.
The NQ SDZ PS summarises the existing significant views as identified in previous plans for the North Quays in Section 4.5 as follows: South to North (A) Bridge Street (B) Barronstrand Street (C) The Mall (D) Panoramic view from South Quays to North Quays North to South (E) Western approach to Rice bridge (F) Rockshire Road (G) Panoramic view from North Quays to South Quays It is generally recognised that the most significant views are those generally available from the north to the south and vice versa from any point on the river’s edge. It is the objective of the Planning Scheme that these views will be retained as the defining views of the City.
Part VIII Report Page 114 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Views F, C and D are most relevant to this study as they include potential views of the site of the proposed Transport Hub. Figure 4.6.1 illustrates the location of the views and is taken from Figure 25 of the North Quays Planning Scheme.
Figure 4.6.1 Figure 25 of the NQ SDZ PS – Views to be retained
The Ferrybank Belview Local Area Plan 2017 also lists views for protection. One view is considered relevant to the current study: VFB3 - View from Mount Misery Sion south, west and east (including the view of the two watch towers). The watch towers in question are located to the east of the viewpoint so are not pertinent to this study, but views south towards Waterford city are of relevance. 4.6.3.3 Description of Site The site of the proposed Transport Hub is north of the North Quays, located between the railway tracks and Dock Road / Fountain Road. It extends for approximately 710m and is oriented east-west. The site is generally narrow as it follows the train tracks, but widens out at the eastern side, south of Fountain Street to almost 100m, where it encompasses the existing bus depot. The southern boundary of the development currently bounds brownfield lands designated for development as part of the North Quays Strategic Development Zone (NQ SDZ). Most of the land within the footprint of the site is primarily infrastructure. There is a small green area to the south of Dock Road with several early mature to mature amenity trees. The species include Lime, Horse Chestnut, Sycamore, Birch and Cherry.
The natural topography rises up at Mountmisery and Mount Sion to the north and creates a ridgeline which is quite heavily wooded which limits views to the north. There are several prominent buildings and residential developments on the elevated ground overlooking the site from the north and north-east. Most notable of these is Sion Hill House, a listed building which is prominent in views from the South Quays and the former Ard Rí Hotel to the north-west of the site.
The river is the main feature of the landscape in this area and is approximately 200m wide at this point. Both banks are urbanised wharves, with no soft riparian edges or vegetation present in the immediate vicinity. The river flows eastwards and the edges become more heavily vegetated. It joins with the River Barrow and flows out into Waterford Harbour approximately 7.5km to the east.
Part VIII Report Page 115 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The North Quays are currently semi-derelict and disused. The landscape is composed of industrial-scale wharves, a railway line and Dock Road (R711) / Fountain Road. Dock Road is estimated to be elevated above the level of the wharf by some 8-10m. There are residential buildings to the north and west of the site which face onto Dock Road with a single storey elevation and 2-3 storey residential properties to the rear of Dock Road, facing onto the wharf. There has been an extensive programme of demolition on the North Quays in recent years resulting in the presence of spoil heaps and large areas of open space and hard standing on the wharves. As a result, the visual quality of the existing space is poor.
The total site area of the proposed development is 3.88 hectare (38,835m²). The existing land uses of the lands required for the proposed development include: transport infrastructure comprising parts of R711 Dock Road Dual Carriageway, existing rail line and associated railway infrastructure; Top service station, a bus shelter at Ferrybank, Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ)/ Bus Éireann Bus Depot, vacant commercial unit along the Dock Road and former commercial/ warehousing uses associated with the former Dunlop site (approved to be demolished as part of a separate planning application).
The railway line that will be used for the proposed development (located east of Plunkett Station) is currently a freight railway line (Waterford to Belview Port) which has a low frequency of freight rail traffic approximately 1 number freight train every two weeks.
Plate 4.6.1 View from Fountain Street, Ferrybank looking south-west towards the site and city centre, with Christ Church Cathedral and Reginald’s Tower visible on the left of the photo.
Part VIII Report Page 116 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.6.2 View from Rockshire Road looking south towards the city centre and Christ Church Cathedral / Reginald’s Tower. (View F from Figure 4.6.1)
Plate 4.6.3 Panoramic View from the Mall at Reginald’s Tower (on left of photo), looking north towards the North Quays and site of Transport Hub (View C from Figure 4.6.1)
Plate 4.6.4 View from the quay near Reginald’s Tower, looking north towards the North Quays and site of Transport Hub
Part VIII Report Page 117 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.6.5 Part of the Panoramic View from Meagher’s Quay northeast towards the North Quays and site. Housing developments in the Ferrybank neighbourhood are also visible in the background. (View D from Figure 4.6.1) 4.6.3.4 Views Views of the site for the proposed Transport Hub are available from the following locations in the public realm: • View from Rockshire Road south and surrounding residential areas (View F in North Quays PS, Figure 4.6.1 above; and photo in Plate 4.6.2). • View from Fountain Road (Plate 4.6.1). • Panoramic view from South Quays to North Quays (View D in North Quays PS, Figure 4.6.1 above; Figures 4.6.4 and 4.6.5). • View from The Mall / Reginald’s Tower north/northeast (View C in North Quays PS, Figure 4.6.1 above; and photo in Plate 4.6.3).
Partial views of the proposed development may also be available from Dock Road and Rice Bridge to the west, with the skyline of the city and Ferrybank as well as the trees of Estuary Wood, east of the proposed site, forming the context and backdrop.
Views from elevated residential receptors to the north of the site, looking south are also available; most notably from houses of the Bishopsgrove residential estate. Partial views from Sion Hill House (a listed building) to the west of Bishopsgrove will be possible, as will views from more elevated housing areas such as Castle Oaks / Fairways / Green Oaks, 0.5km north of the site and Rockenham to the northeast.
Views from Abbey Church, a national monument to the southeast of the site, Ferrybank Sports Ground to the northeast and from residential areas on Abbey Road / Christendom area to the east, are unlikely to be impacted due to the buildings and vegetation in the intervening landscape.
Views from Dock Road will be available in certain locations, particularly near the proposed Transport Hub.
Part VIII Report Page 118 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.6.2: Visual Receptors 4.6.3.5 Sensitivity of the Identified Receptors In landscape terms, the site of the proposed Transport Hub, composed of existing roads, rail, depots and low quality buildings, are considered to have low sensitivity. The only landscape elements considered to be sensitive are a group of trees set in a green area on the northern edge of the site.
Rivers would usually be considered of high sensitivity as inherently attractive and important elements in the landscape. In this context, the focus of views from Ferrybank and Dock Road southward is generally the skyline of the City Centre, and the river is not visible in views from viewpoints on Dock Road and Fountain Road, because there are existing walls and topography blocking it. The river is only visible in views from higher elevations.
Visual receptors have greater potential sensitivity to change in the landscape, however this is reduced by the following existing adverse factors: • Low visual value of the existing North Quays and subject site with old buildings and inharmonious spaces; • There are visual barriers for many potential receptors, including walls, trees, etc. which limit views of the site; • The site is zoned and planned for large scale development and the Planning Scheme has been accepted by the local authority and elected representatives.
In general, views from north to south where views to the City Centre are blocked or curtailed have greatest visual sensitivity due to the quality of the views of the City Centre with the cathedral spire, roofscape and heritage elements.
Part VIII Report Page 119 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The following Table 4.6.5 lists the identified receptors (illustrated in Figure 4.6.2) and their level of sensitivity.
Table 4.6.5 Sensitivity of Potential Visual Receptors
Ref. Viewpoint / Distance Description of View Level of Approx. from Site Sensitivity Elevation 1 Sion Row, Immediately Views from elevated rear windows High Dock Road; north of over railway of South Quays with 9m OD railway; rising topography and urban 230m west landscape behind including church of rail stn. spires and Clock Tower on Meagher’s Quay (350m to the south). 2 Sion Hill 130m north Views from B&B and Gardens of Moderate House; of railway; South Quays in elevated location 28m OD 300m with rising topography and urban northwest of landscape behind including church rail stn. spires. View of Clock Tower on Meagher’s Quay (450m to the south) is reputed to be historic. Views towards rail station and bus depot are limited by existing mature trees and adjacent housing. 3 Bishopsgrove 50-70m Bishopsgrove—Residential Open High residential north Space views from dwellings, gardens estate; 20- and public realm/open space areas 30m OD of South Quays with rising topography and urban landscape behind including church spires and Reginald’s Tower. 4 Rockshire 50m north View F from Planning Scheme of High Road; 7m OD South Quays with rising topography and urban landscape behind including church spires and Reginald’s Tower. 5 Fountain 70m north View from some dwellings, Medium Road / R711 businesses and public realm of Ross Road; South Quays with rising topography 9m OD and urban landscape behind including church spires and Reginald’s Tower. 6 Abbey Road; 60m east Views from churches, Nursing Low 10m OD Home, etc. to the west are limited by the walls, vegetation and intervening buildings. 7 Rockshire 530m north Views of the South Quays and Low Road / cityscape from paths and roadways Mountsion in elevated location. Road Junction; 55m OD
Part VIII Report Page 120 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Ref. Viewpoint / Distance Description of View Level of Approx. from Site Sensitivity Elevation 8 Greenoaks / 530m north Views of the South Quays and Medium The Fairways; cityscape from residential estates, 45m OD including Castle Oaks / Fairways / Greenoaks are similar where available. 9 Rockenham - 230m north Views of the South Quays and Medium Open Space; cityscape from elevated area of 25m OD public realm. 10 Ferrybank 480m Views from Ferrybank Sports Low Sports northeast Ground are limited by existing Ground; mature vegetation. 20m OD 11A Abbey 300m Abbey Church setting includes Low Church; southeast several mature trees; the main views 20m OD are to the South Quays south and southwest of the site, and the natural landscape east and southeast. Views towards the proposed transport hub are limited by vegetation and buildings. 11B Abbey Lodge; 300m Abbey Lodge is set lower than Medium 20m OD southeast Abbey Road and is visually enclosed with existing boundaries and vegetation. Some of this vegetation may be removed, so the sensitivity is increased in this scenario. 12 Abbey Road / 350m Views from east of site are limited by Low Christendom - southeast existing mature vegetation and residential buildings. areas 13 The Mall; 380m south View C from Planning Scheme. Medium 5m OD Framed view from street to North Quays and rising landscape behind. 14 South Quays; 350-500m Panoramic views from South Quays Medium 4-5m OD south / to North Quays and rising landscape southwest behind - View D from Planning Scheme. 15 Rice Bridge, 500m from View from public footpath on Rice Low 5m OD flood Bridge of South and North Quays defence; with rising topography and urban 800m from landscape behind. rail station; west
Part VIII Report Page 121 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Ref. Viewpoint / Distance Description of View Level of Approx. from Site Sensitivity Elevation 16 Mount 500m from Protected View VFB3 from Medium Misery/Sion, flood Ferrybank Belview LAP - View from 70m OD defence; Mount Misery/Sion south, west and 800m from east (including the view of the two rail station; watch towers). The watch towers in northwest question are to the east of the viewpoint so are not pertinent to this study, views south towards Waterford city and over the river are available from this location.
4.6.4 Visual Characteristics of the Proposed Development The proposed Transport Hub development will include the following elements: - • the construction of a new transport hub; • alterations to the layout of the existing Bus Eireann depot; • additional off-site bus parking for Bus Eireann; • drainage network upgrades along the dock road and in the vicinity of the Transport Hub; • flood defences (along the boundary of the Iarnród Eireann rail line).
Site clearance works include demolition of the existing railway overbridge at the site, Top Oil Service station, a single storey commercial unit, level crossing cabin and part of the Bus Depot Boundary wall. The existing trees and green area south of Dock Road at the junction with Rockshire Road will also be cleared.
The most visible element of the proposed project is likely to be the construction of a train station comprising of: • two number platforms 200m in length and a level of c.4.5m OD; • a station building at the eastern end of the platforms (which will comprise of a concourse/waiting area, welfare facilities and a covered footbridge/ plaza over the railway line) that will have access via stairs, lifts and escalator from the Dock Road and will also provide pedestrian access into the proposed SDZ development. The height of the proposed buildings extends to approximately 21m OD; • Construction of a footbridge (over the railway line) at the western access connecting into the SDZ development at a height of 9.35m OD; • Road improvement and public realm works along the Dock Road to facilitate pick up / drop off (set down area) for local bus service and coaches along the Dock Road complete with a covered walkway to access the station building.
Also included in the development is a flood defence system along the existing railway corridor designed to future proof the development from risk of flooding. This will have the visual appearance of a concrete wall 150m to the east and 320m west of the proposed station platforms, with a maximum height of 1.5m approx. above the existing ground level, i.e. a top wall level of 4.24m OD. This is considerably lower than the road levels along most of Dock Road/Fountain Road and similar to ground level at the existing path south of the junction with Rockshire Road which is the lowest point of the
Part VIII Report Page 122 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
public path along the roads. Thus, the flood defence wall will not block or impact on any views from any of the identified receptors.
There will also be a specific drop off and collection area just to the east of the proposed Transport Hub to cater for approximately; 10 short-term car parking spaces, 10 taxi waiting spaces, 4 coaches. Further east on the site, 26 no. Bus Eireann bus spaces will be provided to the east of the existing Bus Eireann/ bus depot site in the former Dunlop factory site which will be accessed by dedicated internal road network connecting both sites.
The proposed development will involve the decommissioning of the existing train station at Plunkett Railway Station. The proposed development is not proposing any works to the existing railway station, so visual impact of this element is considered neutral. Public realm improvements including lighting and landscaping of the area are also proposed.
The use of the Transport Hub could also generate visual impacts with trains, buses and taxis/ cars entering and leaving the site on a more regular basis. This is likely to be slightly more frequent than the current level of traffic movements and is considered to be a very minor level of additional visual impact.
The proposed Transport Hub is to be built alongside the Waterford North Quays SDZ which will adjoin the Transport Hub directly to the south. The Planning Scheme sets out the heights of the proposed buildings in the NQ SDZ area and permits heights up to 60m OD (Section 4.6 Building Height of NQ SDZ PS). Thus, the future proposed NQ SDZ developments are likely to be considerably larger than the Transport Hub. Visual impacts for this development should be considered in the context of the other development in the NQ SDZ area, of which the Transport Hub is a relatively small visual component, albeit a substantial development in its own right. 4.6.4.1 Magnitude & Quality of Change in the Landscape & Visual Environment The proposed development will result in a change to the landscape, which will give rise to landscape and visual effects. The likely extent of the change within the landscape context is considered to be moderate as there will be changes to landscape character within this localised area, which will be visible from surrounding areas. The magnitude of change will vary depending on the viewpoint from which it is viewed and how visible the proposed buildings are in that view.
The proposed buildings and structures associated with the Transport Hub will contrast with the existing landscape resulting in a permanent change in character. As there has been extensive change in this area in the last 30 years (the transfer of Port activities from North Quays to Belview Port in the early 1990s, dereliction of the area and subsequent demolition of former Port related buildings, mills, silos, etc.) The landscape is in a state of transition therefore the magnitude of change is somewhat ameliorated.
With regard to quality of change, the proposed development is generally considered an improvement to the existing degraded, low quality brownfield landscape, as described earlier. The construction of new buildings and improvements to the public realm and general organisation of the site are all considered positive changes or improvements to the landscape. This positive impact to the quality of landscape will be seen in views from the wider landscape where the Transport Hub will form a new feature in views. It will also be an improvement in the landscape amenity value of the site for users. However, the proposed buildings may partially block views of the city
Part VIII Report Page 123 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
from some receptors and in these cases, this would be considered a localised negative impact.
It should be mentioned that viewers of the proposed Station Building / Transport Hub from the south may also experience negative visual impacts if viewing the Transport Hub building in isolation as it would appear incomplete prior to the completion of the other developments in the SDZ. As the Transport Hub is designed to back directly onto the future buildings of the NQ SDZ the southern elevation would be blank and featureless when constructed, if constructed in advance of the larger development abutting it. 4.6.5 Potential Impacts Potential landscape and visual impacts are effects created by the proposed development that have an appreciable impact, positive or negative, on the existing landscape or on views of the landscape from sensitive receptors. Mitigation measures are not considered in the calculation of potential impacts. 4.6.5.1 Construction Phase Impacts Construction stage impacts, where they occur, are considered to be of negative quality and short term, as the construction stage is expected to last 22 to 26 months.
There will be moderate temporary negative impacts associated with the construction works of this development on the Dock Road / Fountain Road. This will be due to the presence of construction equipment and building processes required to erect the proposed Transport Hub, which may include cranes and other plant and machinery that will contrast with the existing landscape. The landscape of the North Quays is not currently of value but will undergo change from that of an area of infrastructure and brownfield to a construction site.
A permanent impact arising from the construction stage will be the removal of 19 no. trees and green area from the southern edge of Dock Road. The trees are early mature Lime, Horse Chestnut, Sycamore, Birch and Cherry and this constitutes a moderate negative impact due to the relative scarcity of planting on the streetscape.
Visual impacts during construction will affect all sensitive receptors identified in section 4.6.3. The effects on the receptors during construction will be associated with the visibility of the construction activities, cranes and other plant and machinery that will be taller than the proposed Transport Hub and will be very visible in views from the surrounding areas. Some of the construction equipment is likely to impact on the skyline of the city temporarily, particularly in views from the north. However, due to the relatively small size of this construction site, the machinery will not dominate any view. The visual impacts are considered to be moderate and negative short-term effects for all receptors during construction.
If this development is built in parallel with the SDZ development of the North Quays, the cumulative visual impact at construction stage would be much more substantial, with much taller building heights and cranes and much greater construction activity. 4.6.5.2 Operational Phase Potential Landscape Impact Following construction, the main landscape impacts of the proposed development are associated with the presence of the proposed Station Building proposed North Plaza including car and bus parking, greenway and associated public realm works in place of the existing infrastructure and buildings these works will create a higher quality
Part VIII Report Page 124 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
landscape than is there at present. This is assessed as a slight impact and is considered positive, because the landscape will be better organised as a result of the proposed development, which will now form a new northerly approach entrance into the city.
The proposed development will also facilitate greater amenity as it will ultimately facilitate pedestrian access to the South Quays and City Centre through the NQ SDZ lands and across the proposed Sustainable Transport Bridge. Thus, it will have a moderate positive impact on landscape amenity, through connectivity and permeability between Ferrybank and the City Centre.
On the NQ SDZ as the extent and type of treatment is generally unknown at this time, the impact is considered to be potentially slight and positive. The Transport Hub will open up and facilitate future development and use of this the adjoining derelict site (in accordance with the NQ SDZ PS). Therefore, it is likely that further positive landscape effects will manifest as a result of this development in the future.
Potential Visual Impact Potential visual impacts of the proposed development are assessed by examining specific views to and from the site of the proposed Transport Hub. Visual impacts may arise where the proposed Transport Hub, bus depot reorganisation or associated activities or elements change the existing visual environment. The new train station, bus depot and associated structures will form new visual elements in the landscape. The greater frequency of trains arriving and departing, and potential additional bus, car and taxi movements could also generate additional visual impacts, but these are considered to be marginal in the context where there is currently transport functions in place.
Views into the site can be seen in the photos presented in Plates 4.6.1 – 4.6.5. These Plates show key viewpoints from the surrounding area, which will be potentially affected by the proposed development. The following views are considered to be those which are likely to be considered most affected by the proposed Transport Hub development.
Views from Sion Row, Dock Road, Mount Sion House & Mount Misery/Sion The elements of the proposed development most visible to these dwellings will be the flood defence walls along the rail line, which are low at 1.5m maximum height and do not generate notable visual impacts. There may also be oblique views of the train station buildings, bridges and platforms. These do not affect any of the important views of the river and south city from these receptors, so the visual effects are considered to be moderate negative for Sion Row and slight negative for Sion Hill House and Mount Misery / Sion which are both further away and somewhat screened. There is likely to be no appreciably impact on the protected views south from Mount Misery / Sion or the historic view south to the Clock Tower on the south from Mount Sion House.
Views from Dock Road, Rockshire Road, Bishopsgrove, Fountain Road, Ross Road, Rockenham & Environs As previously stated, the best views in this locale are those from north to south of the city and those from lower elevations are most affected. As the proposed development may block or interrupt views of the city with its spires and heritage elements, this is considered a negative impact. Where views are more elevated, generally above 20m OD, views are less affected as the maximum height of the building proposed is approximately 21m OD so it does not affect sightlines to the city. The relatively small size of the proposed building and structures means that it does not completely block
Part VIII Report Page 125 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
any views from identified receptors. Thus, levels of impact are higher from lower receptors such as Rockshire Road R4 (View F in the Planning Scheme – refer to Figures 4.6.1 above) where the impact is considered significant. Other receptors at lower elevations are moderately affected and views from higher elevations may in fact achieve positive impacts where the quality of the proposed development brings visual improvements when compared with the existing site in more distant elevated views (above 20m OD), where views of the cityscape are not blocked.
Views from Abbey Church & Gate Lodge Abbey Church & Gate Lodge will not have any direct views of the proposed buildings, due to distance, topography, existing vegetation and buildings. Some views of the proposed bus park could be possible, but it is considered that the visual impact will be slight negative from the Church. Views could be more open into the site from Abbey Lodge due to changes on the adjacent boundary and potential removal of trees or existing boundary elements, resulting in moderate negative visual impact.
Views from South of the River The proposed Transport Hub will form a new element in the landscape from vantage points south of the river, albeit at some distance, and the rear facing elevation of the building will be facing towards the receptors. This elevation is intended to align with the proposed NQ SDZ and is not intended to be viewed in the long term. Thus, the quality of visual impact will be negative until such time as the NQ SDZ area is constructed, although slight in extent due to the distance between the viewer and northern elevation of the structure, and relatively small size of the building. Other elements of the proposed development including the parking areas and flood defences are unlikely to be visible from the south quays.
Note regarding Potential Night-time Impacts As there is substantial existing lighting in the environs of the proposed development site boundary and receptors, potential impacts due to proposed lighting are considered to have a marginal effect on the general visual environment for receptors. In views from north of the river, the city is in the backdrop of the views, which is fully lit at night and in views from the south, Dock Road and Ferrybank are also lit by street and house lights. Thus, it is anticipated that this would be perceived as a slight negative impact in this context. 4.6.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures The following recommendations are put forward to mitigate against the negative impacts mentioned above and to reinforce the positive impacts of the proposed development. Mitigation measures are proposed and considered only on the lands of the proposed development. 4.6.6.1 Construction Phase During the construction phase, site hoarding will be erected to restrict views of the site. Hours of construction activity will also be restricted in accordance with local authority guidance. 4.6.6.2 Operational Phase The following design features of the scheme are integral to the design, and were included as part of the stepwise refinement method of design where potential impacts were identified and offset in the design phase:
Part VIII Report Page 126 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
1. The design of the Transport Hub is of a good quality in visual terms, good quality materials (steel, glass, concrete) and colouring to create an interesting and visually attractive building. 2. The Transport Hub public realm areas are designed to create good quality public spaces with paving, green space and tree planting along the roads to soften and integrate the buildings and spaces, and around the bus depot / drop off area. Some ornamental planting is also integrated into the design. 3. Lighting design should provide for low levels of lateral light spillage to avoid unwanted areas of illumination.
Monitoring and maintenance of the Transport Hub and landscape will be required to ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of the proposed development over time which could lead to a negative visual impact. 4.6.7 Residual Impacts The residual impacts are the impacts that the development is most likely to have on the receiving environment having regard to the proposed mitigation measures. 4.6.7.1 Construction Phase Predicted landscape impacts at construction stage are likely to be as per the potential impacts described in Section 4.6.5.1. The mitigation measures proposed will have no effect on construction stage landscape impacts, as the character of the space will change considerably. This is considered a slight temporary negative impact.
Removal of the 19no. trees during construction generates a negative impact, but as they will be compensated for by planting of new trees along the Dock Road in front of the transport hub development and within the Bus Depot, creating a net positive impact on the tree resource of the area as more trees will be planted than the number proposed for removal. Approximately 33 no. new street trees are shown on the plans in the area around the proposed Transport Hub and Bus Depot, so this is considered to be more than adequate for compensation and will generate a positive impact.
The proposed hoarding will slightly improve the negative effect on visual impact in views from nearby roads and pedestrian areas. However, as the construction machinery equipment will be higher than the hoarding, the predicted visual impacts will otherwise be as indicated in the potential impacts Section 4.6.5.1. 4.6.7.2 Operational Phase In considering residual impacts, it is considered that the Transport Hub will generate positive impacts. Due to the quality of design and materials of the proposed Transport Hub, together with the proposed tree planting and improvements to the public realm in the area of the development, it is our considered opinion that the development will create a positive element in comparison with the low quality of the existing environment of the site. It will also add to the pedestrian connectivity and permeability of the city and therefore enhance the experience of the city’s landscape.
As the trees planted at construction stage in the area around the proposed Transport Hub and Bus Depot establish and grow over the operational phase, positive impact on the tree resource of the area is achieved as a permanent impact. These trees will also create a setting for, and partially screen, the bus depot and transport hub.
Residual Landscape Impact The landscape impacts due to the proposed development would overall be slight, permanent and positive due to the new connectivity and quality of the Transport Hub
Part VIII Report Page 127 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
which will enhance the character of the landscape. Considering the overall cumulative effects of the aspirations of the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme, this positive effect is likely to increase with time as new buildings and public realm are constructed. The cohesive land use and pattern that would result and the new spaces introduced will connect the city centre to the proposed Transport Hub, forming new routes and patterns of use for walkers and cyclists from the hub and linking into the existing and future greenways.
Residual Visual Impact The residual visual impacts are those that will persist following the implementation and establishment of the proposed landscape measures (medium to long term). See Table 4.6.6 for a summary of the residual visual impact.
The proposed mitigation measures do not alter the views substantially from these receptors, so impacts levels remain as per the potential visual impacts, although the development will fit better into the existing landscape and some of the receptors will experience reductions in levels of impact as the proposed trees mature in the longer term.
Cumulative Visual Impacts Consideration of the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the identified receptors leads to a substantial increase in impact levels and magnitude of change, given the likely size and scale of the proposed development adjacent to the Transport Hub. The future buildings planned as part of the NQ SDZ are likely to block and limit views of the cityscape in views from north to south for receptors at lower elevations and result in negative impact.
In some cases, such as those dwellings on Sion Row (Dock Road), the visual impacts will be very severe because of the proximity of the large buildings and the blocking of existing views of the River Suir and South Quays. In views from other areas, views are potentially enhanced due to the likely quality and enhancements to the public realm and architecture of the North Quays as envisaged in the Planning Scheme. See Table 4.6.6 for a summary of the cumulative visual impact the location of the receptors are illustrated in Figure 4.6.2.
Table 4.6.6 Summary of Visual Impacts, including Cumulative Impact
Ref. Viewpoint / Level of Magnitude of Residual Magnitude of Residual Approx. Elevation Sensitivity Change to Impact (with Change to Impact – View mitigation) View – Cumulative Cumulative 1 Sion Row, Dock High Low Moderate Very High Profound Road; 9m OD Negative Negative 2 Sion Hill House; Medium Low Slight Very High Significant 28m OD Negative Negative 3 Bishopsgrove Medium Medium Moderate Very High Significant residential estate; Negative Negative 20-30m OD 4 Rockshire Road; High Medium Significant Very High Significant 7m OD Negative Negative 5 Fountain Road / Medium Medium Moderate High Moderate R711 Ross Road; Negative Negative 9m OD
Part VIII Report Page 128 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Ref. Viewpoint / Level of Magnitude of Residual Magnitude of Residual Approx. Elevation Sensitivity Change to Impact (with Change to Impact – View mitigation) View – Cumulative Cumulative 6 Abbey Road; 10m Low Low Not Low Not significant OD Significant 7 Rockshire Road/ Low Low Not Medium Slight Positive Mountsion Road Significant Junction; 55m OD 8 Greenoaks/The Medium Low Slight Medium Moderate Fairways; 45m OD Negative Negative 9 Rockenham - Medium Low Slight Medium Moderate Open Space; Negative Negative 25m OD 10 Ferrybank Sports Low Imperceptible Imperceptible Low Not significant Ground; 20m OD 11A Abbey Church; Low Low Slight Medium Moderate 20m OD Negative. Negative 11B Abbey Lodge; Medium Medium Moderate Medium Moderate 20m OD Negative Negative 12 Abbey Road / Low Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible Imperceptible Christendom - residential areas 13 The Mall; 5m OD Medium Low Slight High Significant Negative. Positive 14 South Quays; Medium Low Slight High Significant 4-5m OD Negative Positive 15 Rice Bridge, Low Low Not significant Medium Slight Positive 5m OD 16 Mount Misery/Sion, Medium Low Slight Low Slight 70m OD Negative Negative
4.6.7.3 ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario The do-nothing impact refers to the non-implementation of the proposed development. The primary effect of this would be that the impacts and effects identified would not directly occur. Without the proposed Transport Hub, the regeneration of the North Quays and the positive impacts that are likely to occur in the landscape as a result would be less likely to happen. If this were the case, the likelihood is that the North Quay would continue to degenerate and could generate negative landscape and visual effects over time for both the North and South Quays. 4.6.7.4 ‘Worst Case’ Scenario The views selected for analysis are those from where the proposed development is most likely to be visible and so the analysis of impacts represents a worst-case scenario.
Part VIII Report Page 129 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.7 Noise Vibration Assessment 4.7.1 Introduction Enfonic have been commissioned by Roughan & O’Donovan (ROD) Consulting Engineers to prepare a noise & vibration impact assessment in relation to the proposed Waterford City Transport Hub.
The assessment considers relevant policy and guidance including: • BS4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound; • BS 5228:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Noise; • BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings and; • Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) guidance on "Reken- en Meetvoorschrift Railverkeerlawaai (2012)" (RMR) rail noise modelling. This is the recommended interim standard to use for modelling rail noise in the European Union’s Environmental Noise Directive.
Noise and vibration levels from the existing Plunkett Station were used as the basis of the impact assessment of the operation of the new station. The number of train movements, timetable and train types associated with the proposed development are anticipated to be the same as the existing situation. 4.7.2 Methodology Noise Models of Existing Situation and Proposed Development A noise and vibration survey at Plunkett Station was conducted and the existing situation i.e. station and train movements, was modelled using proprietary computer software B&K Predictor Type 7810-C. The main noise sources input into the model were the arrival, departure and idling of trains. Noise levels were predicted to the same position as the attended monitoring took place. By comparing the predicted and measured noise levels, the model is validated i.e. it confirms that the input data and other assumptions made, produce reliable noise levels for a known situation.
The modelling assumptions were then transferred to a new model of the proposed development and the noise levels at other locations, including the closest Noise Sensitive Locations (NSLs) were predicted.
Assessment Methodology Overview An attended noise and vibration survey quantified the existing noise levels at a selection of representative NSLs. By comparing the predicted noise levels from the operation of the proposed development with the results of the noise and vibration survey, the impact was objectively assessed. The assessment procedures followed guidelines in various standards including particularly BS4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound.
The construction phases of the proposed development were also modelled using the appropriate modelling standard, ISO9613-2:1996 Acoustics -- Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. These models use the various types of construction plant and processes as the input noise sources. A list of the expected equipment, types of works and phases was supplied, and models of each phase were prepared.
Part VIII Report Page 130 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The objective impact assessment of the noise and vibration levels associated with the construction phase follows guidance in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Noise. This standard sets maximum limits of construction related noise which relate to the existing ambient conditions.
Vibration limits, as set out in BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings, were identified and potential vibration levels due to train operations and construction activities were assessed. 4.7.3 Assessment Criteria – Operational The EU Environmental Noise Directive (END) requires member states to produce noise maps of various sources including road, rail, aircraft and industry. Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) is the body responsible for mapping road and rail noise in Ireland, the latter of which follows the RMR rail noise modelling standard which is therefore used in this assessment.
In RMR, train types are divided into 9 railway vehicles categories, see Figure 4.7.1. These are primarily differentiated on the basis of drive unit and wheel brake system.
Figure 4.7.1 RMR Train Categories
Iarnród Éireann primarily operate 201 Class locomotives at Plunkett Station. These are the newest and most powerful diesel locomotives operating in Ireland and were built between 1994 and 1995 by General Motors. They are model type JT42HCW, fitted with an EMD 12-710G3B engine of 3,200 hp (2,400 kW), weigh 108.862 tonnes (107.143 long tons; 120.000 short tons) and have a maximum speed of 164 km/h (102 mph).
It has been assumed that the 201 Class locomotive is described by Category 3 in the RMR categories.
Part VIII Report Page 131 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Irish Rail also operate low-frequency freight services through Plunkett Station to Belview Port. This service uses older 071 Class locomotives which has been assumed to fall into Category 4 above. 4.7.4 Existing Conditions 4.7.4.1 Train Movements All passenger services currently terminate at Plunkett Station and arrive relatively slowly, idle for some time, and depart.
The noise impact assessment uses the LDEN parameter which is described in Appendix 4.7.1 of this section ‘Acoustic Terminology’. Noise levels for Evening and Night periods attract a +5 and +10dB penalty respectively which best represents the overall impact of a development.
Therefore, from the published timetables for the station – see Appendix 4.7.2 – the train movements were divided into Day, Evening and Night-time periods for the purposes of conducting the noise assessment. These are presented in Table 4.7.1 below.
Table 4.7.1 Train Movements Per Period
Day Evening Night (07:00-19:00) (19:00-23:00) (23:00-07:00) Arrivals: Mon-Sat 6 4 Sun 2 2 Daily Average 5.4 3.7 Departures: Mon-Sat 9 1 1 Sun 4 Daily Average 8.3 0.9 Daily Average Movements 13.7 4.6 1
Trains typically have several discrete noise sources including engines, wheels/boogies, air-conditioning system, horns etc, each of which can dominate at various speeds. The RMR modelling standards uses the input speed to best model the train noise under the various conditions.
It was observed during the noise assessment that trains arrive and depart at relatively slow speeds. For the purposes of this section of noise modelling, a stopping speed of 10km/h was set at the station, increasing by 10kmph intervals every 200m. 4.7.4.2 Noise Model Validation On June 19, 2019 noise levels from two departures, one arrival and three idling trains were measured at a location approximately 12m from the tracks in the car park of the station and at a height of 1.5m, denoted as RB1. Figure 2 indicates the measurement position.
Part VIII Report Page 132 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
A B&K Type 2250-L Class 1 Sound Level Meter was used to conduct the measurements following procedures in ISO 1996-1:2016 Acoustics - Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise. As required by ISO 1996-1, the meter was calibrated before measurements were taken and any drift in the meter’s sensitivity was checked afterwards.
Figure 4.7.2 Noise Monitoring Location
The measured noise levels at RB1 are shown in Table 4.7.2 and a glossary of acoustic terminology is given in Appendix 4.71.
Table 4.7.2 Measured noise levels of train departures & arrivals
Start Time Duration LAeq (Measured) LAE (Measured) 20/06/2019 10:00 00:04:14 63.4 88.2 20/06/2019 10:05 00:05:21 64.4 89.1 20/06/2019 10:12 00:06:07 63.6 88.4
Noise levels are defined by various parameters and the LAeq and LAE parameters above are applicable to quantify the noise associated with train movements. The LAeq parameter is a measure of the overall noise level but to better compare individual train movements which may take different amounts of time to complete, the LAE parameter was used. This parameter essentially ‘condenses’ each LAeq measurement into a 1second period so that individual noise events with different measurement times can be compared. It is derived using the following formula: LAE = LAeq + 10 x log T Where: T = measurement duration in seconds
The measured train noise levels were then converted to the 16-hour daytime and 4- hour evening-time periods by using the following equation formula:
LAeq,16hr = LAE – (10 x log (60 x 60 x 12) + 10 x log N
Where: LAE = Total of the measured levels 60 x 60 x 12 = No. seconds in a 12-hour daytime*
Part VIII Report Page 133 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
N = No. Train movements in a 12-hour daytime* *Evening-time uses 4-hour period *Night-time used 8-hour period
A train movement is either an arrival, departure or idling and each was measured and the resultant LAE values were used to compute the overall LDEN. The results of the calculations are shown in Table 4.7.3 along with the predicted levels for comparison.
Table 4.7.3 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Noise Levels
Noise Levels in dB re 2x10-5pa Idle Arr Dep L Train1 88.2 89.9 86.5 AE L Train2 89.1 91.6 AE LAE Train3 88.4
LAE Total 93.4 89.9 89.1 Day Evening Night Average No. of Trains: 13.7 4.6 1.0
Using the LAE values and the No. of Trains in the formula
LAeq = LAE – (10 x log (60 x 60 x 12) + 10 x log N values for each train operation were derived as follows:
Idle LAeq 57.1 58.4 51.8
Arr LAeq 53.7 54.9 48.3
Dep LAeq 56.6 57.8 51.2
Summing each train operation, values for Lday, Levening and Lnight were derived as follows: Measured Values:
Total Lday 62.0
Levening 62.1
Lnight 52.4
LDEN 63.5 Comparable values calculated from the noise model are as follows: Predicted Values:
Lday 64.7
Levening 59.8
Lnight 53.2
LDEN 64.3
The predicted levels are slightly greater for day and night-time periods and slightly under for evening period. The overall LDEN is predicted to be slightly greater which represents a conservative impact assessment.
Therefore, using the input criteria described, the model can be considered to produce reliable and accurate results.
Part VIII Report Page 134 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.7.5 Proposed Development Using the input criteria which was validated in the model of the existing situation, the noise levels associated with the proposed Transport Hub were modelled. It has been assumed that the existing track, which runs to Belview Port, is same route that will serve the proposed development.
The current number of movements, timetable etc have been maintained for the purpose of this model however, sections of the track have been divided based on their running speeds. This accounts for the trains which likely run faster further from the station. Each section is approximately 200m long with the train speed increasing on each section by 10kmph.
Two number platforms will extend approximately 200m from the station building where passenger trains will terminate. Freight trains will pass through the station on their way to Belview Port – see Section 4.7.9of this Report for the impact assessment of freight train movements.
The acoustically significant features of the development were included in the model and include; major topographic height lines, existing walls which will remain and the platforms which act as a barrier to some noise from the trains. The station building is included but the canopy, fencing, planting, bridges etc are not as these have no effect on the noise propagation model.
A 3D representation of the noise model is shown in Figure 4.7.3.
Figure 4.7.3 Rendered 3D image of the New Station noise model. Red=Track, Purple=Buildings, Grey/Green=Ground Regions
Part VIII Report Page 135 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.7.6 Noise Survey 4.7.6.1 Noise Survey Methodology Attended and unattended noise surveys were conducted to quantify the existing noise environment in the vicinity of noise-sensitive locations that may be affected by the proposed development.
On 18 & 19 June 2019 noise measurements were conducted at two locations during the Day, Evening and Night-time periods. These locations were representative of the NSLs at Bishops Grove to the north of the Dock Road (houses) and at the entrance to Abbey Community College (school) to the east. These are denoted NMT2-1 and NMT2-3, respectively.
NMT2-1 was a hybrid of unattended monitoring during the day and attended measurements during the evening and night-times.
A previous noise survey was also undertaken by Enfonic on 17 October 2018 during the day-time period. These are denoted NMT1 to NMT3. 4.7.6.2 Noise Monitoring Locations Details of the background noise survey locations are given in Table 4.7.4
Table 4.7.4a Noise Survey Measurement Location Details
Location GPS Date of Description Coordinates survey NMT2-1 52.265514, - June 18/19, Adjacent to Bishopsgrove properties, also 7.108051 2019 representative of Sion Row properties. Dominant noise source: traffic on Dock Road. NMT2-3 52.264575, - June 18/19, Outside the entrance to school. 7.101914 2019 Dominant noise source: traffic on Abbey Road NMT1 52.265122, - October 17, Outside commercial premises on Dock 7.104718 2018 Road. Dominant noise source: traffic on Dock Road NMT2 52.264648, - October 17, Outside the entrance to school. 7.101756 2018 Dominant noise source: traffic on Abbey Road NMT3 52.265403, - October 17, Adjacent Sion Row. 7.109398 2018 Dominant noise source: traffic on Dock Road
A map of the background noise survey locations is presented in Figure 4.7.4 below.
Part VIII Report Page 136 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.7.4 Noise measurement locations. 4.7.6.3 Noise Survey Results Being an urban environment, the major noise source at all locations was from traffic on the relevant roads. The measurement results, including the LDEN values for locations that included measurement data for Day, Evening and Night periods, are given in Table 4.7.4.
Table 4.7.4. Results from Noise Surveys
Noise in dB re 2x10-5pa
Location Ref Start Time Elapsed Time LAeq LAF90.0 NMT1 17/10/2018 12:10 00:15:00 72.7 61.3 NMT2 17/10/2018 12:28 00:15:00 61.9 49.6 NMT1 17/10/2018 12:48 00:15:00 71.1 58.5 NMT2 17/10/2018 13:05 00:15:00 60.8 51.0 NMT1 17/10/2018 13:34 00:15:00 72.2 57.1 NMT2 17/10/2018 13:51 00:15:00 60.7 49.7 Averages NMT1 72.0 59.0 NMT2 61.2 50.1
NMT 3 (Unattended) Measurement No. 181017 001 17/10/2018 11:42 00:02:34 73.3 66.6 181017 001 17/10/2018 11:45 00:15:00 73.9 64.6 181017 001 17/10/2018 12:00 00:15:00 73.8 60.8 181017 001 17/10/2018 12:15 00:15:00 74.5 62.5 181017 001 17/10/2018 12:30 00:15:00 74.0 63.9 181017 001 17/10/2018 12:45 00:15:00 74.2 64.4 181017 001 17/10/2018 13:00 00:15:00 74.4 63.1 Averages 74.0 63.7
Part VIII Report Page 137 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Noise in dB re 2x10-5pa
Location Ref Start Time Elapsed Time LAeq LAF90.0 NMT2-3 (School) 20/06/2019 12:29 00:15:00 59.7 51.0 NMT2-3 (School) 20/06/2019 13:25 00:15:00 60.6 50.9
NMT2-1 (Houses) 18/06/2019 20:33 00:15:12 57.3 52.2 NMT2-3 (School) 18/06/2019 20:13 00:15:00 62.3 47.3
NMT2-1 (Houses) 18/06/2019 23:01 00:15:00 55.1 45.4 NMT2-1 (Houses) 18/06/2019 23:43 00:15:00 54.4 46.5
NMT2-3 (School) 19/06/2019 23:20 00:15:00 53.8 40.8 NMT2-3 (School) 20/06/2019 00:03 00:15:00 55.8 42.1
NMT2-1 (Houses)
Measurement No. Start Time Elapsed Time LAeq LAF90.0 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:04 00:00:16 55.4 52.9 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:05 00:05:00 54.9 50.2 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:10 00:05:00 55.5 50.2 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:15 00:05:00 54.3 49.2 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:20 00:05:00 55.1 49.8 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:25 00:05:00 54.4 49.4 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:30 00:05:00 54.0 48.6 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:35 00:05:00 54.5 49.1 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:40 00:05:00 54.1 49.9 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:45 00:05:00 55.1 50.8 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:50 00:05:00 55.3 51.8 190619 001 19/06/2019 12:55 00:05:00 53.7 48.6 190619 001 19/06/2019 13:00 00:05:00 54.7 48.5 190619 001 19/06/2019 13:05 00:05:00 54.3 48.3 190619 001 19/06/2019 13:10 00:05:00 55.6 52.2 190619 001 19/06/2019 13:15 00:05:00 55.6 50.5 190619 001 19/06/2019 13:20 00:01:18 54.0 47.6 Averages 54.7 49.9
Lday Levening Lnight LDEN NMT2-1 (Houses) 54.7 57.3 54.8 61.6 NMT2-3 (School) 60.6 62.3 54.8 63.9
Part VIII Report Page 138 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.7.7 Impact Assessment Criteria 4.7.7.1 World Health Organisation (WHO) - Environmental Noise Guideline The WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines set health-based recommendations on average environmental noise exposure of relevant sources of environmental noise.
There are no prescribed limits set but rather a comparative assessment is recommended, based on noise levels of the existing receiving environment. This approach is followed in the BS4142 methodology used in this assessment.
The WHO guidelines use established concepts from toxicology as follows:
NOEL – No Observed Effect Level This is the level below which no effect can be detected. In simple terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to the noise.
LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected.
SOAEL – Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.
UOAEL – Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level This is the level above which unacceptable adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.
Table 4.7.5 presents a hierarchy of these terms, related examples, impact in terms of noise levels and recommended actions.
Table 4.7.5 Impact Hierarchy
Perception Examples of Outcomes Noise Level Criteria Action No Observed Effect Level (NOEL): Not No Effect Noise Rating Level No noticeable (LAeq,T) is below specific background noise measures level (LA90,T) required Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL): Noticeable Noise can be heard but does not Noise Rating Level No and not cause any change in behaviour or (LAeq,T) between 0-5 specific intrusive attitude. Can slightly affect the dB above the measures acoustic character of the area but background noise required not such that there is a perceived level (LA90,T). change in the quality of life LOAEL is equivalent to background noise level
Part VIII Report Page 139 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Perception Examples of Outcomes Noise Level Criteria Action Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL): Noticeable The noise causes a material change Noise Rating Level Avoid and in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. (LAeq,T) 10 dB or disruptive having to keep windows closed greater above the most of the time, avoiding certain background noise activities during periods of intrusion. level (LA90,T). Potential for sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty in getting to sleep, premature awakening and difficulty in getting back to sleep. Quality of life diminished due to change in acoustic character of the area Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level (UOAEL): Noticeable Extensive and regular changes in Noise Rating Level Prevent and very behaviour and/or an inability to (LAeq,T) 15 dB or disruptive mitigate effect of noise leading to greater above the psychological stress or physiological background noise effects, e.g. regular sleep level (LA90,T). deprivation/awakening; loss of appetite, significant, medically definable harm, e.g. auditory and nonauditory
4.7.8 Impact Assessment – Noise The Noise Monitoring Terminal (NMT) locations of the noise surveys are representative of NSLs in the vicinity of the development. Therefore, the impact assessment for these locations is also representative of the impact assessment of the NSLs.
Separate impact assessment criteria are used depending on the available data. The first uses the Day-time dataset, and the second uses measurement data for the Day, Evening and Night-time periods. Note that the definitions of periods differ for each assessment.
Finally, the cumulative effect of the train related noise from the development along with the associated road traffic related noise of the proposed development, is presented.
Uncertainty in the predicted noise levels is a factor that ought also to be considered in noise impact assessments. A value of +3dB has been determined herein which includes uncertainties for: • Instrumentation used; • Complexity of the noise environment; • Duration, times, number of measurement locations; • Noise levels at existing site being ‘contaminated’ by other industrial/commercial sounds & traffic; • Sound Power calculation errors; • Modelling assumptions (some of which reduce uncertainty).
Part VIII Report Page 140 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.7.8.1 BS4142 Methods for rating and assessing industrian and commercial sound Assessment Background noise survey locations consisted of data from day-time only for locations NMT1, NMT2 & NMT3. This data was used as the basis for impact assessment following the procedures of BS4142. Day-time is defined as 07:00-23:00 in this standard and all but one train movement occurs in this period. This early morning train falls into the night-time period, but could not be fully assessed as no night-time noise measurements were available from the data set for these locations. However, it can be stated that the impact of this single train will certainly be less than that for the day- time period due to the day-time having many more train movements.
This guidance also allows penalties/adjustments to be applied to the predicted ‘Specific’ noise levels. These include penalties for Tonal and Impulsive characteristics of the site noise and its intermittency which may reflect the subjective annoyance of such characteristics. However, the most significant sources of the train’s noise are not expected to exhibit any of these characteristics, so no penalties have been applied. However, noise from horns or alarms if used would be considered tonal and/or impulsive and so attract penalties.
The ‘Background’ noise level is defined as the LAF90 percentile i.e. the noise level which was exceeded 90% of the measurement time. This parameter essentially removes the effect of noise events to give the underlying ambient noise levels in the receiving environment.
Penalties related to the characteristic of the noise and uncertainties to the overall result are added to the predicted LAeq noise levels to give the ‘Rating Level’, Lr.
Penalties of 3-9dB may be added if the noise is considered tonal, impulsive or intermittent in nature but none were applied as train noise normally does not exhibit any of these features. Uncertainly however ought always to be considered in any noise assessment to include influence of such things as weather, instrumentation and temporal variations. A value of 3dB is considered applicable to this assessment.
The results from the noise model in terms of predicted LDay levels (rounded to the nearest 0.5 dB) and the measured background noise levels from Table 4.7.6, are compared in Table 4.7.5. The level differences between these, the uncertainty and the impact assessment for each location are also included.
Table 4.7.6 Impact assessment results for NMT1, NTM2 to NMT3
Noise levels in dB re 2x10-5pa
Description LDay Penalties Measurement Rated LAF90 Impact Impact (Predicted) applied of Level Background Level Uncertainty (Lr) Difference
NMT1 32 0 +3 35 59.0 -24 NOEL NMT2 30 0 +3 33 50.1 -17 NOEL NMT3 50 0 +3 53 63.7 -11 NOEL
4.7.8.2 EU END Assessment
The EU’s Environmental Noise Directive (END) uses the LDEN parameter to assess the long-term impacts of noise on a community with penalties added for Evening and
Part VIII Report Page 141 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Night-time occurrences. It is the prescribed parameter for infrastructural impact assessment and local authority noise action plans.
Noise measurements at locations NMT2-1 and NMT2-3 were conducted over Day, Evening and Night periods and this data is used in the assessment. Location NMT2-1 is representative of the nearest houses in Bishopsgrove to the north of the proposed Transport Hub and at Sion Row to the west of it and NMT2-3 is representative of the school to the east of it.
Period definitions are defined as: Day-time (07:00-19:00), Evening-time (19:00-23:00) and Night-time (23:00-07:00). Most train movements will occur during the Day period with some in the Evening period and one at Night. For the purposes of a LDEN assessment, noise levels from the Evening and Night periods attract +5 and +10dB penalties respectively.
The results from the noise model in terms of predicted and measured LDEN levels are presented in Table 4.7.7. The uncertainly and the impact assessment for each location is also included.
Table 4.7.7 Impact assessment results for NMT2-1 & NMT2-3
Noise in dB re 2x10-5pa NMT2-1 Measured Predicted Noise Level Uncertainty Total Level Impact (Houses) Existing Noise of Proposed (Rounded) Difference Level Development
LDay 54.7 46.8 +3 50 -5
LEvening 57.3 42.1 +3 45 -12
LNight 54.8 35.4 +3 38 -16
LDEN 61.6 46.4 +3 49 -12 NOEL
NMT2-3
(School)
LDay 60.6 31 +3 34 -27
LEvening 62.3 26.3 +3 29 -33
LNight 54.8 18.7 +3 22 -33
LDEN 63.9 30.4 +3 33 -31 NOEL
As can be seen from the results in Tables 7.1 and 7.2, the predicted noise levels are likely to be considerably below the existing levels at all survey locations. Regardless of which assessment parameter is used i.e. comparing the LDay levels with the background LAF90 levels, or comparing the LDEN values, the impact ranges from:
• LDEN: -33 to -12 • BS4142 (Day): -24 to -11
These level differences therefore fall into the No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) criteria and no specific measures (of noise control) need apply.
No adverse impact has been identified at any location due to the operational noise sources as modelled.
Part VIII Report Page 142 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.7.8.3 Related Traffic Noise Assessment There will be a slight increase in associated road traffic should the transport hub become operational. A separate impact assessment methodology was undertaken because the modelling of road traffic noise differs from the modelling of train noise.
TII Guidance The related road traffic noise assessment for the proposed development was undertaken with reference to: • Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes 2004 & Good Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration during the Planning of National Road Schemes 2014, Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII, formally NRA) – the “Guidelines”
The model was calculated in accordance with CTRN- TRL Method 1 method as recommend by the Guidelines.
The Guidelines set the following criteria to establish when mitigation measures are deemed necessary: (a) The combined expected maximum traffic noise level, i.e. the relevant noise level, from the proposed road scheme together with other traffic in the vicinity is greater than the 60dB Lden design goal, and; (b) The relevant noise level is at least 1dB more than the expected traffic noise level without the proposed road scheme in place; and (c) The contribution to the increase in the relevant noise level from the proposed road scheme is at least 1dB.
These conditions ensure that mitigation measures arising out of this process are based upon the degree of impact of the proposed development. Notes: (i) Criteria (c) is not applicable to this assessment as only the traffic flows are being assessed. (ii) All criteria must be satisfied to require mitigation measures to be adopted.
Noise Model Using the provided drawings and layout of the area, the relevant road sections were modelled following the TII guidance and the CRTN methodology. A schematic of the roads including their Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows in both directions are illustrated in Appendix 4.7.3 and presented in Table 4.7.8 which also includes the percentage of Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs).
Part VIII Report Page 143 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.7.8 Traffic Flow Input Data Used for Modelling
Base Year 2021 Design Year 2036
No Incl. Incl. North No Incl. Incl. Development North Quay SDZ Development North North Quay with Quay Quay SDZ Transport SDZ SDZ with Hub Transport Hub Section Total Vehicles Total Total Total Vehicles Total Total Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles AADT % AADT AADT AADT AADT AADT HGV R488 19165 4 19610 19649 22633 23047 23086 Rice Bridge 35157 2 39628 40045 41462 45933 46351 Dock Rd 19836 4 24856* 25312* 23393 28413* 28870* Rockshire Rd 6975 1 7773 7950 8226 9024 9201 Fountain 13955 3 17687 17957 16458 20190 20460 Street Abbey Rd 5040 4 11590 11658 5944 12494 12562 Western Jct 4 2463 2463 2463 2463 into Eastern Jct 4 19944 20282 22657 22996 into Hotel 4 1056 1056 Transport 4 972 972 Hub *Maximum figure used from west and east sections
The speed was set at 50km/h for all roads and a Low Noise Road Surface has been assumed.
To provide hourly input data to the models, which would allow the LDEN parameter to be calculated as recommended by the Guidelines, each AADT value was distributed using the TII Diurnal Profile as set out in Table 4.7.9.
Table 4.7.9 TII Diurnal Profile for non-Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) Traffic
Hour % 1 0.84 2 0.53 3 0.38 4 0.33 5 0.37 6 0.73 7 2.20
Part VIII Report Page 144 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Hour % 8 4.68 9 5.83 10 5.26 11 5.17 12 5.72 13 6.33 14 6.63 15 6.82 16 7.32 17 8.02 18 8.54 19 7.34 20 5.68 21 4.35 22 3.23 23 2.25 24 1.45 Note: HGV/HCV were fixed at the percentage rate in Table 7.3 for each hour.
Receiver Locations In order to assess the impact in the vicinity of the development, the noise level was predicted at a number of locations. Buildings along the route were identified as either Residential or Commercial and a number of fixed receiver points were selected close to the façade of representative residential dwellings. These are presented in Appendix D 4.7.4 of this section ‘Receiver Locations Used for Traffic Noise Modelling’.
Output of the Noise Model The resultant noise levels at all the measurement locations are presented in Table 4.7.10.
Part VIII Report Page 145 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.7.10 Residual Noise Levels with Mitigation
Base Year 2021 Base Year 2036
NRA Condition for Noise Mitigation NRA Condition for Predicted Noise Levels Satisfied for Predicted Noise Levels Noise Mitigation
either Satisfied?
Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Required? development? Required?
Incl. North Incl. North Incl. Incl. Quays SDZ Quays SDZ No North No North with with Development Quay Development Quay Transport Transport Location Height SDZ SDZ Hub Hub
Lden Lden Lden (dB) Lden (dB) Lden (dB) Lden (dB) (dB) (dB)
(a) (b) (c) - (a) (b) (c) - N/A N/A NMT1 Shops on 1.5 m 73 72 72 Yes No No 74 72 72 Yes No No Dock Road NMT2 Abbey 1.5m 68 61 63 Yes No No 68 62 62 Yes No No Community College (1) NMT3 Sion Row 1.5 m 70 70 70 Yes No No 71 70 70 Yes No No NMT2- Bishopsgrove / 1.5m 64 63 63 Yes No No 65 64 64 Yes No No 1 Sion Row NMT2- Abbey 1.5 m 68 61 3 Yes No No 68 62 62 Yes No No 3 Community College (2)
Part VIII Report Page 146 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The results of the modelled scenarios indicate that a positive or neutral noise impact will be experienced at all of the properties as a result of the proposed development. The criteria for the application of specific mitigation measures were also not satisfied for any location. 4.7.9 Assessment Criteria – Freight Trains and Maintenance 4.7.9.1 Freight Trains Using a Category 4 trains, the impact of a 071 Class locomotive was modelled using the RMR noise model.
It has been assumed that the speed is a maximum of 40kmph along the existing track towards Belview Port. These trains do not operate regularly, and it is not known at what time of the day, evening or night they may occur. For this reason, the impact assessment follows the BS4142 guidelines for each period of the day (Day, Evening, Night), the results of which are presented in Table 4.7.11 below.
Table 4.7.11 Impact results for Freight Train
dB re 2x10-5pa
Description LAeq Penalties Uncertainty Rated LAF90 Impact Impact (Predicted) Level (Lr) Background Level Difference NMT1 (Day) 45 0 +3 48 59.0 -11 NOEL NMT2 (Day) 40 0 +3 43 50.1 -7 NOEL NMT3 (Day) 46 0 +3 49 63.7 -15 NOEL NMT2-1 Day 49.9 -4 NOEL Evening 43 0 +3 46 52.2 -6 NOEL Night 45.9 0 LOAEL NMT2-3 Day 51.0 -7 NOEL Evening 41 0 +3 44 47.3 -3 NOEL Night 41.4 +3 LOAEL
The impact assessment demonstrates that the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) is reached for night-time trains only at locations NMT 2-1 and NMT 2- 3, otherwise the impact falls into the No Observed Effect Level (NOEL).
No adverse impact has been identified at any location based on the freight trains modelled. 4.7.9.2 Other Station Related Noise Sources There are several potential sources of noise from operations at the station including night-time cleaning.
It isn’t possible to assess these individually but any potential source or operation which may result in external noise should be considered by the station staff, programmed accordingly and appropriate training given on the use of these potential sources of noise.
Part VIII Report Page 147 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.7.9.3 Cumulative Noise Impact Assessment
The total impact at the locations in terms of LDEN are presented in Table 9.1 below Adding decibels uses logarithmic addition techniques and the Total Noise Levels for each year in Table 4.7.12 are the sum of the Predicted Operational Noise Levels and the Related Traffic Noise Levels.
As can be seen from the results in Table 4.7.12 and, has been demonstrated in the impact assessment, existing traffic noise levels dominate the ambient noise environment under all scenarios.
Table 4.7.12 Cumulative noise levels
Noise Levels in dB re 2x10-5pa Year: 2021 Year: 2036 Location Predicted Related Total Noise Total Noise Related Total Total Noise Operational Traffic Level with Level without Traffic Noise Level without Noise Noise development development Noise Level development Levels Level Level NMT1 Dock Road 35 72 72 72 72 72 72 NMT2 Abbey School 33 63 63 61 62 62 62 NMT3 Sion Row 53 70 70 70 70 70 70 NMT2 Bishopsgrove / 49 63 63 63 64 64 64 -1 Sion Row NMT2 Abbey School 33 63 63 61 62 62 62 -3
4.7.10 Impact Assessment – Vibration With respect to human exposure to building vibration, BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings provides guideline values of the vibration dose value (VDV) above which various degrees of adverse comment may be expected from the occupants of residential buildings.
The VDV is defined mathematically as the fourth root of the time integral of the fourth power of the vibration acceleration, after it has been frequency weighted. The guideline values recommended by BS6472 are shown in Table 4.7.13 below.
Table 4.7.13 Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings (BS6472 Guideline Values)
Place Low Probability of Adverse Comment Adverse Adverse Comment Possible Comment Probable Residential Buildings 0.2 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 0.8 – 1.6 (16 Hour Day) Residential Buildings 0.1 – 0.2 0.2 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 (8 Hour Night)
Where the vibration is intermittent rather than continuous in nature, BS6472 defines procedures for calculating the estimated Vibration Dose Value (eVDV), based on the number and duration of vibration events and the recorded value of the root mean square frequency weighted vibration acceleration. The frequency weighting takes into account the response of the human body to vibrations of different frequency and
Part VIII Report Page 148 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
whether the person is lying down or standing. The eVDV can then be taken as the VDV for use in the assessment of human exposure to vibration in buildings.
The above guidance relates to vibration measured at the point of entry into the human body, which is usually taken to mean the ground surface or at a point mid-span of an upper storey floor, rather than the point of entry into the building (a foundation element). 4.7.10.1 Vibration Measurement A B&K Vibration Monitoring Terminal (VMT) was co-located with the Sound Level Meter at location RB1 in the car park of Plunkett Station.
The measured VDV values for three trains movements which occurred during the survey are presented in Table 4.7.14
Table 4.7.14 Measured Peak Particle Velocity Vibration Levels from Moving Trains
Measured Vibration Levels Train Movement no. Measured VDV m/s 1.75 #1 0.062 #2 0.040 #3 0.041
It can be seen that the VDVs values are well below the threshold level where there is a ‘low probability of adverse comment’. Furthermore, the vibration levels at the NSLs closest to proposed development are approximately 50m further away than the measurement location and will therefore be attenuated further over that distance. 4.7.11 Impact Assessment – Construction Noise & Vibration 4.7.11.1 Guidance – Noise The guidance adopted in the BS5228 standard designates noise sensitive locations into a specific category; A, B or C as presented in Table 4.7.14, based on existing ambient noise levels i.e. in the absence of construction noise. This then sets threshold noise values for construction related noise that if exceeded, indicates a significant noise impact is associated with the construction activities.
Table 4.7.1 also sets out the values which, when exceeded, indicate a significant effect at the facades of residential receptors as recommended by the above standard. Please note that these are cumulative levels, i.e. the sum of both ambient and construction noise levels.
Table 4.7.15 Example Threshold of Significant Effect at Dwellings
Assessment category and threshold Threshold value, in decibels (dB) value period (L ) Aeq Category A Category B Category C Night-time (23.00−07.00) 45 50 55 Evenings and weekends D) 55 60 65 Daytime (07.00−19.00) and Saturdays 65 70 75 (07.00−13.00)
Part VIII Report Page 149 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Assessment category and threshold Threshold value, in decibels (dB) value period (L ) Aeq Category A Category B Category C NOTE 1 A significant effect has been deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level, including construction, exceeds the threshold level for the Category appropriate to the ambient noise level. NOTE 2 If the ambient noise level exceeds the threshold values given in the table (i.e. the ambient noise level is higher than the above values), then a significant effect is deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to construction activity. NOTE 3 Applied to residential receptors only. A) Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are less than these values. B) Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are the same as category A values. C) Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are higher than category A values. D) Category D: 19.00–23.00 weekdays, 13.00–23.00 Saturdays and 07.00–23.00 Sundays.
For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed construction works will take place during the Daytime. The LAeq ambient noise levels at the Survey Locations are presented in Table and Figure 4.7.4 and following the guidelines, the resultant limits are given in Table 4.7.16.
Table 4.7.16 Applicable Construction Noise Limit
Survey Location Ambient Noise Rounded to Applicable Category Applicable LAeq Level Nearest 5dB (Day-time) Limit NMT1 (Dock Road) 72.0 70 B 70 NMT2 (Abbey Com. 61.2 60 A 65 School) NMT3 (Sion Row) 74.0 75 C 75 NMT2-1 (Bishopsgrove/ 54.7 55 A 65 Sion Row) NMT2-3 (Abbey 60.6 60 A 65 Community School)
4.7.11.2 Guidance – Vibration Buildings are typically resilient to ground-borne vibration; therefore, structural damage is unlikely but cosmetic damage such as cracking in plaster is much more likely. BS 7385: Part 2: 1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings gives guidance on the levels of vibration above which building structures could be damaged. The standard also states that there is a major difference between the sensitivity of people in feeling vibration and the onset of levels of vibration which damage could occur.
The BS 7385 guidelines adopt more conservative limits dependant on the type of structure in question. Separate limits for relatively modern, well maintained buildings and for critical buildings* are set out in Table 4.7.17.
Part VIII Report Page 150 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.7.17 Maximum allowable vibration levels during construction phase.
Allowable vibration velocity (Peak Particle Velocity) at the closest part of any sensitive property to the source of vibration, at a frequency of: Less than 10Hz 10Hz to 50Hz 50 to 100Hz (and above) Relatively modern 8 mm/s 12.5 mm/s 20 mm/s Buildings: Critical Buildings: 3 mm/s 8 mm/s 10 mm/s * including premises with machinery that is highly sensitive to vibration, historic buildings that may be in poor repair and for structures that are of great intrinsic value and are particularly sensitive to vibration. 4.7.11.3 Construction Vibration Impact Assessment The most significant sources/operations are likely to the piling operations and truck movements on the Dock Road and other Roads in the area.
High levels of vibration from construction plant quickly dissipate through the ground over a few metres and so the piling operation is not expected to result in measurable vibration levels at any nearby dwelling. Truck movements are likely to pass close to dwellings and so may induce measurable vibration levels but are expected to be an order of magnitude below the limits in Table 4.7.167 There are already a degree of heavy commercial vehicles operating on the roads and the trucks associated with the proposed development are not expected to give rise to any larger vibration levels, although there will be more of them during the construction phase.
It is recommended that a vibration monitoring programme should be adopted at the nearest residential property(ies) during the most critical phase(s) of construction e.g. rock-breaking, pile driving etc to assure residents that the above limits are not exceeded. 4.7.11.4 Construction Noise Impact Assessment The works schedule below in Table 4.7.18 was used as input to separate ISO9613 noise models for the various phases.
Table 4.7.18 Draft Construction Sequence and Program
Works element Duration of Start Completion task (approx.) (approx.) * (approx.)** Mobilisation, site clearance and demolition 3 months Apr-20 Jun-20 Earthworks - Excavation to formation level 1 month Jun-20 Jun-20 Install surface water and foul sewer network along 1 month Jul-20 Jul-20 the proposed Waterford to New Ross Greenway Flood Defences: 4 months Jun-20 Sep-20 Sheet piling and/ or Soil Mix Cut-Off Wall Transport Hub: 9 months Jul-20 Mar-21 Piling (platforms, footbridges and station building) Platforms and Retaining Walls Footbridges (pile cap, abutment, bridge deck) CIÉ Bus Éireann Depot and former factory off Ferry 4 months Mar-21 Jun-21 Lane (Dunlop Site): Resurfacing, road marking, boundary walls etc.
Part VIII Report Page 151 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Works element Duration of Start Completion task (approx.) (approx.) * (approx.)** Transport Hub: 6 months Apr-21 Sep-21 Station building structure Install surface water and foul sewer network along Dock Road Drop-off/ set-down area (plaza) to north of station building Transport Hub: 6 months Oct-21 Mar-22 Station fitout and commissioning Total Construction Phase 24 months approx. April 2020 -March 2022 Notes: * denotes start of respective month ** denotes end of respective month
Items of plant associated with each phase above were inputted as moving line sources operating in and around the relevant areas under construction. Each phase also had an estimated number of truck movements included as part of the model.
Peak construction traffic will occur during the importing and exporting of material. The export material (including earthworks and demolition material) is approximately 22,700m³ and the import material is approximately 28,500m³. This will generate up to 5,250 truck movements, which equates to less than 70 truck movement a day at the peak of excavation in the development. The number of daily truck movements will reduce following this peak for the remainder of the excavation phase.
The predicted noise levels for each phase are compared against the limits set out in Table 12 and are presented in Table 4.7.19 below.
Table 4.7.19 Comparison of Predicted Construction Noise Levels and BS5228 Limits
Phase/Location: NMT1 Limit NMT2 Limit NMT3 Limit NMT2- Limit NMT2- Limit 1 3 Earthworks 40.7 33.9 39.8 37.2 34.9 Flood Defences 38.7 34.4 34.8 36.8 34.8 Transport Hub 44.0 70 38.7 65 49.4 75 46.5 65 38.9 65 (piling, platforms, footbridges) Transport Hub 71.0 66.1 60.5 60.4 58.7 (CIE resurfacing etc) Transport Hub 42.6 36.4 49.3 43.9 36.8 (Station etc)
As can be seen, the construction noise limits are expected to be exceeded at NMT1 and NMT2 during the resurfacing phase only. These locations are closest to any
Part VIII Report Page 152 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
construction area during the works but the exceedance is circa 1dB which is considered not to be a significant amount.
The Station Fitout phase was not assessed as no details on plant to be used was known but this is likely to be the least noisy phase of the construction.
Furthermore, a sheet pile solution may be used in lieu of a soil mix cut-off wall. There will be no change in the noise and vibration levels associated with the increase in extent of sheet piling, however there will be a prolongation of the sheet piling duration by approximately 6 weeks. It is considered that the impact associated with the prolongation of the sheet piling operations is considered to be slight and will not affect the daily noise levels. 4.7.12 Human Health Assessment 4.7.12.1 Background Environmental noise is an important public health issue, featuring among the top environmental risks to health. It has negative impacts on human health and well-being and is a growing concern among both the general public and policymakers in Europe.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) was requested by the Member States in the European Region to produce noise guidelines that included not only transportation noise sources but also personal electronic devices, toys and wind turbines, which had not yet been considered in existing guidelines. Furthermore, the European Union Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC (END) relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise and related technical guidance from the European Environment Agency both elaborated on the issue of environmental noise and the importance of up-to-date noise guidelines. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has therefore developed environmental noise guidelines for the European Region, proposing an updated set of public health recommendations on exposure to environmental noise.
In total, eight systematic reviews of evidence were conducted to assess the relationship between environmental noise and the following health outcomes: cardiovascular and metabolic effects; annoyance; effects on sleep; cognitive impairment; hearing impairment and tinnitus; adverse birth outcomes; and quality of life, mental health and wellbeing. Subsequently, the WHO’s Guideline Development Group (GDG) formulated a number of recommendations, the two pertinent categories in relation to this assessment are road noise and rail noise.
Road Noise: For average noise exposure, the GDG strongly recommends reducing noise levels produced by road traffic below 53 decibels (dB) Lden, as road traffic noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects.
For night noise exposure, the GDG strongly recommends reducing noise levels produced by road traffic during night time below 45 dB Lnight, as night-time road traffic noise above this level is associated with adverse effects on sleep.
To reduce health effects, the GDG strongly recommends that policymakers implement suitable measures to reduce noise exposure from road traffic in the population exposed to levels above the guideline values for average and night noise exposure. For specific interventions, the GDG recommends reducing noise both at the source and on the route between the source and the affected population by changes in infrastructure.
Part VIII Report Page 153 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Railway Noise: For average noise exposure, the GDG strongly recommends reducing noise levels produced by railway traffic below 54 dB Lden, as railway noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects.
For night noise exposure, the GDG strongly recommends reducing noise levels produced by railway traffic during night time below 44 dB Lnight, as night-time railway noise above this level is associated with adverse effects on sleep.
To reduce health effects, the GDG strongly recommends that policymakers implement suitable measures to reduce noise exposure from railways in the population exposed to levels above the guideline values for average and night noise exposure. There is, however, insufficient evidence to recommend one type of intervention over another. 4.7.12.2 Human Health Assessment The recommended limits above are not exceeded by the operation of the proposed development. Furthermore, construction activities will not take place during the night- time, therefore the Lnight value will not be exceeded. 4.7.13 Mitigation Measures Construction Noise Mitigation Measures Notwithstanding that there is little likelihood of a significant adverse impact from the construction works, a comprehensive Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which includes adopting appropriate mitigation measures will manage any risk of noise impacting the community.
The contract documents will clearly specify that the Contractor undertaking the construction of the works will be obliged to take specific noise abatement measures and comply with the recommendations of BS5228-1 2009. These measures will typically include: 1. No plant used on site will be permitted to cause an ongoing public nuisance due to noise. 2. The best means practicable, including proper maintenance of plant, will be employed to minimise the noise produced by on site operations. 3. All vehicles and mechanical plant will be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and maintained in good working order for the duration of the contract. 4. Compressors will be attenuated models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers which will be kept closed whenever the machines are in use and all ancillary pneumatic tools shall be fitted with suitable silencers. 5. Machinery that is used intermittently will be shut down or throttled back to a minimum during periods when not in use. 6. Any plant, such as generators or pumps, which is required to operate before 07:00hrs or after 19:00hrs will be surrounded by an acoustic enclosure or portable screen. 7. Location of plant shall consider the likely noise propagation to nearby sensitive receptors. 8. During the course of the construction programme, supervision of the works will include ensuring compliance with the limits detailed in Table 4.7.13 using methods outlined in BS5228:2009 Part 1.
Part VIII Report Page 154 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Construction Vibration Mitigation Measures 9. A vibration monitoring programme should be adopted at the nearest residential property(ies) during the most critical phase(s) of construction e.g. rock-breaking, pile driving etc to assure residents that the above limits are not exceeded.
Operational Noise Mitigation Measures A low-noise surface dressing will be applied to the proposed development.
Operational Vibration Mitigation Measures No operational vibration mitigation measures are proposed. 4.7.14 Conclusion It has been found that no significant noise and vibration impacts are predicted from the operation or construction of the proposed development.
Part VIII Report Page 155 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.7.1 Acoustic Terminology
Ambient Encompassing sound, at a given place. Usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. A-weighting Frequency weighting scale to account for non-linear response of the human ear. Used so that the measured noise corresponds roughly to the overall level of noise that is discerned by the average human. Denoted by suffix A in parameters such as LAeq, LAF10, etc. Background A-weighted noise level of exceeded for 90% of the measurement time. Level Denoted LAF90. Broadband Noise which contains roughly equal energy across the audible frequency spectrum with no tonal component. Decibel (dB) Unit of noise measurement scale relative to 20 µPa. The scale is logarithmic therefore dBs cannot be arithmetically added or subtracted. Fast response 0.125 seconds response time of the Sound Level Meter to changing noise levels. Denoted by suffix F in parameters such as LAF10 T, LAF90 T, etc. Free-field Noise environment free from reflections from vertical surfaces. Frequency Number of cycles per second of a sound or vibration wave. The range of human hearing is c20-20,000 Hertz. Hertz (Hz) Unit of frequency measurement. Impulse A category of short duration, almost instantaneous sounds, typically less than one second.
LAeq, T Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level. The value of the sound pressure level in decibels of continuous steady sound that, within a specified time interval, T = t2 – t1, has the same mean-squared sound pressure as a sound that varies with time. LAE Also known as the Single Event Level (SLEL) it is the dB(A) level which if it lasted for one second would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.
LAF The RMS (root mean square) of the instantaneous sound pressure over a given period of time (T). T is usually Fast (0.125sec) or Slow (1sec)
LAF10 The noise level just exceeded for 10% of the measurement period, A- weighted and calculated by Statistical Analysis.
LAF90 The noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period, A-weighted and calculated by Statistical Analysis.
LAr,T The Rated noise level. The A-weighted, Leq, Sound Pressure Level of an industrial noise during a specified time period, adjusted for Tonal, Impulsiveness and other characteristics.
LDEN The A-weighted, Leq (equivalent noise level) over a whole day, but with a penalty of +10 dB(A) for night-time noise (22:00-07:00) and +5 dB(A) for evening noise (19:00-23:00). Masking A noise that is intense enough to render inaudible or unintelligible another sound that is also present
Part VIII Report Page 156 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Near Field Sound field near a sound source, usually within about two wavelengths of the source noise. Noise A location where a noise measurement was taken using a Sound Level Monitoring Meter. Terminal (NMT) Noise Any dwelling house, hotel or hostel, health building, educational Sensitive establishment, place of worship or entertainment, or any other facility or Location area of high amenity which for its proper enjoyment requires absence of noise at nuisance levels. 1/3 octave Frequency spectrum may be divided into octave bands. Upper limit of band each octave is twice lower limit. Each octave may be subdivided into thirds, allowing greater analysis of tones. Residual level Noise level remaining when specific source is absent or does not contribute to ambient. Reverberant Sound field near reflecting surfaces where reflected waves contribute to Field the measured noise level. Sound Level A sound level meter is commonly a hand-held instrument with a Meter microphone used for acoustic measurements. The diaphragm of the microphone responds to changes in air pressure caused by sound waves and converted into an electrical signal measured by the instrument. The current international standard that specifies sound level meter functionality and performances is the IEC 61672-1:2013.
Specific level Noise from the source under investigation as defined in BS 4142 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. The specific noise is compared to the Background Noise for impact assessment. Tone Character of noise caused by dominance of one or more frequencies. The noise under investigation may be penalised when assessing industrial and environmental noise. Z-weighting Z for 'Zero' frequency weighting i.e. no frequency weighting applied to the measured noise level. Denoted by suffix Z in parameters such as LZeq, LZF90, etc.
Part VIII Report Page 157 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.7.2 Train Timetables
Part VIII Report Page 158 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Part VIII Report Page 159 ROUGHAN & O'DONOVAN Waterford City & County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Part VIII Report Page 160 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.7.3 Traffic Flow Inputs used
Part VIII Report Page 161 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Part VIII Report Page 162 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.7.4 Receiver locations used for Traffic Noise modelling
Part VIII Report Page 163 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.8 Air Quality & Climate 4.8.1 Introduction This section assesses the likely air quality and climate impacts, if any, associated with the proposed Transport Hub aspect of the Waterford City Public Infrastructure Project and has been undertaken by AWN Consulting Ltd. 4.8.1.1 Background Information Ambient Air Quality Standards In order to reduce the risk to health from poor air quality, national and European statutory bodies have set limit values in ambient air for a range of air pollutants. These limit values or “Air Quality Standards” are health or environmental-based levels for which additional factors may be considered. For example, natural background levels, environmental conditions and socio-economic factors may all play a part in the limit value which is set (see Table 4.8.1 and Appendix 4.8.1).
Air quality significance criteria are assessed on the basis of compliance with the appropriate standards or limit values. The applicable standards in Ireland include the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011, which incorporate EU Directive 2008/50/EC, which has set limit values for NO2, PM10, PM2.5, benzene and CO (see Table 1). Although the EU Air Quality Limit Values are the basis of legislation, other thresholds outlined by the EU Directives are used which are triggers for particular actions (see Appendix 4.8.1).
Dust Deposition Guidelines The concern from a health perspective is focussed on particles of dust which are less than 10 microns (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and the EU ambient air quality standards outlined in Table 1 have set ambient air quality limit values for PM10 and PM2.5.
With regards to larger dust particles that can give rise to nuisance dust, there are no statutory guidelines regarding the maximum dust deposition levels that may be generated during the construction phase of a development in Ireland. Furthermore, no specific criteria have been stipulated for nuisance dust in respect of this development.
With regard to dust deposition, the German TA-Luft standard for dust deposition (non- hazardous dust)(1) sets a maximum permissible emission level for dust deposition of 350 mg/(m2*day) averaged over a one year period at any receptors outside the site boundary. Recommendations from the Department of the Environment, Health & Local Government(2) apply the Bergerhoff limit of 350mg/(m2*day) to the site boundary of quarries. This limit value can also be implemented with regard to dust impacts from construction of the proposed development.
Climate Agreements Ireland ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in April 1994 and the Kyoto Protocol in principle in 1997 and formally in May 2002(3,4). For the purposes of the EU burden sharing agreement under Article 4 of the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, in December 2012, Ireland agreed to limit the net growth of the six Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under the Kyoto Protocol to 20% below the 2005 level over the period 2013 to 2020(5). The UNFCCC is continuing detailed negotiations in relation to GHGs reductions and in relation to technical issues such as Emission Trading and burden sharing. The most recent Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP24) took place in Katowice, Poland from the 4th to the
Part VIII Report Page 164 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
14th December 2018 and focussed on advancing the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement was established at COP21 in Paris in 2015 and is an important milestone in terms of international climate change agreements. The Paris Agreement was agreed by over 200 nations and has a stated aim of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels with efforts to limit this rise to 1.5°C. The aim is to limit global GHG emissions to 40 gigatonnes as soon as possible whilst acknowledging that peaking of GHG emissions will take longer for developing countries. Contributions to greenhouse gas emissions will be based on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) which will form the foundation for climate action post 2020. Significant progress was also made on elevating adaption onto the same level as action to cut and curb emissions.
The EU, in 2014, agreed the “2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework”(7). The European Council endorsed a binding EU target of at least a 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. The target will be delivered collectively by the EU in the most cost-effective manner possible, with the reductions in the ETS and non-ETS sectors amounting to 43% and 30% by 2030 compared to 2005, respectively. Secondly, it was agreed that all Member States will participate in this effort, balancing considerations of fairness and solidarity. The policy also outlines, under “Renewables and Energy Efficiency”, an EU binding target of at least 27% for the share of renewable energy consumed in the EU in 2030.
Gothenburg Protocol In 1999, Ireland signed the Gothenburg Protocol to the 1979 UN Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. In 2012, the Gothenburg Protocol was revised to include national emission reduction commitments for the main air pollutants to be achieved in 2020 and beyond and to include emission reduction commitments for PM2.5.
European Commission Directive 2001/81/EC and the National Emissions Ceiling Directive (NECD), prescribes the same emission limits as the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol. A National Programme for the progressive reduction of emissions of these four transboundary pollutants has been in place since April 2005. The data available from the EPA in 2019(8) indicated that Ireland complied with the emissions ceilings for SO2 and NH3 but failed to comply with the ceiling for NOX and NMVOCs. Directive (EU) 2016/2284 “On the Reduction of National Emissions of Certain Atmospheric Pollutants and Amending Directive 2003/35/EC and Repealing Directive 2001/81/EC” was published in December 2016. The Directive will apply the 2010 NECD limits until 2020 and establish new national emission reduction commitments which will be applicable from 2020 and 2030 for SO2, NOX, NMVOC, NH3, PM2.5 and CH4. In relation to Ireland, 2020 emission targets are 25.5 kt for SO2 (65% on 2005 levels), 66.9 kt for NOX (49% reduction on 2005 levels), 56.9 kt for NMVOCs (25% reduction on 2005 levels), 112 kt for NH3 (1% reduction on 2005 levels) and 15.6 kt for PM2.5 (18% reduction on 2005 levels). In relation to 2030, Ireland’s emission targets are 10.9 kt (85% below 2005 levels) for SO2, 40.7 kt (69% reduction) for NOx, 51.6 kt (32% reduction) for NMVOCs, 107.5 kt (5% reduction) for NH3 and 11.2 kt (41% reduction) for PM2.5.
Part VIII Report Page 165 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.8.1: Air Quality Standards Regulations
Regulation Pollutant Limit Type Value Note 1 Hourly limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 18 200 μg/m3 Nitrogen times/year Dioxide 2008/50/EC Annual limit for psrotection of human health 40 μg/m3 (NO2) 30 μg/m3 NO Critical level for protection of vegetation + NO2 24-hour limit for protection of human health Particulate - not to be exceeded more than 35 50 μg/m3 Matter 2008/50/EC times/year (as PM10) Annual limit for protection of human health 40 μg/m3 Particulate Matter 2008/50/EC Annual limit for protection of human health 25 μg/m3 (as PM2.5) Benzene 2008/50/EC Annual limit for protection of human health 5 μg/m3 Carbon 8-hour limit (on a rolling basis) for protection 10 mg/m3 Monoxide 2008/50/EC of human health (8.6 ppm) (CO) Note 1 EU 2008/50/EC – Clean Air For Europe (CAFÉ) Directive replaces the previous Air Framework Directive (1996/30/EC) and daughter directives 1999/30/EC and 2000/69/EC 4.8.2 Methodology 4.8.2.1 Local Air Quality Assessment The air quality assessment has been carried out following procedures described in the publications by the EPA(12-15) and using the methodology outlined in the guidance documents published by the UK DEFRA(16-18). The assessment of air quality was carried out using a phased approach as recommended by the UK DEFRA(19). The phased approach recommends that the complexity of an air quality assessment be consistent with the risk of failing to achieve the air quality standards. In the current assessment, an initial scoping of possible key pollutants was carried out and the likely location of air pollution “hot-spots” identified. An examination of recent EPA and Local (20,21) Authority data in Ireland has indicated that SO2, smoke and CO are unlikely to be exceeded at the majority of locations and thus these pollutants do not require detailed monitoring or assessment to be carried out. However, the analysis did indicate potential issues in regards to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10 and PM2.5 at busy junctions in urban centres(20,21). Benzene, although previously reported at quite high levels in urban centres, has recently been measured at several city centre locations to be well below the EU limit value(20,21). Historically, CO levels in urban areas were a cause for concern. However, CO concentrations have decreased significantly over the past number of years and are now measured to be well below the limits even in urban (21) centres . The key pollutants reviewed in the assessments are NO2, PM10, PM2.5, benzene and CO, with particular focus on NO2 and PM10.
Key pollutant concentrations will be predicted for nearby sensitive receptors for the following scenarios: • The Existing Baseline scenario, for model verification;
Part VIII Report Page 166 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• Post Development Year Do-Nothing scenario (DN), which assumes the retention of present site usage with no development in place; and • Post Development Year Do-Something scenario (DS), which assumes the proposed development in place;
The assessment methodology involved air dispersion modelling using the UK DMRB (19) Screening Model (Version 1.03c, July 2007), the NOx to NO2 Conversion Spreadsheet(22) (Version 6.1, October 2017), and following guidance issued by the TII(23), UK Highways Agency(19), UK DEFRA(16-18) and the EPA(12-15).
The TII guidance(30) states that the assessment must progress to detailed modelling if: • Concentrations exceed 90% of the air quality limit values when assessed by the screening method; or • Sensitive receptors exist within 50m of a complex road layout (e.g. grade separated junctions, hills etc).
The UK DMRB guidance(19), on which the TII guidance was based, states that road links meeting one or more of the following criteria can be defined as being ‘affected’ by a proposed development and should be included in the local air quality assessment: • Road alignment change of 5 metres or more; • Daily traffic flow changes by 1,000 annual average daily traffic movements (AADT) or more; • HGV flows change by 200 vehicles per day or more; • Daily average speed changes by 10 km/h or more; or • Peak hour speed changes by 20 km/h or more.
Concentrations of key pollutants are calculated at sensitive receptors that have the potential to be affected by the proposed development. For road links which are deemed to be affected by the proposed development and within 200m of the chosen sensitive receptors inputs to the air dispersion model consist of: road layouts, receptor locations, AADT, percentage heavy goods vehicles, annual average traffic speeds and background concentrations. The UK DMRB guidance states that road links at a distance of greater than 200m from a sensitive receptor will not influence pollutant concentrations at the receptor. Using this input data the model predicts the road traffic contribution to ambient ground level concentrations at the worst-case sensitive receptors using generic meteorological data. The DMRB model uses conservative emission factors, the formulae for which are outlined in the DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1 – HA 207/07 Annexes B3 and B4. These worst-case road contributions are then added to the existing background concentrations to give the worst-case predicted ambient concentrations. The worst-case ambient concentrations are then compared with the relevant ambient air quality standards to assess the compliance of the proposed development with these ambient air quality standards. The TII Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes(23) detail a methodology for determining air quality impact significance criteria for road schemes and this can be applied to any project that causes a change in traffic flows. The degree of impact is determined based on both the absolute and relative impact of the proposed development. The TII significance criteria have been adopted for the proposed development and are detailed in Appendix 4.8.2 Table A1 to Table A3. The significance criteria are based on PM10 and NO2 as these pollutants are most likely to exceed the annual mean limit values (40 µg/m3). However, the criteria have also been applied to the predicted 8-hour CO, annual benzene and annual PM2.5 concentrations for the purposes of this assessment.
Part VIII Report Page 167 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
A qualitative assessment of the impact of the emissions from the trainline was undertaken as the Plunkett train station is to be relocated as part of the proposed development. This involved a review of the train types and the frequency of trains passing through the station per day and the subsequent impact on local air quality. 4.8.2.2 Regional Impact Assessment (including Climate) The impact of the proposed development at a national / international level has been determined using the procedures given by Transport Infrastructure Ireland(23) and the methodology provided in Appendix 4.8.2 in the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges(19). The assessment focused on determining the resulting change in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The Appendix provides a method for the prediction of the regional impact of emissions of these pollutants from road schemes and can be applied to any development that causes a change in traffic flows. The inputs to the air dispersion model consist of information on road link lengths, AADT movements and annual average traffic speeds.
4.8.2.3 Conversion of NOX to NO2
NOx (NO + NO2) is emitted by vehicles exhausts. The majority of emissions are in the form of NO, however, with greater diesel vehicles and some regenerative particle traps on HGV’s the proportion of NOx emitted as NO2, rather than NO is increasing. With the correct conditions (presence of sunlight and O3) emissions in the form of NO, have the potential to be converted to NO2.
Transport Infrastructure Ireland states the recommended method for the conversion of NOx to NO2 in “Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes”(23). The TII guidelines recommend the use (22) of DEFRAs NOx to NO2 calculator which was originally published in 2009 and is currently on version 6.1. This calculator (which can be downloaded in the form of an excel spreadsheet) accounts for the predicted availability of O3 and proportion of NOx emitted as NO for each local authority across the UK. O3 is a regional pollutant and therefore concentrations do not vary in the same way as concentrations of NO2 or PM10.
The calculator includes Local Authorities in Northern Ireland and the TII guidance recommends the use of ‘Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon’ as the choice for local authority when using the calculator. The choice of Craigavon provides the most suitable relationship between NO2 and NOx for Ireland. The “All other Urban UK Traffic” traffic mix option was used. 4.8.2.4 Ecological Sites For routes that pass within 2km of a designated area of conservation (either Irish or European designation) the TII requires consultation with an Ecologist(23). However, in practice the potential for impact to an ecological site is highest within 200m of the proposed development and when significant changes in AADT (>5%) occur.
Transport Infrastructure Ireland’s Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes(24) and Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning Authorities(25) provide details regarding the legal protection of designated conservation areas.
If both of the following assessment criteria are met, an assessment of the potential for impact due to nitrogen deposition should be conducted:
Part VIII Report Page 168 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• A designated area of conservation is located within 200 m of the proposed development; and • A significant change in AADT flows (>5%) will occur.
The Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (site code 02137) is located directly adjacent to the proposed development site and as such an assessment of the impact with regards to nitrogen deposition was conducted. Dispersion modelling and prediction was carried out at typical traffic speeds at this location. Ambient NOx concentrations were predicted for the post development year along a transect of up to 200m within the SAC. The road contribution to dry deposition along the transect was also calculated using the methodology outlined in Appendix 9 of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes(23). 4.8.3 Receiving Environment 4.8.3.1 Meteorological Data A key factor in assessing temporal and spatial variations in air quality is the prevailing meteorological conditions. Depending on wind speed and direction, individual receptors may experience very significant variations in pollutant levels under the same source strength (i.e. traffic levels)(26). Wind is of key importance in dispersing air pollutants and for ground level sources, such as traffic emissions, pollutant concentrations are generally inversely related to wind speed. Thus, concentrations of pollutants derived from traffic sources will generally be greatest under very calm conditions and low wind speeds when the movement of air is restricted. In relation to PM10, the situation is more complex due to the range of sources of this pollutant. Smaller particles (less than PM2.5) from traffic sources will be dispersed more rapidly at higher wind speeds. However, fugitive emissions of coarse particles (PM2.5 - PM10) will actually increase at higher wind speeds. Thus, measured levels of PM10 will be a non-linear function of wind speed.
The nearest representative weather station collating detailed weather records is Johnstown Castle, which is located approximately 42 km east of the site. Johnstown Castle met data has been examined to identify the prevailing wind direction and average wind speeds over a five-year period (see Figure 4.8.1). For data collated during five representative years (2014 - 2018), the predominant wind direction is south- westerly with predominately moderate wind speeds. The mean wind speed was approximately 3.7 m/s over the period.
Part VIII Report Page 169 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.8.1: Johnstown Castle Windrose 2014 - 2018 4.8.3.2 Trends in Air Quality Air quality is variable and subject to both significant spatial and temporal variation. In relation to spatial variations in air quality, concentrations generally fall significantly with distance from major road sources(19). Thus, residential exposure is determined by the location of sensitive receptors relative to major roads sources in the area. Temporally, air quality can vary significantly by orders of magnitude due to changes in traffic volumes, meteorological conditions and wind direction.
In assessing baseline air quality, two tools are generally used: ambient air monitoring and air dispersion modelling. In order to adequately characterise the current baseline environment through monitoring, comprehensive measurements would be required at a number of key receptors for PM10, NO2 and benzene. In addition, two of the key pollutants identified in the scoping study (PM10 and NO2) have limit values which require assessment over time periods varying from one hour to one year. Thus, continuous monitoring over at least a one-year period at a number of locations would be necessary in order to fully determine compliance for these pollutants. Although this study would provide information on current air quality it would not be able to provide predictive information on baseline conditions(18), which are the conditions which prevail just prior to opening in the absence of the development. Hence the impacts of the development were fully assessed by air dispersion modelling(18) which is the most practical tool for this purpose. The baseline environment has also been assessed using modelling, since the use of the same predictive technique for both the ‘do- nothing’ and ‘do-something’ scenario will minimise errors and allow an accurate determination of the relative impact of the development.
(27) In 2011 the UK DEFRA published research on the long term trends in NO2 and NOX for roadside monitoring sites in the UK. This study marked a decrease in NO2 concentrations between 1996 and 2002, after which the concentrations stabilised with little reduction between 2004 and 2010. The result of this is that there now exists a
Part VIII Report Page 170 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
gap between projected NO2 concentrations which UK DEFRA previously published and monitored concentrations. The impact of this ‘gap’ is that the DMRB screening model can under-predict NO2 concentrations for predicted future years. Subsequently, the UK Highways Agency (HA) published an Interim advice note (IAN 170/12) in order to correct the DMRB results for future years. 4.8.3.3 Baseline Air Quality – Review of Available Background Data Air quality monitoring programs have been undertaken in recent years by the EPA and Local Authorities. The most recent annual report on air quality in Ireland is “Air Quality In Ireland 2017 – Indicators of Air Quality”(20). The EPA website details the range and scope of monitoring undertaken throughout Ireland and provides both monitoring data and the results of previous air quality assessments(21).
As part of the implementation of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 271 of 2002), four air quality zones have been defined in Ireland for air quality management and assessment purposes(20). Dublin is defined as Zone A and Cork as Zone B. Zone C is composed of 23 towns with a population of greater than 15,000. The remainder of the country, which represents rural Ireland but also includes all towns with a population of less than 15,000, is defined as Zone D.
In terms of air monitoring and assessment, the proposed development site is within Zone C(21). The long-term monitoring data has been used to determine background concentrations for the key pollutants in the region of the proposed development. The background concentration accounts for all non-traffic derived emissions (e.g. natural sources, industry, home heating etc.).
(20,21) With regard to NO2, continuous monitoring data from the EPA at the Zone C locations of Kilkenny, Portlaoise and Mullingar show that levels of NO2 are below both the annual and 1-hour limit values (see Table 4.8.2). Average long-term concentrations range from 4 – 16µg/m3 for the period 2013 – 2017; suggesting an upper average over the five year period of no more than 12µg/m3. There were no exceedances of the maximum 1 hour limit of 200µg/m3 in any year (18 exceedances are allowed per year).
In addition, monitoring was conducted at Brownes Road, Waterford during 2007/2008 3 with an annual mean NO2 concentration of 18.5 µg/m and no exceedances of the 3 hourly limit value of 200 µg/m . Concentrations of NO2 in Waterford have likely decreased in more recent years since this monitoring campaign in line with trends for similar areas. Background concentrations of NO2 are likely similar to the values detailed for representative sites in Table 2.
Based on these results a conservative estimate of the current background NO2 concentration in the region of the proposed development is 15µg/m3.
Long term NOX monitoring has been carried out at a two Zone C locations in recent years, Kilkenny and Portlaoise. Annual mean concentrations of NOX at the monitoring sites over the period 2013 – 2017 ranged from 6 - 27μg/m3. A conservative estimate for the current background NOX concentration in the region of the proposed development is 20g/m3.
Part VIII Report Page 171 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.8.2 Trends In Zone C Air Quality - Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Year Station Averaging Period Notes 1,2 2013 2014 2015 2015 2017
3 Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m ) 4 5 5 7 5 Kilkenny 3 Max 1-hr NO2 (µg/m ) 90 57 70 51 58
3 Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m ) - 16 10 11 11 Portlaoise 3 Max 1-hr NO2 (µg/m ) - 74 84 86 80
3 Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m ) 6 4 - - - Mullingar 3 Max 1-hr NO2 (µg/m ) 68 53 - - - Note 1 Annual average limit value - 40 μg/m3 (EU Council Directive 2008/50/EC & S.I. No. 180 of 2011). Note 2 1-hour limit value - 200 μg/m3 as a 99.8th%ile, i.e. not to be exceeded >18 times per year (EU Council Directive 2008/50/EC & S.I. No. 180 of 2011).
Continuous PM10 monitoring carried out at the locations of Galway, Ennis, Mullingar and Portlaoise showed 2017 annual mean concentrations of 10 – 16µg/m3 (Table 4.8.3), with at most 9 exceedances (in Ennis) of the 24-hour limit value of 50µg/m3 (35 exceedances are permitted per year)(20). Long-term data for the period 2013 – 2017 show concentrations ranging from 10 – 21µg/m3; suggesting an upper average concentration over the five year period of no more than 19µg/m3.
Detailed PM10 monitoring took place at Brownes Road, Waterford during 2007/2008. The annual average result reported over this period was 25.5µg/m3 with a total of 7 3 exceedances of the daily limit value of 50µg/m . Concentrations of PM10 in Waterford have likely decreased in more recent years since this monitoring campaign in line with trends for similar areas. Background concentrations of PM10 are likely similar to the values detailed for representative sites in Table 3.
Based on the EPA data (Table 4.8.3) a conservative estimate of the current 3 background PM10 concentration in the region of the proposed development is 20µg/m .
Table 4.8.3: Trends In Trends In Zone C Air Quality - PM10
Year Station Averaging Period Notes 1,2 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
3 Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m ) 21 15 15 15 - Galway 24-hr Mean > 50μg/m3 (days) 11 0 2 3 -
3 Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m ) 20 21 18 17 16 Ennis 24-hr Mean > 50μg/m3 (days) 8 8 10 12 9
3 Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m ) 15 11 - - - Mullingar 24-hr Mean > 50μg/m3 (days) 0 0 - - -
3 Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m ) - - 12 12 10 Portlaoise 24-hr Mean > 50μg/m3 (days) - - 1 1 0
Note1 Annual average limit value - 40 μg/m3 (EU Council Directive 2008/50/EC & S.I. No. 180 of 2011). Note 2 24-hour limit value - 50 μg/m3 as a 90.4th%ile, i.e. not to be exceeded >35 times per year (EU Council Directive 1999/30/EC & S.I. No. 180 of 2011).
Part VIII Report Page 172 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Continuous PM2.5 monitoring carried out at the Zone C locations of Ennis and Bray 3 showed average levels of 5 - 16µg/m over the 2013 – 2017 period, with a PM2.5/PM10 ratio in Ennis ranging from 0.60 – 0.76. Based on this information, a conservative ratio of 0.8 was used to generate a background PM2.5 concentration in the region of the proposed development of 16 µg/m3.
In terms of benzene, the annual mean concentration in the Zone C monitoring location of Kilkenny for 2017 was 0.2µg/m3. This is well below the limit value of 5µg/m3. Between 2013 – 2017 annual mean concentrations at Zone C sites ranged from 0.09 – 0.5 µg/m3. Based on this EPA data a conservative estimate of the current background benzene concentration in the region of the proposed development is 0.5µg/m3.
With regard to CO, annual averages at the Zone C, locations of Mullingar and Portlaoise over the 2013 – 2017 period are low, peaking at 4% of the limit value (10mg/m3)(20). Based on this EPA data, a conservative estimate of the current background CO concentration in the region of the proposed development is 0.4mg/m3.
Background concentrations for the post development year have been calculated, these have used the predicted current background concentrations and the year on year reduction factors provided by Transport Infrastructure Ireland in the Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes and the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs LAQM.TG(16)(17). 4.8.4 Characteristics of the Proposed Development The proposed Transport Hub aspect of the project will be located on Dock Road, Ferrybank, Waterford. The total site area is 3.88 ha. The proposed development will involve the relocation of the existing train station at Plunkett Railway Station and construction of a new train station at the new Transport Hub. The proposed development will also involve alterations to the layout of the existing Bus Eireann depot site; additional bus parking for Bus Eireann; drainage network upgrades along the dock road and flood defences (along Iarnród Éireann rail line). A full description of the development can be found in Section 3.
When considering a development of this nature, the potential air quality and climate impact on the surroundings must be considered for each of two distinct stages: A. Construction Phase, and; B. Operational Phase.
During the construction stage the main source of air quality impacts will be as a result of fugitive dust emissions from site activities. Emissions from construction vehicles and machinery have the potential to impact climate. The primary sources of air and climatic emissions in the operational context are deemed long term and will involve the change in traffic flows or congestion in the local areas which are associated with the development.
The following describes the primary sources of potential air quality and climate impacts which have been assessed as part of this report.
Part VIII Report Page 173 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.8.5 Predicted Impacts 4.8.5.1 Construction Phase Air Quality The greatest potential impact on air quality during the construction phase of the proposed development is from construction dust emissions and the potential for nuisance dust and PM10/PM2.5 emissions. The proposed development can be considered minor in scale and therefore there is the potential for significant dust soiling 25m from the source with standard mitigation measures in place (Table 4.8.4). While construction dust tends to be deposited within 200m of a construction site, the majority of the deposition occurs within the first 50m. There are approximately nine sensitive receptors (residential properties) within 50m of the site. In order to minimise dust emissions during construction, a series of mitigation measures have been prepared in the form of a dust minimisation plan. Provided the dust minimisation measures outlined in the plan (see Appendix G) are adhered to, the air quality impacts during the construction phase will not be significant.
Table 4.8.4: Assessment Criteria for the Impact of Dust from Construction, with Standard Mitigation in Place
Potential Distance for Significant Source Effects (Distance from Source) Scale of Vegetation Description Soiling PM Development 10 Effects Large construction sites, with high Major 100m 25m 25m use of haul roads Moderate sized construction sites, Moderate 50m 15m 15m with moderate use of haul roads Minor construction sites, with Minor 25m 10m 10m limited use of haul roads Source: TII (2011) Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes
Climate There is the potential for a number of greenhouse gas emissions to atmosphere during the construction of the development. Construction vehicles, generators etc., may give rise to CO2 and N2O emissions. However, the impact on the climate is considered to be imperceptible in the short and long term.
Human Health Best practice mitigation measures are proposed for the construction phase of the proposed development which will focus on the pro-active control of dust and other air pollutants to minimise generation of emissions at source. The mitigation measures that will be put in place during construction of the proposed development will ensure that the impact of the development complies with all EU ambient air quality legislative limit values which are based on the protection of human health. Therefore, the impact of construction of the proposed development is likely to be short-term and imperceptible with respect to human health.
Part VIII Report Page 174 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.8.5.2 Operational Phase Local Air Quality There is the potential for a number of emissions to the atmosphere during the operational phase of the development. In particular, the traffic-related air emissions may generate quantities of air pollutants such as NO2, CO, benzene and PM10/PM2.5.
Traffic flow information was obtained from Roughan & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers on this project and has been used to model pollutant levels under various traffic scenarios and under sufficient spatial resolution to assess whether any significant air quality impact on sensitive receptors may occur.
Cumulative effects including additional traffic related to the proposed SDZ development have been assessed, as recommended in the EU Directive on EIA (Council Directive 97/11/EC) and using the methodology of the UK DEFRA(16,17). Firstly, background concentrations(20) have been included in the modelling study. These background concentrations are year-specific and account for non-localised sources of the pollutants of concern(20). Appropriate background levels were selected based on the available monitoring data provided by the EPA(20) (see Section 3.3).
The impact of the proposed development has been assessed by modelling emissions from the traffic generated as a result of the development. The impact of CO, benzene, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 for the baseline and post development years was predicted at the nearest sensitive receptors (see Table 4.8.6) to the development. This assessment allows the significance of the development, with respect to both relative and absolute impact, to be determined.
The receptors modelled represent the worst-case locations close to the proposed development and were chosen due to their close proximity (within 200m) to the road links impacted by the proposed development. The worst case traffic data which satisfied the assessment criteria detailed in Section 4.8.2.1 is shown in Table 4.8.5, with the percentage of HGV’s shown in parenthesis below the AADT. Five sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed development have been assessed. Sensitive receptors have been chosen as they have the potential to be adversely impacted by the development, these receptors are detailed in Table 4.8.6.
Table 4.8.5: Traffic Data used in Air Modelling Assessment
Do- Do- Speed Base Year Do-Nothing Do-Nothing Road Name Something Something (kph) 2018 2021 2021 2036 2036 17,216 19,165 19,649 22,633 23,086 R448 50 (7%) (7%) (7%) (7%) (7%) R680 - Rice 35,406 35,157 40,045 41,462 46,351 50 Bridge (4%) (4%) (4%) (4%) (4%) R711 - Dock 21,263 19,836 24,563 23,393 28,005 50 Road (6%) (6%) (6%) (6%) (6%) 5,911 6,975 7,950 8,226 9,201 Rockshire Rd 50 (2%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (2%) 15,093 13,955 17,957 16,458 20,460 R711 50 (6%) (6%) (6%) (6%) (6%)
Part VIII Report Page 175 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Do- Do- Speed Base Year Do-Nothing Do-Nothing Road Name Something Something (kph) 2018 2021 2021 2036 2036 5,017 5,040 11,658 5,944 12,562 Abbey Rd 50 (8%) (8%) (8%) (8%) (8%) Western Junct. 2,463 2,463 50 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) into SDZ (10%) (10%) Eastern Junct. 20,282 22,996 50 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) into SDZ (10%) (10%)
Table 4.8.6: Sensitive Receptors used in Air Modelling Assessment
Receptor UTM Coordinates (Zone 29N) Receptor Description Reference Easting Northing R1 Grattan Hotel 628354 5792060 R2 House on Bishopsgrove 628996 5792282 R3 House off Rockshire Rd 629218 5792263 R4 Our Lady of Good Counsel School 629517 5792218 R5 House on Rockenham 629525 5792453 R6 House on Sion Row 628970 5792223
Figure 4.8.2 Approximate Location of Sensitive Receptors used in Modelling Assessment
Part VIII Report Page 176 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Modelling Assessment Transport Infrastructure Ireland Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality during the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes(23) detail a methodology for determining air quality impact significance criteria for road schemes and has been adopted for this assessment, as is best practice. The degree of impact is determined based on both the absolute and relative impact of the proposed development. Results are compared against the ‘Do-Nothing’ scenario, which assumes that the proposed development is not in place in future years, in order to determine the degree of impact.
NO2
The results of the assessment of the impact of the proposed development on NO2 in the opening and design years are shown Table 4.8.7 for the Highways Agency IAN 170/12 and Table 4.8.8 using the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs technique respectively. The annual average concentration is within the limit value at all worst-case receptors using both techniques. Levels of NO2 are 53% of the annual limit value in the opening year 2021 using the more conservative IAN technique, while concentrations are 51% of the annual limit value in the opening year using the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs technique. Similarly low concentrations are predicted for the design year 2036 with NO2 concentrations reaching 50% of the limit using the more conservative IAN technique. There are some increases in traffic flows in future years so decreases are as a result of decreasing 3 background concentrations. The hourly limit value for NO2 is 200 μg/m and is expressed as a 99.8th percentile (i.e. it must not be exceeded more than 18 times per year). The maximum 1-hour NO2 concentration is not predicted to be exceeded using either technique (Table 4.8.9).
The impact of the proposed development on annual mean NO2 levels can be assessed relative to “Do Nothing (DN)” levels in the opening and design years. Relative to baseline levels, some small increases in pollutant levels are predicted as a result of the proposed development. With regard to impacts at individual receptors, the greatest impact on NO2 concentrations will be an increase of 2% of the annual limit value at Receptor4 and Receptor 6 (R4 and R6). Thus, using the assessment criteria outlined in Appendix 4.8.2 Tables A1 – A2, the impact of the proposed development in terms of NO2 is negligible. Therefore, the overall impact of NO2 concentrations as a result of the proposed development is long-term and imperceptible at all of the receptors assessed.
PM10
The results of the modelled impact of the proposed development for PM10 in the opening and design years are shown in Table 4.8.10. Predicted annual average concentrations at the worst-case receptor in the region of the development are at most 52% of the limit value in the opening year and 53% in the design year. It is predicted that the worst case receptors will have at most five exceedances of the 50μg/m3 24- hour mean value with the proposed development in place, this is the same as baseline levels, 35 exceedances are permitted per year (Table 4.8.11).
Relative to baseline levels, some imperceptible increases in PM10 levels at the worst- case receptors are predicted as a result of the proposed development. The greatest impact on PM10 concentrations in the region of the proposed development will be an increase of 0.4% of the annual limit value at Receptor 6 (R6). Thus, the magnitude of the changes in air quality are negligible at all receptors based on the criteria outlined in Appendix 4.8.2, Tables A1 – A3. Therefore, the overall impact of PM10 concentrations as a result of the proposed development is long-term and imperceptible.
Part VIII Report Page 177 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
PM2.5
The results of the modelled impact of the proposed development for PM2.5 are shown in Table 4.8.12. Predicted annual average concentrations in the region of the proposed development are 67% of the limit value in the opening and design year at all worst- case receptors.
Relative to baseline levels, imperceptible increases in PM2.5 levels at the worst-case receptors are predicted as a result of the proposed development. None of the receptors assessed will experience an increase in concentrations of over 0.45% of the limit value. Therefore, using the assessment criteria outlined in Appendix 4.8.2, Tables A1 – A2, the impact of the proposed development with regard to PM2.5 is negligible at all of the receptors assessed. Overall, the impact of increased PM2.5 concentrations as a result of the proposed development is long-term and imperceptible.
CO and Benzene The results of the modelled impact of CO and benzene are shown in Table 4.8.13 and Table 4.8.14 respectively. Predicted pollutant concentrations with the proposed development in place are below the ambient standards at all locations. Levels of CO are 24% of the limit value in the opening and design years; with levels of benzene reaching 13% of the limit value.
Relative to baseline levels, some imperceptible increases in pollutant levels at the worst-case receptors are predicted as a result of the proposed development. The greatest impact on CO concentrations will be an increase of 0.4% of the CO limit value at Receptor 6. Concentrations of benzene will reach at most 0.6% of the limit value at Receptor 6. Thus, using the assessment criteria for NO2 and PM10 outlined in Appendix 4.8.2 and applying these criteria to CO and benzene, the impact of the proposed development in terms of CO and benzene is negligible, long-term and imperceptible.
Part VIII Report Page 178 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3 Table 4.8.7: Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations (µg/m ) (using Interim advice note 170/12 V3 Long Term NO2 Trend Projections)
Impact Opening Year (2021) Impact Design Year (2036) Receptor DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description 1 18.6 18.9 0.25 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 17.7 17.9 0.21 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2 17.3 17.6 0.31 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 16.4 16.6 0.25 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 3 16.7 17.0 0.29 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 15.8 16.0 0.24 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 4 18.6 19.4 0.76 Small Small Increase 18.0 18.4 0.36 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 5 16.8 17.2 0.45 Small Small Increase 16.0 16.2 0.27 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 6 20.5 21.3 0.78 Small Small Increase 19.5 20.2 0.65 Small Small Increase
3 Table 4.8.8: Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations (µg/m ) (using UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Technical Guidance)
Impact Opening Year (2021) Impact Design Year (2036) Receptor DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description 1 17.7 17.9 0.24 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 17.8 18.0 0.21 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2 16.3 16.6 0.29 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 16.4 16.7 0.25 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 3 15.7 16.0 0.27 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 15.8 16.0 0.24 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 4 17.7 18.4 0.72 Small Small Increase 18.1 18.4 0.36 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 5 15.8 16.3 0.42 Small Small Increase 16.0 16.3 0.27 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 6 19.5 20.2 0.74 Small Small Increase 19.6 20.2 0.65 Small Small Increase
Part VIII Report Page 179 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
th 3 Table 4.8.9: 99.8 percentile of daily maximum 1-hour for NO2 concentrations (µg/m )
IAN 170/12 V3 Long Term NO2 Trend Projections Technique Defra’s Technical Guidance Technique Receptor Opening Year Design Year Opening Year Design Year DN DS DN DS DN DS DN DS 1 65.2 66.1 61.9 62.6 65.2 66.1 61.9 62.6 2 60.6 61.7 57.3 58.2 60.6 61.7 57.3 58.2 3 58.4 59.5 55.2 56 58.4 59.5 55.2 56 4 65.3 67.9 63.1 64.4 65.3 67.9 63.1 64.4 5 58.8 60.3 55.9 56.8 58.8 60.3 55.9 56.8 6 71.7 74.4 68.3 70.6 71.7 74.4 68.3 70.6
3 Table 4.8.10: Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations (µg/m )
Impact Opening Year (2021) Impact Design Year (2036) Receptor DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description 1 20.6 20.6 0.05 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.7 20.7 0.05 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2 20.3 20.3 0.05 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.3 20.3 0.05 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 3 20.1 20.2 0.05 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.2 20.2 0.05 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 4 20.5 20.6 0.12 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.6 20.7 0.07 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 5 20.2 20.2 0.08 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.2 20.3 0.05 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 6 20.8 21.0 0.14 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.9 21.1 0.13 6 20.8
Part VIII Report Page 180 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3 Table 4.8.11: Number of days with PM10 concentration > 50 µg/m
Opening Year (2021) Design Year (2036) Receptor DN DS DN DS 1 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 6 5 5 5 5
3 Table 4.8.12: Annual Mean PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m )
Impact Opening Year (2021) Impact Design Year (2036) Receptor DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description 1 16.5 16.5 0.04 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 16.5 16.6 0.04 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2 16.2 16.2 0.04 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 16.2 16.3 0.04 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 3 16.1 16.2 0.04 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 16.1 16.2 0.04 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 4 16.4 16.5 0.10 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 16.5 16.5 0.05 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 5 16.1 16.2 0.06 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 16.2 16.2 0.04 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 6 16.7 16.8 0.11 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 16.8 16.9 0.10 Imperceptible Negligible Increase
Part VIII Report Page 181 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.8.13: Maximum 8-hour CO Concentrations (mg/m3)
Impact Opening Year (2021) Impact Design Year (2036) Receptor DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description 1 2.29 2.31 0.016 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2.31 2.33 0.014 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2 2.18 2.20 0.016 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2.19 2.21 0.014 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 3 2.15 2.16 0.015 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2.16 2.17 0.014 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 4 2.25 2.28 0.036 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2.28 2.30 0.018 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 5 2.15 2.18 0.024 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2.17 2.19 0.015 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 6 2.36 2.40 0.042 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2.39 2.42 0.039 Imperceptible Negligible Increase
Table 4.8.14: Annual Mean Benzene Concentrations (µg/m3)
Impact Opening Year (2021) Impact Design Year (2036) Receptor DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description 1 0.61 0.63 0.016 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 0.63 0.65 0.016 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 2 0.55 0.56 0.012 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 0.56 0.57 0.011 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 3 0.54 0.55 0.011 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 0.55 0.56 0.011 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 4 0.55 0.57 0.013 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 0.56 0.58 0.012 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 5 0.53 0.54 0.010 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 0.54 0.55 0.010 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 6 0.60 0.62 0.028 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 0.61 0.64 0.028 Imperceptible Negligible Increase
Part VIII Report Page 182 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.8.15: Regional Air Quality & Climate Assessment
VOC NOX CO2 Year Scenario (kg/annum) (kg/annum) (tonnes/annum) Do Nothing 1836 6049 3248 2021 Do Something 2584 8546 4576 Do Nothing 2159 7043 3837 2036 Do Something 2957 9677 5259 Increment in 2021 748 kg 2497.4 kg 1327.5 Tonnes Increment in 2036 797.8 kg 2634.4 kg 1421.7 Tonnes Emission Ceiling (kilo Tonnes) 2020 56.9 66.9 37,943 Emission Ceiling (kilo Tonnes) 2030 51.6 40.7 37,943 Impact in 2021 (%) 0.0013 % 0.0037 % 0.0035 % Impact in 2036 (%) 0.0015 % 0.0065 % 0.0037 % Note 1 Targets under Directive EU 2016/2284 “On the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants and amending Directive 2003/35/EC”
Table 4.8.16: Assessment of NOX Concentrations and NO2 Dry Deposition Impact in the Lower River Suir SAC
3 NOX Conc. (µg/m ) NO2 Dry NO2 Dry Deposition Rate Deposition Rate Impact Impact Distance to Opening Year 2021 Design Year 2036 Road (m) (Kg N ha-1 yr-1) (Kg N ha-1 yr-1) Change in Do Change in Do Nothing Do Something Do Nothing 2021 2036 Conc. Something Conc. 10 44.68 45.90 1.21 46.18 47.26 1.08 0.059 0.049 20 38.24 39.17 0.93 39.38 40.21 0.83 0.046 0.039 30 33.52 34.25 0.72 34.41 35.05 0.64 0.037 0.032
Part VIII Report Page 183 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
3 NOX Conc. (µg/m ) NO2 Dry NO2 Dry Deposition Rate Deposition Rate Impact Impact Distance to Opening Year 2021 Design Year 2036 Road (m) (Kg N ha-1 yr-1) (Kg N ha-1 yr-1) Change in Do Change in Do Nothing Do Something Do Nothing 2021 2036 Conc. Something Conc. 40 30.01 30.58 0.57 30.70 31.21 0.50 0.029 0.025 50 27.32 27.76 0.44 27.86 28.26 0.39 0.023 0.02 60 25.21 25.56 0.35 25.64 25.95 0.31 0.018 0.016 70 23.54 23.82 0.27 23.88 24.12 0.24 0.014 0.013 80 22.22 22.43 0.22 22.48 22.67 0.19 0.012 0.01 90 21.17 21.34 0.17 21.38 21.53 0.15 0.009 0.007 100 20.35 20.48 0.13 20.51 20.62 0.12 0.007 0.006 110 19.71 19.81 0.10 19.84 19.93 0.09 0.006 0.005 120 19.23 19.32 0.08 19.33 19.41 0.07 0.005 0.004 130 18.89 18.96 0.07 18.97 19.03 0.06 0.004 0.003 140 18.67 18.73 0.06 18.74 18.79 0.05 0.003 0.003 150 18.49 18.54 0.05 18.55 18.59 0.05 0.003 0.003 160 18.37 18.42 0.04 18.43 18.47 0.04 0.002 0.002 170 18.26 18.30 0.04 18.30 18.34 0.03 0.002 0.001 180 17.96 17.98 0.02 17.99 18.01 0.02 0.001 0.001 190 17.85 17.86 0.02 17.87 17.89 0.01 0.001 0.001 200 17.59 17.60 0.01 17.60 17.61 0.01 0.001 0.001
Part VIII Report Page 184 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Impact of Train Emissions on Local Air Quality As part of the proposed development it is proposed to relocate the existing Plunkett train station and to the new Transport Hub. As a result of this, the trains servicing the station will now be closer to the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the development (closest receptor is less than 20m from the transport hub on Sion Row). There is the potential for emissions from passing and idling trains at the station to impact local air quality through emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5). A review of the number and frequency of trains servicing the station each day and week has been undertaken as part of this assessment. In addition, the types of trains servicing the station have also been reviewed.
There are no additional train services proposed as part of the proposed development; all trains currently servicing the existing Plunkett station will instead service the new Transport Hub. All passenger trains operating on the Waterford line are diesel powered trains, IÉ 22000 Class InterCity Railcar (ICR) type or similar. Freight and engineering trains operating on the line are also diesel powered (201 Class, 071 Class or similar). Diesel engines have the highest potential to emit NO2 and PM10/PM2.5.
The railway line that will be used for the proposed development (located east of Plunkett Station) is currently sporadically used for goods (freight) and engineering trains only (Waterford to Belview Port). Low-frequency rail traffic operates on the railway east of Plunkett Station i.e. one Iarnród Éireann freight/engineering train operates every two weeks for deliveries to/from Waterford Port to various Iarnród Éireann sites. There is the potential for this service to increase over time. However, these would not be stopping at the station, just passing along the line which would reduce potential emissions from idling vehicles.
The Waterford to Dublin rail corridor provides 16 per day from Waterford City daily between Monday and Saturday. The Waterford to Limerick Junction rail corridor is only serviced twice daily between Monday and Saturday. On average, only 25 persons use this rail corridor (see Table 4.2.1). This amounts to 10 no. scheduled arrivals and 10 no. scheduled departures on the busiest days.
Currently, there are on average 16 trains per day (Monday to Saturday) operating on the Waterford – Dublin service with 8 trains on Sundays. The Waterford to Limerick Junction rail corridor is only serviced twice daily between Monday and with no services on Sundays or public holidays. This results in a total of, at worst-case, 19 trains per day servicing the station or 99 trains per week. Overall, the number of trains servicing the station is low enough that the potential significant air quality impact is low.
Data on pollutant background levels from representative EPA monitoring stations indicate concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are well below the relevant ambient air quality standards (see Section 4.8.3.3). In addition, the closest receptor to the site is 70m away.
Due to the low number of trains servicing the train station and the low background levels of NO2 and PM10/PM2.5 it can be determined that the impact of trains associated with the proposed development is unlikely to cause an exceedance of the relevant air quality limit values. Therefore, the impact on local air quality will not be significant in the long term.
Summary of Local Air Quality Assessment Levels of traffic-derived air pollutants for the development will not exceed the ambient air quality standards either with or without the proposed development in place. Using
Part VIII Report Page 185 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
the assessment criteria outlined in Appendix 4.8.2, Table A1 – A3, the impact of the development in terms of PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2 and benzene is negligible, long-term, negative and imperceptible. In addition, pollutants associated with trains servicing the proposed development are predicted to be insignificant.
Regional Air Quality Impact
The regional impact of the proposed development on emissions of NOX and VOCs has been assessed using the procedures of Transport Infrastructure Ireland(23) and the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(17). The results (see Table 4.8.15) show that the likely impact of the proposed development on Ireland's obligations under the Targets set out by Directive EU 2016/2284 “On the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants and amending Directive 2003/35/EC” are imperceptible and long-term. For the opening year of 2021, the predicted impact of the changes in AADT is to increase NOx levels by 0.0037% of the NOx emissions ceiling and increase VOC levels by 0.0013% of the VOC emissions ceiling to be complied with from 2020. For the design year of 2036, the predicted impact of the proposed development is to increase NOx levels by 0.0065% of the NOx emissions ceiling and increase VOC levels by 0.0015% of the VOC emissions ceiling to be complied with from 2030.
Therefore, the likely overall magnitude of the changes on air quality in the operational stage is imperceptible, long-term and not significant.
Air Quality Impact to Sensitive Ecosystems
The impact of NOX (i.e. NO and NO2) emissions resulting from the traffic associated with the proposed development at the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation (SAC) was assessed. Ambient NOX concentrations were predicted for the opening and design years of 2021 and 2036 respectively along a transect of up to 200m and are given in Table 4.8.16. The road contribution to dry deposition along the transect is also given and was calculated using the methodology of TII(23).
The predicted annual average NOX level in the Lower River Suir SAC adjacent to the proposed development is above the limit value of 30μg/m3 for both the “Do Nothing” and “Do Something” scenarios. Baseline NOX concentrations are at most 149% of this limit (including background concentrations) in the opening year; with the proposed 3 development in place NOX concentrations increase by 1.2μg/m , reaching 153% of the limit (including background levels). Similar levels are predicted for the design year of 3 2036 with the proposed development increasing NOX concentrations by 1.1μg/m .
The road contribution to the NO2 dry deposition rate along the 200m transect within the SAC is also detailed in Table 16. The maximum increase in the NO2 dry deposition rate is 0.059 Kg(N)/ha/yr. This reaches only 1.2% of the critical load for inland and surface water habitats of 5 - 10Kg(N)/ha/yr(23).
Appendix 9 of the TII guidelines(23) states that where the scheme or development is expected to cause an increase of more than 2µg/m3 and the predicted concentrations (including background) are close to, or exceed the standard, then the sensitivity of the habitat to NOX should be assessed by the project ecologist. While the predicted concentrations exceed the limit value of 30μg/m3 concentrations do not increase by 2μg/m3 and therefore, the impact of the development on the Lower River Suir SAC need not be assessed by the project ecologist. It can be determined that the impact of the proposed development is imperceptible and long-term.
Part VIII Report Page 186 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Climate
The impact of the proposed development on emissions of CO2 impacting climate were also assessed using the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges screening model (see Table 4.8.15). The results show that the impact of the proposed development in the opening and design years will be to increase CO2 emissions by 0.0.0035% and 0.0037% of Ireland's EU 2020 Target respectively. Thus, the impact of the proposed development on national greenhouse gas emissions will be insignificant in terms of Ireland’s obligations under the EU 2020 Target(29).
Limiting the impact of the development on climate has also been addressed as part of the design and are included within the sustainability statement for the proposed development. Design techniques include: optimizing the use of natural light to avoid the need for artificial lighting, natural mixed mode ventilation strategies to reduce energy consumption, heat recovery systems on mechanical ventilation, a building energy management system (BEMS), and compliance with the Near Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) initiative.
Therefore, the likely overall magnitude of the changes on climate in the operational stage is imperceptible, long-term and not significant.
Human Health Air dispersion modelling of operational traffic emissions was undertaken to assess the impact of the development with reference to EU ambient air quality standards which are based on the protection of human health. As demonstrated by the modelling results, emissions as a result of the proposed development are compliant with all National and EU ambient air quality limit values and, therefore, will not result in a significant impact on human health. 4.8.6 Mitigation Measures 4.8.6.1 Construction Phase Air Quality The pro-active control of fugitive dust will ensure the prevention of significant emissions, rather than an inefficient attempt to control them once they have been released. The main contractor will be responsible for the coordination, implementation and ongoing monitoring of the dust management plan. The key aspects of controlling dust are listed below. Full details of the dust management plan can be found in Appendix G. • The specification and circulation of a dust management plan for the site and the identification of persons responsible for managing dust control and any potential issues; • The development of a documented system for managing site practices with regard to dust control; • The development of a means by which the performance of the dust management plan can be monitored and assessed; • The specification of effective measures to deal with any complaints received.
At all times, the procedures within the plan will be strictly monitored and assessed. In the event of dust nuisance occurring outside the site boundary, movements of materials likely to raise dust would be curtailed and satisfactory procedures implemented to rectify the problem before the resumption of construction operations.
Part VIII Report Page 187 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Climate Construction traffic and embodied energy of construction materials are expected to be the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the construction phase of the development. Construction vehicles, generators etc., may give rise to some CO2 and N2O emissions. However, due to short-term and temporary nature of these works, the impact on climate will not be significant.
Nevertheless, some site-specific mitigation measures can be implemented during the construction phase of the proposed development to ensure emissions are reduced further. In particular the prevention of on-site or delivery vehicles from leaving engines idling, even over short periods. Minimising waste of materials due to poor timing or over ordering on site will aid to minimise the embodied carbon footprint of the site. 4.8.6.2 Operational Phase The operational phase of the proposed development as it is predicted to have an imperceptible impact on ambient air quality and climate. However, it is recommended that trains do not leave engines idling while waiting in the station for significant periods. 4.8.7 Conclusions No significant impacts to either air quality or climate are predicted during the construction or operational phases of the Transport Hub aspect of the Waterford City Public Infrastructure Project. Once the dust minimisation measures outlined in Appendix G are implemented, fugitive emissions of dust from the site during construction will be insignificant and pose no nuisance to nearby receptors. 4.8.8 References (1) German VDI (2002) Technical Guidelines on Air Quality Control – TA Luft
(2) DOEHLG (2004) Quarries and Ancillary Activities, Guidelines for Planning Authorities
(3) European Economic Area (2011) NEC Directive Status Reports 2010
(4) Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997) Kyoto Protocol To The United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change
(5) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2012) Doha Amendment To The Kyoto Protocol
(6) Environmental Resources Management (1998) Limitation and Reduction of CO2 and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Ireland
(7) EU (2014) EU 2030 Climate and Energy Framework
(8) Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) (2003) Strategy to Reduce Emissions of Trans-boundary Pollution by 2010 to Comply with National Emission Ceilings - Discussion Document
(9) DEHLG (2004) National Programme for Ireland under Article 6 of Directive 2001/81/EC for the Progressive Reduction of National Emissions of Transboundary Pollutants by 2010
(10) DEHLG (2007a) Update and Revision of the National Programme for Ireland under Article 6 of Directive 2001/81/EC for the Progressive Reduction of National Emissions of Transboundary Pollutants by 2010
Part VIII Report Page 188 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
(11) EEA (2012) NEC Directive Status Reports 2011
(12) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002) Guidelines On Information To Be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements
(13) EPA (2003) Advice Notes On Current Practice (In The Preparation Of Environmental Impact Statements)
(14) EPA (2017) Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports - Draft
(15) EPA (2015) Advice Notes for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements – Draft
(16) UK DEFRA (2016a) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management, LAQM. PG(16)
(17) UK DEFRA (2018) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management, LAQM.TG(16)
(18) UK Department of the Environment, Transport and Roads (1998) Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects That Require Environmental Assessment - A Good Practice Guide, Appendix 8 - Air & Climate
(19) UK Highways Agency (2007) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 - HA207/07 (Document & Calculation Spreadsheet)
(20) EPA (2018) Air Quality Monitoring Report 2017 (& previous annual reports)
(21) EPA (2019) EPA Website: http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/monitoring/air/
(22) UK DEFRA (2017) NOx to NO2 Conversion Spreadsheet (Version 6.1)
(23) Transport Infrastructure Ireland (2011) Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes
(24) Transport Infrastructure Ireland (2009) Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Roads Schemes (Rev. 2, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, 2009)
(25) Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2010) Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning Authorities
(26) World Health Organisation (2006) Air Quality Guidelines - Global Update 2005 (and previous Air Quality Guideline Reports 1999 & 2000)
(27) Highways England (2013) Interim Advice Note 170/12 v3 Updated air quality advice on the assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality
(28) Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) (2014) Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction Version 1.1
Part VIII Report Page 189 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.8.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards
National standards for ambient air pollutants in Ireland have generally ensued from Council Directives enacted in the EU (& previously the EC & EEC). The initial interest in ambient air pollution legislation in the EU dates from the early 1980s and was in response to the most serious pollutant problems at that time which was the issue of acid rain. As a result of this sulphur dioxide, and later nitrogen dioxide, were both the focus of EU legislation. Linked to the acid rain problem was urban smog associated with fuel burning for space heating purposes. Also apparent at this time were the problems caused by leaded petrol and EU legislation was introduced to deal with this problem in the early 1980s.
In recent years the EU has focused on defining a basis strategy across the EU in relation to ambient air quality. In 1996, a Framework Directive, Council Directive 96/62/EC, on ambient air quality assessment and management was enacted. The aims of the Directive are fourfold. Firstly, the Directive’s aim is to establish objectives for ambient air quality designed to avoid harmful effects to health. Secondly, the Directive aims to assess ambient air quality on the basis of common methods and criteria throughout the EU. Additionally, it is aimed to make information on air quality available to the public via alert thresholds and fourthly, it aims to maintain air quality where it is good and improve it in other cases.
As part of these measures to improve air quality, the European Commission has adopted proposals for daughter legislation under Directive 96/62/EC. The first of these directives to be enacted, Council Directive 1999/30/EC, has been passed into Irish Law as S.I. No 271 of 2002 (Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002), and has set limit values which came into operation on 17th June 2002. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 detail margins of tolerance, which are trigger levels for certain types of action in the period leading to the attainment date. The margin of tolerance varies from 60% for lead, to 30% for 24-hour limit value for PM10, 40% for the hourly and annual limit value for NO2 and 26% for hourly SO2 limit values. The margin of tolerance commenced from June 2002, and started to reduce from 1 January 2003 and every 12 months thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0% by the attainment date. A second daughter directive, EU Council Directive 2000/69/EC, has published limit values for both carbon monoxide and benzene in ambient air. This has also been passed into Irish Law under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002.
The most recent EU Council Directive on ambient air quality was published on the 11/06/08 which has been transposed into Irish Law as S.I. 180 of 2011. Council Directive 2008/50/EC combines the previous Air Quality Framework Directive and its subsequent daughter directives. Provisions were also made for the inclusion of new ambient limit values relating to PM2.5. The margins of tolerance specific to each pollutant were also slightly adjusted from previous directives. In regards to existing ambient air quality standards, it is not proposed to modify the standards but to strengthen existing provisions to ensure that non-compliances are removed. In addition, new ambient standards for PM2.5 are included in Directive 2008/50/EC. 3 The approach for PM2.5 was to establish a target value of 25 µg/m , as an annual average (to be attained everywhere by 2010) and a limit value of 25 µg/m3, as an annual average (to be attained everywhere by 2015), coupled with a target to reduce human exposure generally to PM2.5 between 2010 and 2020. This exposure reduction target will range from 0% (for PM2.5 concentrations of less than 8.5 µg/m3 to 20% of the average exposure indicator (AEI) for concentrations of between 18 - 22 µg/m3). Where the AEI is currently greater than 22 µg/m3 all appropriate measures should be employed to reduce this level to 18 µg/m3 by 2020. The AEI is based on measurements taken in urban background locations averaged over a three year period from 2008 - 2010 and again from 2018-2020. Additionally, an exposure concentration obligation of 20 µg/m3 was set to be complied with by 2015 again based on the AEI.
Part VIII Report Page 190 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Although the EU Air Quality Limit Values are the basis of legislation, other thresholds outlined by the EU Directives are used which are triggers for particular actions. The Alert Threshold is defined in Council Directive 96/62/EC as “a level beyond which there is a risk to human health from brief exposure and at which immediate steps shall be taken as laid down in Directive 96/62/EC”. These steps include undertaking to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to inform the public (e.g. by means of radio, television and the press).
The Margin of Tolerance is defined in Council Directive 96/62/EC as a concentration which is higher than the limit value when legislation comes into force. It decreases to meet the limit value by the attainment date. The Upper Assessment Threshold is defined in Council Directive 96/62/EC as a concentration above which high quality measurement is mandatory. Data from measurement may be supplemented by information from other sources, including air quality modelling.
An annual average limit for both NOX (NO and NO2) is applicable for the protection of vegetation in highly rural areas away from major sources of NOX such as large conurbations, factories and high road vehicle activity such as a dual carriageway or motorway. Annex VI of EU Directive 1999/30/EC identifies that monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the NOX limit for the protection of vegetation should be carried out distances greater than: • 5km from the nearest motorway or dual carriageway • 5km from the nearest major industrial installation • 20km from a major urban conurbation
As a guideline, a monitoring station should be indicative of approximately 1000 km2 of surrounding area.
Under the terms of EU Framework Directive on Ambient Air Quality (96/62/EC), geographical areas within member states have been classified in terms of zones. The zones have been defined in order to meet the criteria for air quality monitoring, assessment and management as described in the Framework Directive and Daughter Directives. Zone A is defined as Dublin and its environs, Zone B is defined as Cork City, Zone C is defined as 23 urban areas with a population greater than 15,000 and Zone D is defined as the remainder of the country. The Zones were defined based on among other things, population and existing ambient air quality.
EU Council Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality and assessment has been adopted into Irish Legislation (S.I. No. 33 of 1999). The act has designated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the competent authority responsible for the implementation of the Directive and for assessing ambient air quality in the State. Other commonly referenced ambient air quality standards include the World Health Organisation. The WHO guidelines differ from air quality standards in that they are primarily set to protect public health from the effects of air pollution. Air quality standards, however, are air quality guidelines recommended by governments, for which additional factors, such as socio-economic factors, may be considered.
Air Dispersion Modelling The inputs to the DMRB model consist of information on road layouts, receptor locations, annual average daily traffic movements, annual average traffic speeds and background concentrations(15). Using this input data, the model predicts ambient ground level concentrations at the worst-case sensitive receptor using generic meteorological data.
The DMRB has recently undergone an extensive validation exercise(16) as part of the UK’s Review and Assessment Process to designate areas as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). The validation exercise was carried out at 12 monitoring sites within the UK
Part VIII Report Page 191 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
DEFRAs national air quality monitoring network. The validation exercise was carried out for NOX, NO2 and PM10, and included urban background and kerbside/roadside locations, “open” and “confined” settings and a variety of geographical locations(16).
In relation to NO2, the model generally over-predicts concentrations, with a greater degree of over-prediction at “open” site locations. The performance of the model with respect to NO2 mirrors that of NOX showing that the over-prediction is due to NOX calculations rather than the NOX:NO2 conversion. Within most urban situations, the model overestimates annual mean NO2 concentrations by between 0 to 40% at confined locations and by 20 to 60% at open locations. The performance is considered comparable with that of sophisticated dispersion models when applied to situations where specific local validation corrections have not been carried out.
The model also tends to over-predict PM10. Within most urban situations, the model will over- estimate annual mean PM10 concentrations by between 20 to 40%. The performance is comparable to more sophisticated models, which, if not validated locally, can be expected to predict concentrations within the range of 50%.
Thus, the validation exercise has confirmed that the model is a useful screening tool for the Second Stage Review and Assessment, for which a conservative approach is applicable(16).
Part VIII Report Page 192 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.8.2 Transport Infrastructure Ireland Significance Criteria
Table A1: Definition of Impact Magnitude for Changes in Ambient Pollutant Concentrations
Magnitude of Annual Mean NO2 / No. days with PM10 3 Annual Mean PM2.5 Change PM10 concentration > 50 µg/m Increase / decrease Increase / decrease >4 Increase / decrease ≥2.5 Large ≥4 µg/m3 days µg/m3 Increase / decrease Increase / decrease 3 or 4 Increase / decrease 1.25 - Medium 2 - <4 µg/m3 days <2.5 µg/m3 Increase / decrease Increase / decrease 1 or 2 Increase / decrease 0.25 - Small 0.4 - <2 µg/m3 days <1.25 µg/m3 Increase / decrease Increase / decrease <0.25 Imperceptible Increase / decrease <1 day <0.4 µg/m3 µg/m3
Table A2: Air Quality Impact Significance Criteria For Annual Mean NO2 and PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at a Receptor
Note 1 Absolute Concentration in Relation to Change in Concentration
Objective/Limit Value Small Medium Large Increase with Scheme
Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (≥40 Moderate Substantial 3 3 Slight Adverse µg/m of NO2 or PM10) (≥25 µg/m of PM2.5) Adverse Adverse
Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme 3 Moderate Moderate (36 - <40 µg/m of NO2 or PM10) (22.5 - <25 Slight Adverse 3 Adverse Adverse µg/m of PM2.5) Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (30 - 3 Slight <36 µg/m of NO2 or PM10) (18.75 - <22.5 Negligible Slight Adverse 3 Adverse µg/m of PM2.5) Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme 3 3 Slight (<30 µg/m of NO2 or PM10) (<18.75 µg/m of Negligible Negligible Adverse PM2.5) Decrease with Scheme
Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (≥40 Moderate Substantial 3 3 Slight Beneficial µg/m of NO2 or PM10) (≥25 µg/m of PM2.5) Beneficial Beneficial
Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme 3 Moderate Moderate (36 - <40 µg/m of NO2 or PM10) (22.5 - <25 Slight Beneficial 3 Beneficial Beneficial µg/m of PM2.5) Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (30 - 3 Slight Slight <36 µg/m of NO2 or PM10) (18.75 - <22.5 Negligible 3 Beneficial Beneficial µg/m of PM2.5) Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme 3 3 Slight (<30 µg/m of NO2 or PM10) (<18.75 µg/m of Negligible Negligible Beneficial PM2.5) Note 1 Well Below Standard = <75% of limit value.
Part VIII Report Page 193 Roughan & O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table A3: Air Quality Impact Significance Criteria For Changes to Number of 3 Days with PM10 Concentration Greater than 50 µg/m at a Receptor
Absolute Concentration in Change in Concentration Note 1 Relation to Objective / Limit Value Small Medium Large Increase with Scheme
Above Objective/Limit Value Substantial Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse With Scheme (≥35 days) Adverse
Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (32 - <35 Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse days)
Below Objective/Limit Value Negligible Slight Adverse Slight Adverse With Scheme (26 - <32 days)
Well Below Objective/Limit Negligible Negligible Slight Adverse Value With Scheme (<26 days)
Decrease with Scheme
Above Objective/Limit Value Slight Substantial Moderate Beneficial With Scheme (≥35 days) Beneficial Beneficial
Just Below Objective/Limit Slight Moderate Value With Scheme (32 - <35 Moderate Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial days)
Below Objective/Limit Value Negligible Slight Beneficial Slight Beneficial With Scheme (26 - <32 days)
Well Below Objective/Limit Negligible Negligible Slight Beneficial Value With Scheme (<26 days)
Note 1 Where the Impact Magnitude is Imperceptible, then the Impact Description is Negligible.
Part VIII Report Page 194 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.9 Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage 4.9.1 Introduction 4.9.1.1 General This section details an archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage assessment undertaken in advance of the construction of the proposed development of the proposed Transport Hub, which is located on the northern side of the River Suir in Waterford City (Figures 4.9.1 and 4.9.2). This assessment has been carried out to ascertain the potential impact of the proposed development on the archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage resource that may exist within the area. The assessment was undertaken by Faith Bailey of Irish Archaeological Consultancy Ltd (IAC), on behalf of Waterford City and County Council.
The development area is immediately adjacent to the Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone (NQ SDZ). One of the primary goals of the SDZ Planning Scheme (2018) is to create a sustainable urban environment, which respects it’s natural, historic and cultural heritage. 4.9.1.2 Characteristics of the Proposed Development The proposed development will consist of the construction of the proposed Transport Hub and associated works to include; alterations to the layout of the existing Bus Eireann depot site; construction of additional bus and car parking for Bus Eireann at a former factory site (Dunlop site); construction of drainage network upgrades along the Dock Road and construction of flood defences (along the southern boundary of Iarnród Éireann rail line) in the townland of Ferrybank. The details of the proposed development, construction, methodology, and likely construction sequence are contained in Section 3 of this Report. 4.9.2 Methodology Research for this report was undertaken in two phases. The first phase comprised a paper survey of all available archaeological, architectural, historical and cartographic sources (Section 4.9.2.1). The second phase involved a field inspection of the site (Section 4.9.2.2). 4.9.2.1 Paper Survey The following sources were consulted during the paper survey: • Record of Monuments and Places for County Waterford; • Sites and Monuments Record for County Waterford; • National Monuments in State Care Database; • Preservation Orders List; • Topographical files of the National Museum of Ireland; • Cartographic and written sources relating to the study area; • Waterford City Development Plan (2013–2019); • North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme (2018); • North Quays Planning Scheme SEA (2018); • Aerial photographs; • National Inventory of Architectural Heritage; and • Excavations Bulletin (1970−2018).
Part VIII Report Page 195 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) is a list of archaeological sites known to the National Monuments Service, which are afforded legal protection under Section 12 of the 1994 National Monuments Act and are published as a record.
Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) holds documentary evidence and field inspections of all known archaeological sites and monuments. Some information is also held about archaeological sites and monuments whose precise location is not known e.g. only a site type and townland are recorded. These are known to the National Monuments Section as ‘un-located sites’ and cannot be afforded legal protection due to lack of locational information. As a result, these are omitted from the Record of Monuments and Places. SMR sites are also listed on a website maintained by the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DoCHG) – www.archaeology.ie.
National Monuments in State Care Database is a list of all the National Monuments in State guardianship or ownership. Each is assigned a National Monument number whether in guardianship or ownership and has a brief description of the remains of each Monument. The Minister for the DoCHG may acquire national monuments by agreement or by compulsory order. The state or local authority may assume guardianship of any national monument (other than dwellings). The owners of national monuments (other than dwellings) may also appoint the Minister or the local authority as guardian of that monument if the state or local authority agrees. Once the site is in ownership or guardianship of the state, it may not be interfered with without the written consent of the Minister.
Preservation Orders List contains information on Preservation Orders and/or Temporary Preservation Orders, which have been assigned to a site or sites. Sites deemed to be in danger of injury or destruction can be allocated Preservation Orders under the 1930 National Monuments Act. Preservation Orders make any interference with the site illegal. Temporary Preservation Orders can be attached under the 1954 National Monuments Act. These perform the same function as a Preservation Order but have a time limit of six months, after which the situation must be reviewed. Work may only be undertaken on or in the vicinity of sites under Preservation Orders with the written consent, and at the discretion, of the Minister.
The topographical files of the National Museum of Ireland are the national archive of all known finds recorded by the National Museum. This archive relates primarily to artefacts but also includes references to monuments and unique records of previous excavations. The find spots of artefacts are important sources of information on the discovery of sites of archaeological significance.
Cartographic sources are important in tracing land use development within the development area as well as providing important topographical information on areas of archaeological potential. Cartographic analysis of all relevant maps has been made to identify any topographical anomalies or structures that no longer remain within the landscape. The following cartographic sources were consulted: • William Petty, Down Survey, Map of the Barony of Ida Igrin Ibercon, c. 1655; • William Richards and Bernard Scale, A Plan of the City and Suburbs of Waterford, 1764; • Nicholas Sinnott, Map of Waterford, 1830; • Patrick Leahy, Map of the city of Waterford and its environs..., 1834; and • Ordnance Survey Mapping of County Waterford 1839-1923.
Part VIII Report Page 196 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Documentary sources were consulted to gain background information on the archaeological, architectural, and cultural heritage landscape of the proposed development area.
Development Plans contain a catalogue of all the archaeological sites within the county. The Waterford City and County Development Plan (2013–2019) and the North Quays Planning Scheme (2018) and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Planning Scheme were consulted to obtain information on cultural heritage sites in and within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development area.
Aerial photographic coverage is an important source of information regarding the precise location of sites and their extent. It also provides initial information on the terrain and its likely potential for archaeology. A number of sources were consulted including aerial photographs held by the Ordnance Survey (OS), Bing Maps, and Google Earth.
The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) is a state initiative established under the provisions of the Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1999 tasked with making a nationwide record of significant local, regional, national and international structures, which in turn provides county councils with a guide as to what structures to list within the Record of Protected Structures. The NIAH have also undertaken a desktop survey of designed landscapes and gardens within County Waterford.
Excavations Bulletin is a summary publication that has been produced every year since 1970. This summarises every archaeological excavation that has taken place in Ireland during that year up until 2010 and since 1987 has been edited by Isabel Bennett. This information is vital when examining the archaeological content of any area, which may not have been recorded under the SMR and RMP files. This information is also available online (www.excavations.ie) from 1970−2018. 4.9.2.2 Field Inspection Field inspection is necessary to determine the extent and nature of archaeological, and architectural heritage remains and can also lead to the identification of previously unrecorded or suspected sites and portable finds through topographical observation and local information.
The field inspection entailed - • Walking the proposed development area and its immediate environs (within 50m); • Noting and recording the terrain type and land usage; • Noting and recording the presence of features of archaeological, architectural, and cultural heritage significance; • Verifying the extent and condition of any recorded sites; and • Visually investigating any suspect landscape anomalies to determine the possibility of them being anthropogenic in origin. 4.9.3 Findings 4.9.3.1 Archaeological, Architectural, and Cultural Heritage Background The proposed development area is located to the north of the centre of Waterford City and the River Suir, within an area known as Ferrybank. Dock Road (R711), Fountain Street, and Abbey Road run parallel to the development area within a landscape
Part VIII Report Page 197 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
generally characterised by the presence of railway infrastructure and more recent industrial development as well as residential development.
The overall site is located within the townlands of Abbeylands, Mountmisery, Rockshire and Mountsion, in the parish and barony of Kilculliheen. The closest group of recorded monuments to the proposed development consist of a possible medieval Augustinian Nunnery and a graveyard (RMP WA009-008 and WA009-008001). The zone of notification for this site is partially located within the southeast limit of the area of proposed car parking (Figure 4.9.1). There are a further four recorded monuments or groups of recorded monuments within the study area of the proposed development.
There are eight protected structures and 13 NIAH structures (two of which have recently been demolished), within a 250m radius of the proposed development (Figure 4.9.2). The nearest protected structures consist of a gate lodge (RPS 105) and a doorway of a No.14 house that fronts onto Dock Road (RPS 507). Both of these structures are also listed on the NIAH survey.
Prehistoric Period Mesolithic Period (6000–4000 BC) Although very recent discoveries may push back the date of human activity by a number of millennia (Dowd and Carden, 2016), the Mesolithic period is the earliest time for which there is clear evidence of prehistoric activity in Ireland. During this period people hunted, foraged and gathered food and appear to have had a mobile lifestyle. Evidence of permanent settlement during this period is rare, although Mesolithic deposits are typically found within riverine and coastal areas. The first evidence of human occupation in the Waterford area dates to the Mesolithic Period, as seen by the large quantities of Late Mesolithic implements, around 5000 BC, found during the Bally Lough project (Zvelebil et al., 1996). The River Suir would have been an excellent resource for people to utilise in terms of food, water and transport during the prehistoric period.
Neolithic Period (4000–2500 BC) During the Neolithic period communities became less mobile and their economy became based on the rearing of stock and cereal cultivation. This transition was accompanied by major social change. Agriculture demanded an altering of the physical landscape. Forests were cleared and field boundaries constructed. An excavation c. 900m to the west of the proposed development area resulted in the discovery of a pit containing a polished stone axehead of Neolithic date (Bennett 2003:1039).
There was a greater concern for territory during this period that saw the construction of large communal ritual monuments called megalithic tombs, which are a characteristic feature of the archaeological record for this period. A number of Neolithic tombs are located in the vicinity of Waterford City, such as the portal tomb (RMP WA017-016) located at Ballindud, c. 4.1km to the south and a megalithic structure (RMP WA018-004), located at Ballygunnertemple, c. 5.1km to the southeast.
Bronze Age (2500–800 BC) The Bronze Age in Ireland was marked by the use of metal for the first time. As with the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic, the transition into the early Bronze Age was accompanied by changes in society. Megaliths were replaced in favour of individual, subterranean cist or pit burials that were either in isolation or in small cemeteries. These burials contained inhumed or cremated remains and were often, but not always, accompanied by a pottery vessel. Settlement traces from the Bronze Age are plentiful
Part VIII Report Page 198 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
in the area surrounding Waterford City, ranging from wedge tombs and cist burials, containing burials accompanied by ‘Food Vessel’ pottery, to standing stones, two of which are located c. 240m to the northwest of the proposed development. There is a standing stone close to the city at Gibbet Hill, c. 1.1km to the west (RMP WA009-018; Moore 1999). A bronze axehead in the National Museum, Dublin, was found in 1836 in ‘the suburbs of Waterford’.
The most common Bronze Age site within the archaeological record is the burnt mound or fulacht fiadh. The term fulacht or fulacht fiadh is found in early Irish literature from at least the 9th century AD and refers to open air cooking places. Over 7000 fulachta fiadh have been recorded in the country making them the most common prehistoric monument in Ireland (Waddell, 2010). Even though they may have functioned as cooking sites, dates in the mid-late Bronze Age (1500–500BC) show that they significantly predate the cooking sites referred to in early Irish literature (Brindley & Lanting, 1990). There are a large number of recorded burnt mounds and fulachta fiadh located within the area surrounding Waterford City, the closest of which is RMP KK046- 006005, located c. 660m to the northwest of the proposed development area, with a further four examples c. 100m to the west of this (RMP KK046-006001-4). Seven examples of fulachta fiadh are recorded c. 665m to 1.3km to the northeast of the proposed development area, within the townland of Abbeylands (RMP KK046-030, RMP KK046-011, RMP KK046-010, RMP KK046-009001, RMP KK046-009002, RMP KK046-008, and RMP KK046-012).
Iron Age (800 BC–AD 400) There is increasing evidence for Iron Age settlement and activity in recent years as a result of development-led excavations as well as projects such as LIARI (Late Iron Age and Roman Ireland). Yet, this period is distinguished from the rather rich remains of preceding Bronze Age and subsequent early medieval period by a relative paucity of evidence for material culture in Ireland. The Iron Age had traditionally been associated with the arrival of the Celts and the Celtic language in Ireland. The Celts were an Indo- European group who are thought to have originated probably in east-central Europe in the 2nd millennium BC. They were among the earliest to develop an Iron Age culture, as has been found at Hallstatt, Austria (c. 700 BC). There are no Iron Age sites recorded within the vicinity of the proposed development area.
Early Medieval Period (AD 400–1169) The foundation of Waterford as a city dates to the Viking period when the city stretched along the waterfront between Barronstrand Street and The Mall. The earliest date for the city itself is generally accepted around AD 912-33. Waterford began as a defended Viking longphort or ship-fortress and became Ireland's second city after Dublin. The original name, Vedrarfjordr is an Old Norse name likely meaning ‘windy fiord’.
The town developed from an early fort at Reginald’s Tower, along the ridge of high ground which eventually became High Street and Peter Street. It was laid out in a regular, chequered street pattern. Excavations at the western limit of the early town at Bakehouse Lane indicate the earliest fortifications comprised an earthen bank, constructed from the spoil of a deep moat-like ditch topped by a wooden palisade. Later during the 12th century, just before the Anglo-Norman invasion, the bank was fortified further by a stone wall. Material dated from underneath this bank gave an approximate date of between 898 and 920 AD (Scully, unpublished).
The proposed development area is located on the north bank of the river to the north of the ‘Viking Triangle’ (as now defined by the Waterford City Development Plan 2013– 2019). Originally the triangle extended between Reginald’s Tower and Martin’s Gate
Part VIII Report Page 199 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
to the site of Turgesius’ Tower, at the river end of Barronstrand Street (ibid.). Recently the ‘Viking Triangle’ has been reduced to indicate a smaller area with Colbeck Street and Bishop’s Palace at the base (ibid.).
Medieval Period (AD 1169–1600) In 1170, the city was captured by Anglo-Norman forces led by Richard de Clare, known as ‘Strongbow’, and Dermot McMurrough, King of Leinster. King Henry II landed there the following year and received the submissions of the kings of Desmond and Thomond (Bradley & Halpin, 1992). Waterford was retained by the Crown as a royal city and under this royal patronage it developed into one of the most important and prosperous cities in medieval Ireland. Waterford continued to thrive and prosper and between 1224 and 1246 three murage grants were given to Waterford to increase the walled area of the city and to accommodate the growing population which had reached the height of its power by the early 14th century under the reign of King Edward I (McEneaney 2001, 23). Following the arrival of the Normans the city expanded westwards, presenting a longer frontage to the river.
The Great Parchment Book of Waterford (1361–1649) represents the earliest use of the English language in Ireland for official purposes and demonstrates the importance of the city as the regionally pre-eminent port in the medieval period.
During the 13th and 14th centuries, Waterford and New Ross accounted for more than half of all Irish trade (ibid.). Trade rivalry between this city and town continued from the 13th to the 16th century. Waterford was involved in the trading of wine with Bordeaux, including acting as an entrepot, such as in 1300 when 3000 hogsheads of wine were re-exported to supply King Edward l’s army in Scotland (Barry, 1995) as well as with towns such as Southampton, Chester and Bristol. A number of medieval houses are listed within the RMP records of Waterford City to the south of the proposed development area. By the end of the medieval period, the walled area of the city had nearly doubled in size (ibid.).
In addition to the cathedral, there were seven parish churches in Waterford City. On the north bank of the River Suir is the parish church of Kilculliheen, which is a 19th century church located within a large graveyard (RMP WA009-008001). Whilst the church is relatively modern in date, the graveyard is thought to represent the approximate site of an Arrosian Convent, which was founded as a priory of St Mary de Hogges by Dermot MacMurrough in 1151. The priory became an abbey in 1257 and was supressed in 1540. Buildings noted at the time of the suppression included a belfry, hall, dormitory, four chambers, kitchens and a granary (Gwynn and Hadcock 1970, 319). No trace of these buildings or a medieval church survive, and there is no indication of any antiquities within the site, with head stones in the graveyard mostly dating to the 19th century.
Various other orders such as the Augustinians, Franciscans, Benedictines, Dominicans, and Knights Hospitallers set up monasteries and hospitals in Waterford City and its surrounds. The Dominican priory of St Saviour (RMP WA009-005031) located c. 400m to the south of the proposed development area, was established by 1230 within the Anglo-Norman defences of the Viking city. Other such religious houses include the Franciscan friary (RMP WA009-005032), located c. 300m to the south and the Benedictine Priory (RMP WA009-005030) located c. 800m to the south. The Augustinian priory of St Catherine (RMP WA009-005029), located c. 600m to the southeast was founded before 1200 and was later claimed by King John as one of his foundations. St Bridget’s church (RMP WA009-005027), located c. 445m to the south,
Part VIII Report Page 200 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
was granted to the Knights Templar in 1224 and later to the Knights Hospitallers in 1313.
Post Medieval Period (AD 1600–1900) Waterford remained the second city in Ireland throughout the 16th century, through a flourishing trade industry. This declined by the end of the century due to the curtailment of trade with Spain and the situation worsened during the religious and social upheavals of the 17th century. The city was later revived by a new quay construction in the early 18th century, which involved the demolition of waterfront fortifications and half-timbered houses in the area. This was undertaken during the mayoralty of David Lewis Esq.; Ryland states that ‘the quay was greatly enlarged, by throwing down the town walls. He also threw down Baron-strand gate; filled the great ditch, which then joined that gate and the town wall; and made a communication between the old quay and the new. The present quay and several of the fine buildings on it, including the exchange, were commenced in his time’ (Ryland 1824, 178-9). By the mid-18th century the quays stretched along the full length of the city’s river frontage, from Reginald’s Tower and The Mall in the east, to the Graving Bank in the west, around the site of the present Grattan Quay.
The city began to spread onto reclaimed ground beyond the medieval walls during the post-medieval period. Smith noted that in 1746 Waterford’s quays were over half a mile long and paved and faced with cut stone; it was over 40 feet wide in parts and was fully equipped with the infrastructure expected of a major European port (Smith 1746). The quay allowed for trade with North America as well as with England and the Continent. Up to the end of the 18th century the ferry was extremely important to Waterford, as there was no bridge over the River Suir, the lowest bridging point on the river being Carrick-on-Suir, some 30km upstream. The width of the river was a major problem if a bridge were to be built – some 300m at the ferry. Furthermore, the river was up to 18m deep. Various proposals for bridging the River Suir at Waterford came to nothing.
In 1789 the Corporation of Londonderry engaged an American, Lemuel Cox, to bridge the Foyle, which was also c. 300m wide. Cox specialised in the construction of timber bridges of significant length and while he was in Ireland, he built long bridges at Wexford, Ferrycarrig, New Ross, and Mountgarret (near New Ross). In 1793 he was engaged to bridge the River Suir at Waterford and he selected a site at the western end of the town, where the river was only about 250m wide. His timber trestle bridge was completed in January 1794 and survived more than a century until it was replaced by a ferro-concrete bridge in 1910. This, in turn, was replaced by the present bridge (RPS 713). The bridge greatly improved communications with the northern hinterland in which the proposed public infrastructure project is located, which had been hitherto cut off from the bustling city to the south.
In 1784 an act of parliament gave the Corporation of Waterford the power to bring into being commissioners with responsibility for making wide and convenient streets in the city. Over the ensuing decades the commissioners brought about many changes to the city, including the widening of the quays.
In the early 19th century the north quay was largely occupied by the ship building industry and associated infrastructure. The most famous was White’s shipyard at Ferrybank, located within the proposed development area and marked on the first edition OS map. It was reported that up to four ships could be constructed at any one time at the shipyard (Irish 2005, 70).
Part VIII Report Page 201 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The period of economic depression, which followed the Napoleonic wars led to a collapse of trade in some sectors. The city became industrialised with the development of steam power and the advent of railway, with as many as six lines into and out of the city. By the opening years of the 20th century the most significant change along the northern bank of the River Suir was the arrival of the railway, situated within the proposed development. Waterford had received its first railway connection in 1854 with the opening of a line to Kilkenny by the Waterford and Kilkenny Railway Company and another to Limerick by the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company. These lines terminated to the west of Waterford Bridge and the station on the present site opened in 1864. A siding was constructed to Ferrybank in 1883 to serve Hall’s Flour Mills and in 1904 the main line was continued through Ferrybank and onward to New Ross, while a second line opened to Rosslare in 1906. The bridge over the railway at Ferrybank would have been built in c. 1903 as part of these railway works. 4.9.3.2 Summary of Previous Archaeological Fieldwork A review of the Excavations Bulletin (1970–2018) has revealed seven previous archaeological investigations have been carried out within the study area of the proposed Transport Hub, which are summarised below: 1. Test-pits were dug in 2001 as part of site investigations for Phase 2 of the Waterford Main Drainage Scheme on Abbey Road to the immediate east- southeast of the proposed development area (Licence 01E0959; Bennett 2001:677) and north of Abbey Church. Two areas of archaeological potential were highlighted including an anomalous fill of stones recorded as a possible backfill of an enclosure associated with the site of the abbey and church (RMP WA009-008, RPS 103). The second feature was a large boulder with non- geological linear markings. It is not clear where the large boulder was identified. 2. The construction of a new Waterford Main Drain was monitored in 2006 to the north of the River Suir. On Abbey Road groundworks disturbed an earlier road surface and a roadside ditch, interpreted as being post medieval (Licence 95E0517, Bennett 2006:2000). 3. Subsequent monitoring of groundworks along the wayleave of the main drain for this scheme did not identify anything of archaeological significance within the townland of Christendom (Licence 05E0517, Bennett 2005:796). 4. Monitoring in the townland of Abbeylands for the main drainage scheme in 2007 revealed a stone wall shown on the 1839 OS map and deposits of infill used to build up the land for the construction of the quays and railway. During monitoring close to Ferrybank pump station, large butchered animal bone and post medieval pottery were recovered (Phelan 2007). 5. In 2017, an underwater archaeological impact assessment was undertaken in six locations by ADCO Contracting and Civil Engineering to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed River Suir Sustainable Transport Bridge, c. 75-285m south of the proposed development area (Licence 17D0025, 17R0044, Bennett 2017:542, Bangerter 2018). This confirmed that sections of historic quay and associated timber wharfing depicted on the 25-inch OS map remained in-situ beneath the concrete quay that currently delineates the north side of the river channel. In addition, the potential for riverbed deposits to retain material of archaeological significance was highlighted by the presence of wreck-related material, comprising two planking timbers and part of a rigging- block from a sailing vessel. 6. Further underwater surveys to inform the same project were carried out by Mizen Archaeology in 2018 (Licence Nos 18R0180 and 18D0108), which included geophysical and dive surveys of the River Suir along the northern quays. The geophysical survey revealed a number of acoustic and magnetic targets,
Part VIII Report Page 202 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
including 11 targets identified within 20m of the bridge piers proposed as part of the River Suir Sustainable Transport Bridge project. A dive survey was undertaken to investigate a sample of these targets. None of the surveyed features were of archaeological significance. The dive survey identified a 540m section of concrete quay in a state of disrepair. Behind this are the remains of an older stone-built quay wall extending for c. 480m from the Rice Bridge. The stone quay measures between 2.1m and 2.8m in height above the adjacent riverbed. It is constructed of coursed squared limestone blocks. It contains multiple culverts and iron mooring rings. Some of the original timber fenders survive albeit in a very poor state of preservation. Multiple repairs and rebuilding phases are visible on the quay wall (O’ Donoghue and McCarthy 2018). Immediately east of the former H & R Hall buildings, a very silted up area of the riverbank was noted during the survey. This mudflat is exposed at low water and the fragmented remains of a timber landing stage survive here. The structure is not shown on the 1871 OS map but is illustrated by the time of the 1908 map. In addition to the erect wooden piles, several loose timbers, which may have formed part of the landing stage or may have floated downstream from another structure, were noted beside the structure as well as branches of trees and other debris (ibid.). 7. A programme of testing was carried out c. 235m to the north of the western end of the proposed development for a large mixed-use development in 2009 (Licence 09E0030, Bennett 2009:504). A total of 19 trenches were excavated however no archaeology was found. 4.9.3.3 Cartographic Analysis William Petty’s Down Survey, Map of the Barony of Ida Igrin Ibercon, c. 1655 The area containing the proposed development is shown on the bank of the River Suir, to the north of the City and Liberties of Waterford. The study area is shown in the parish of Kilculliheen as an open space with no structures or features of archaeological potential (Figure 4.9.3). The gibbet (RMP KK046-007) recorded in the RMP to the north is marked on the townland boundary with Rathnew and Kilculliheen. Five houses and remains of the abbey site (RMP WA009-008, RPS 103) are depicted to the north of the River Suir within the eastern limit of the study area.
William Richards and Bernard Scale’s Plan of the City and Suburbs of Waterford, 1764 This edition of the historic mapping depicts the city and suburbs of Waterford, including a narrow section of the northern bank within the margin (Figure 4.9.3). No bridge is shown crossing the River Suir although a ferry boat slip is marked on the south bank directly opposite Ferrybank. Very little of the northern bank is depicted although a small settlement is shown at Mount Sion and Ferrybank. The ruins of Abbey Church (RMP WA009-008) are illustrated east of a small lane and south of what is now Abbey Road.
Nicholas Sinnott’s Map of Waterford, 1830 By this time a wooden bridge has been constructed across the River Suir in the approximate location of the current bridge (Figure 4.9.3). A road is now shown running west–east parallel with the river, along the route of the modern R711 and R448. To the north of the bridge a semi-circular scarped area appears to indicate a former quarry. The quayside has been developed with numerous warehouses and storehouses indicated on the approach to Ferrybank. The parish church (constructed in 1820) is illustrated further to the east surrounded by open space (RPS 103).
Part VIII Report Page 203 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Patrick Leahy’s Map of the city of Waterford and its environs..., 1834 There are no major changes to the layout of the land by this mapping, which was published only four years later (Figure 4.9.3). A graveyard (RMP WA009-008001) is depicted around Abbey Church (RPS 103) and the roads are labelled for the first time. The semi-circular area is now labelled as a coal yard.
First Edition Ordnance Survey Map, 1839, scale 1:10,560 Tidal silt build-ups are shown on both the north and south bank of the River Suir, while the northern bank has a narrow belt of dockland and industry separating the river from the extensive demesne estates to the north. The study area extends through the townlands of Mountmisery, Mountsion, Rockshire, and Abbeylands. The road network largely reflects the current layout with much of the land to the north remaining undeveloped. Sion Hill House (RPS 107, NIAH 22500072) is depicted to the north with Sion Lodge to the east. Terraced houses line the road to the south, such as Sion Row, and those further east on the Dock Road; including No. 14 Dock Road (RPS 507, NIAH 22500061). Along the north quays a slip, dock yard, flour mill and two stores are annotated at Ferrybank. The land in the eastern limit of the study area is largely undeveloped with the church and abbey remains (RMP WA009-008/001, RPS 103) shown to the immediate southeast.
Ordnance Survey Map, 1871, scale 1:1,560 The larger scale of this map shows more details within the study area (Figure 4.9.4). To the west the Waterford and Limerick Railway extends along the quays with a terminus building situated to the northwest of the bridge. The Dock Road is largely bordered by undeveloped parkland and gate lodges associated with Knockane House, Sion House (RPS 207, NIAH 22500074), and Sion Lodge to the north. Terraced houses line the southern perimeter of the Dock Road, including Sion Row, to the immediate north of the proposed development; one of which is a dispensary.
A crane (NIAH 22500042), a patent slip, and two other cranes are marked in the dock yard that the west end of the proposed development travels through. To the east, Ferrybank settlement extends along Fountain Street with terraced houses annotated as Mulgrave Row and Wellington Row bordering the road. The rear yards of Mulgrave Row lie within the proposed development. A slip is marked partially within the proposed development on the banks of the River Suir and a saw pit has replaced the flour mill. The two stores from the first edition OS map bordering the proposed development to the immediate south are still depicted and a third store is annotated within the proposed development bordering Dock Road. Abbey Road leads south towards the ruins of the church and abbey site (RMP WA009-008/001, RPS 103), bordered by open space. A ferry slip is marked to the immediate south of the proposed development at the graveyard.
Ordnance Survey Map, 1908, scale 1:1,560 By the time of this map, the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway has been constructed along the length of the proposed development (Figure 4.9.4). New trackway and platforms (NIAH 22500033) run the length of the proposed development. The Waterford North Station and adjoining offices (RPS 709, NIAH 22500032) have replaced the original terminus building, c. 120m to the west-northwest. A signal box (RPS 571, NIAH 22500027) is indicated on the new stretch of track to the west of the platform. The Dock Road has been slightly realigned to facilitate these works. The buildings along Dock Road and Fountain Street largely remain unchanged however a new road, Pierhead Road, has been laid within the proposed development to access the new pier at Ferrybank. The pier has replaced the slip from the previous mapping
Part VIII Report Page 204 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
and there is a level crossing (Abbey Junction) of the new Pierhead Road. The north docks have been walled in and are annotated as the North Wharf. A corn store, grain elevator, saw mill, landing stage and coal depot are depicted to the south of the proposed development within the North Wharf.
A branch of the railway heads east to underpass Abbey Road leading to New Ross. To the north of this railway junction, a ‘Gasometer’ is marked. Additional railway buildings have been built to the west of Abbey Road, including a platform, engine house, turn table, and carriage shed. A foot bridge crosses the railway at the end of Ferry Road to access the slip from the 1871 map. To the east of Abbey Road; St. Bridget’s School, a lodge, and five buildings have been built.
Third Edition Ordnance Survey Map, 1922-3, scale 1:10,560 By this time Sion Lodge has been renamed to Bishopsgrove. The R. and H. Hall flour mills, the Hennebique Building, is depicted for the first time to the immediate south of the proposed development on the bank of the River Suir (NIAH 22900908). A cabin box is depicted within the proposed development at Abbey Junction. The area to the north of Mulgrave Hill (Fountain Street) has been significantly built up with residential estates. A building connected to the railway line has been constructed within the previously open space to the south of Mulgrave Hill. The railway buildings at Abbey Road and Ferry Road, that lie partially within the proposed development, have been converted into a factory. The station buildings of Plunkett Station, to the west- northwest, are now shown as one large entity (RPS 709). 4.9.3.4 Waterford City Development Plan (2013-2019) Archaeology The Waterford City Development Plan (2013–2019) recognises the statutory protection afforded to all recorded monuments under the National Monuments Legislation (1930– 2014). The policies and objectives relating to archaeology are included in Appendix 4.9.3b.
The zones of notification for two recorded monuments (RMP WA009-008 and WA009- 008001) are partially located within the southeast limit of the proposed development area. These comprise the site of an Augustinian Abbey and graveyard, which lie to the south of a laneway (formerly Ferry Road). There are a further four recorded monuments or groups of recorded monuments within the study area of the proposed development (Table 4.9.1, Figure 4.9.1, Appendix 4.9.1).
Table 4.9.1 Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development
Distance from RMP No. Location Classification Development WA009- Immediate southeast, zone Religious house - Augustinian, 008/ Abbeylands of notification lies partially of Arrouaise nuns; Graveyard 008001 within study area. WA009- Mountmisery Standing stones c. 240m northwest 017001/2 WA009- Mountmisery Mound c. 290m northwest 017003 KK046-007 Newrath Gibbet c. 335m north
Part VIII Report Page 205 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Distance from RMP No. Location Classification Development Zone of Archaeological WA009- Various Potential associated with c. 350m south 005 historic settlement of Waterford
Architectural Heritage The Record of Protected Structures (RPS) for Waterford City is set down in the Waterford City Development Plan 2013-2019. This includes a number of buildings in the vicinity of the study area. The City Development Plan recognises the statutory protection afforded to all Protected Structures under the Planning and Development Act (2000). The policies and objectives relating to built heritage are included in Appendix 4.9.5. The Waterford North Quays SDZ Strategic Environmental Assessment Report (2018) highlights that the quays represent existing physical evidence of the industrial heritage of Waterford and that their continued use support their cultural significance. As such the report believes a key challenge will be the regeneration and development of the built environment whilst promoting the cultural heritage of the area such that they become ‘place-making’ elements of the future and existing communities.
The proposed development area contains a delisted protected structure, this consists of an access ramp onto the quays, which forms part of a railway bridge over the existing railway line. This structure was de-listed from the development plan in February 2018.
A further eight structures are located within a 250m radius of the proposed development area (Table 4.9.2 and Figure 4.9.2). Full details of the built heritage assets located within the study area are given in Appendix 4.9.2.
Table 4.9.2: Protected Structures in the vicinity of the proposed development
Distance from RPS No. NIAH No. Classification Location Development Gate lodge of Abbey 105 22900906 Abbeylands Immediate east House Doorway of No. 14 507 22500061 Mountsion Immediate south House Abbey Church of 103 22900905 Abbeylands c. 15m southeast Ireland 104 22900907 Abbey House Abbeylands c. 30m east Sion Hill House; 107 22500072-4 Gate Lodge; and Mountsion c. 115m north Outbuilding Canopy and signal c. 120m west- 709 22500032/3 box of Plunkett Mountmisery northwest Railway Station c. 280m west- 571 22500027 Signal Box Mountmisery northwest c. 120m west- WA731036 - Post Box Mountmisery northwest
Part VIII Report Page 206 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Architectural Conservation Areas An Architectural Conservation Area (ACA), as defined in Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act, as amended, is a place, area, group of structures or townscape, taking account of building lines and heights that is of special architectural, historic, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest or value or contributes to the appreciation of protected structures and whose character it is an objective of the Development Plan to preserve.
There are no ACAs within the proposed development area; however, two are located on the south side of the River Suir: South Quays ACA and Trinity Within ACA. Waterford City Council has also designed General Conservations Areas (GCAs), one of which is located south of the river and comprises the Viking and Norman City and the 18th century additions, i.e. The Mall, Parnell Street and O’Connell Street. 4.9.3.5 National Inventory of Architectural Heritage Building Survey A review of the architectural survey was undertaken as part of this assessment which included buildings within 250m of the study area. There are 13 structures listed on the NIAH building survey (Figure 4.9.2, Table 4.9.3). The nearest consist of the gate lodge of Abbey House to the immediate east (NIAH 22900906), No. 14 Dock Road (NIAH 22500061) to the immediate south and the R. and H. Hall Building to the immediate south (NIAH 22900908). The R. and H. Hall Building has been recently demolished along with a crane (NIAH 22500042).
Table 4.9.3: NIAH Structures in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development
Distance from NIAH No. RPS No. Classification Location Development Gate lodge of Abbey 22900906 105 Abbeylands Immediate east House 22500061 507 Door of No. 14 House Mountsion Immediate south Immediate south 22900908 - R. and H. Hall Mountsion (demolished) Abbey Church of 22900905 103 Abbeylands c. 15m southeast Ireland 22900907 104 Abbey House Abbeylands c. 30m east c. 30m south 22500042 - Crane Mountmisery (demolished) 22500072 107 Sion Hill House Mountsion c. 115m north Plunkett Railway c. 120m west- 22500032 709 Mountmisery Station northwest c. 120m west- 22500075 Edmund Rice Bridge Waterford City southwest Sion Hill House, gate 22500074 107 Mountmisery c. 135m north lodge Sion Hill House, 22500073 107 Mountsion c. 140m north outbuilding Plunkett Railway c. 180m west- 22500033 709 Mountmisery Station Platform northwest
Part VIII Report Page 207 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Distance from NIAH No. RPS No. Classification Location Development c. 280m west- 22500027 571 Signal Box Mountmisery northwest
Part VIII Report Page 208 Roughan’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.9.1 Zone of Notification
Part VIII Report Page 209 Roughan’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.9.2 NIAH and RPS Sites
Part VIII Report Page 210 Roughan’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Garden Survey There are no demesne landscapes listed within the NIAH Garden Survey that are located within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development area. However, analysis of the historic OS maps shows that there are the remains of three demesne landscapes to the north of the proposed development.
Sion Hill House Demesne The closest landscape is associated with Sion Hill House (RPS 107), the southern edge of which is located to the immediate north of the proposed development area. On the first edition OS map of 1839 the landscape surrounding Sion Hill House was occupied by formal planting and paths. A gate lodge is depicted in the south of the demesne. On the 1871 OS map the gate lodge (NIAH 22500074) is depicted to the west of the house. Three summer houses, a rockery, and sun dial are depicted within the formal gardens on this map. By the publication of the 25-inch map in 1908 the demesne landscape remained substantially wooded although the formal gardens are no longer maintained. In the late 20th century housing was constructed at the eastern side of the demesne, with a small formal garden and woodland still surviving around the main house today. In more recent years Dock Road has been widened, which has removed the original southern boundary of the demesne and led to the relocation of the entrance gate and pillars for Sion Hill House, which are set back from the road.
Sion Lodge Demesne Sion Lodge borders the proposed development to the north on Dock Road and borders Sion Hill House to the east. The first edition OS map depicts a gate lodge at the driveway off Dock Road. The 1871 OS map depicts the demesne as undeveloped parkland with a gate lodge. A side from a summer house marked at the northern limit of Sion Lodge there are no changes to the demesne on the 25-inch OS map. The house was renamed to Bishopsgrove by the third edition OS map of 1922-3. In the late 20th century housing was constructed in the southern half of the demesne and the northern half is in use as a pitch and putt course. Bishopsgrove House is still extant today within the residential development. As with Sion Hill demesne, the widening of Dock Road, resulted in the removal of the original southern boundary of the demesne.
Knockane Villa Demesne The demesne is situated to the immediate north of the Dock Road and borders the demesne of Sion Hill House to the west. On the first edition OS map the house is annotated as Mountmisery Lodge and is accessed by a long winding driveway from Dock Road. The municipal boundary passes through the house in a northeast- southwest direction. The 1871 OS map refers to the house as Knockane, which has had an extension. It depicts a lodge at the entrance to the driveway on Dock Road and a summer house is marked in the formal gardens that border the house to the southwest. The gardens overlook a coal yard. By the time of the 1908 OS map the gardens overlook the Waterford North Station and the house is annotated as Knockane Villa. The formal gardens are no longer depicted to the southwest of the house on the third edition OS map. Knockane Villa has subsequently been removed and a hotel development constructed to the immediate east. The foundations of the original structure can be seen on the aerial photography. The entrance to the former Knockane Villa, latterly a hotel development, is currently blocked off and has been impacted upon by the widening of the Dock Road.
Part VIII Report Page 211 Roughan’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.9.3 Extract from Historic Maps (c.1655-1834) Showing Approximate Scheme Location
Part VIII Report Page 212 Roughan’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Figure 4.9.4 Extract from Historic OS Maps (1871 & 1908) Showing the Scheme Location
Part VIII Report Page 213 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.9.3.6 Place Name Analysis Townland and topographic names are an invaluable source of information on topography, land ownership and land use within the landscape. They also provide information on history, archaeological monuments and folklore of an area. A place name may refer to a long-forgotten site and may indicate the possibility that the remains of certain sites may still survive below the ground surface. The Ordnance Survey surveyors wrote down townland names in the 1830s and 1840s when the entire country was mapped for the first time. Some of the townland names in the study area are of Irish origin and through time have been anglicised. The main reference used for the place name analysis is Irish Local Names Explained by P.W Joyce (1870). A description and possible explanation of each townland, parish, and barony name in the environs of the proposed development are provided in the below table.
Table 4.9.4: List of Townlands, Parishes, and Baronies in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development
Name Derivation Possible Meaning Abbeylands - Named after the land owned by the Abbey Mountmisery Mount Misery - Rockshire Scair na Carraige Bed of rock Mountsion Mount Sion - Kilculliheen Cill Choilchín Church of the little wood
4.9.3.7 Aerial Photographic Analysis Inspection of the aerial photographic coverage of the proposed development area held by the OS (1995-2013), Google Earth (2008-2019), and Bing Maps failed to identify any previously unknown features or areas of archaeological potential due to the urban nature of the landscape. The coverage did reveal the level of demolition that has taken place within the proposed development area during the past 10 years. Coverage dating to 2008 shows a complex of dockland structures to the immediate south of the proposed development area, which have now been demolished. Aerial photographs dating to the 1930s and 40s were also examined (www.britainfromabove.org.uk). These provide an indication of how the landscape appeared during the first half of the 20th century (Plates 4.9.1 and 4.9.2), when the North Quays were dominated by industry and the railway. 4.9.3.8 Field Inspection The field inspection sought to assess the site, its previous and current land use, the topography and any additional information relevant to the assessment. During the course of the field investigation the proposed development area and its immediate surrounding environs were inspected (Figures 4.9.1 and 4.9.2). For the purposes of this report, the development area is described from east to west.
Part VIII Report Page 214 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.9.1 Westerly oblique view of proposed development area (to the right) (1948)
Plate 4.9.2 Easterly view of proposed development area (1933), with Abbey Church and railway visible in background
The eastern most extent of the proposed development is located within an area now occupied by modern factories (Plate 4.9.3) and includes a portion of the former Ferry Road (Plate 4.9.4). There are no remains of the railway buildings marked in this area in the historic OS maps. The proposed development and the road are bordered to the immediate southeast by a graveyard and the possible site of an Abbey (RMP WA009- 008 and WA009-008001). The boundary wall of the graveyard is also a revetting wall, as the level of the graveyard is c. 2m higher than the surface of Ferry Road. This is due to a gentle southwest facing slope, but also indicates longevity of burial within the
Part VIII Report Page 215 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
graveyard, which increases the height of the graveyard over centuries. The wall of the graveyard varies in condition, but the majority of the structure is of random rubble and mortar construction, but vertically placed coping stones are apparent in places (Plate 4.9.5).
Plate 4.9.3 Eastern extent of the proposed development area, facing west- northwest
Plate 4.9.4 Ferry Road, facing northeast
Part VIII Report Page 216 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.9.5 Graveyard boundary wall (WA009-008001), facing east-northeast
Along the western side of the former Ferry Road are two sections of historic walling (shown in green on Figure 4.9.2). Although very overgrown, the wall maintains a reasonable height and is of random rubble construction (Plate 4.9.6). The wall is marked on the first edition map of 1839. Sections have been removed as part of the modern factory development to the immediate west.
Plate 4.9.6 Ferry Road boundary wall, facing west-southwest
Part VIII Report Page 217 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The graveyard itself is very overgrown and in poor condition, with broken head stones and evidence of anti-social behaviour (Plate 4.9.7). The 1820 church (RPS 103) occupies the highest point of the graveyard, with the ground falling away to the west, southwest and south-southeast. As acknowledged within the SMR file for the site, there is no evidence of medieval remains within or adjacent to the site. It is clear, from the cartographic sources, that the medieval abbey was located within this area, although it is unclear as to what the extent of the abbey may have been. It is possible that it extended to the east and northeast into what is now the garden associated with Abbey House (RPS 104).
Plate 4.9.7 Church and graveyard (WA009-008/001), facing east
Adjacent to the northern corner of the graveyard is a gate lodge (RPS 105, NIAH 22900906). The building is a single storey structure with a hipped slate roof, which has been extended to the south with a modern extension (Plate 4.9.8). To the immediate east of the lodge is the northern wall of the graveyard, which extends to the east to include the entrance into Abbey House (RPS 104, NIAH 22900907). The wall adjacent to the graveyard has been covered in cement render (Plate 4.9.9). The entrance into Abbey House is also rendered but two-wheel guard stones are present at either side of the entrance (Plate 4.9.10).
Part VIII Report Page 218 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.9.8 Gate lodge (RPS 105, NIAH 22900906), facing east
Plate 4.9.9 Entrance into graveyard, facing southwest
Part VIII Report Page 219 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.9.10 Entrance into Abbey House, facing south
In recent years the road passing the entrances to Abbey House and the church has been realigned. This has resulted in the former road now being in use as a layby. The original stone boundary wall now runs between the realigned road and its original path (shown in green on Figure 4.9.2). This is a low stone wall of random rubble construction and vertically placed coping stones (Plate 4.9.11).
Plate 4.9.11 Road boundary wall, facing northwest
Part VIII Report Page 220 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Further to the west the proposed development includes a section of the former New Ross Railway (Plate 4.9.12). Whilst the track bed is still present, the rails have been removed. The area surrounding the railway includes banks of demolition material. The proposed development area incorporates the junctions between the Rosslare Railway and New Ross Railway (Plate 4.9.13). The tracks of the Rosslare railway are still present as it has only recently been closed.
Plate 4.9.12 Former railway, facing west-northwest
Plate 4.9.13 Railway junction, facing west-northwest
Part VIII Report Page 221 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The remains of a railway bridge are located to the northeast of the proposed development, along the path of the New Ross Railway (Plate 4.9.14). The deck and parapet of the bridge have been replaced as it still carries traffic. However, the original bridge abutments are present. These are formed by rock-faced masonry, which was a typical component of Victorian railway infrastructure (Plate 4.9.14).
Plate 4.9.14 Former railway bridge, facing east
To the north of the railway the proposed development area includes an existing bus depot, which contains a hard-surfaced yard and modern structures (Plate 4.9.15). Further to the west the proposed development area contains a slip road, the southern portion of Dock Road, a modern unused single storey structure and a modern petrol station (Plate 4.9.16).
Plate 4.9.15 Detail of abutments, facing north
Part VIII Report Page 222 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.9.16 Bus depot, facing east
The proposed development incorporates the railway that runs parallel to Dock Road (Plate 4.9.17) and a railway bridge (formerly a protected structure) that crosses the railway from Dock Road into the North Quays (Plate 4.9.18). The bridge itself is a modern replacement, but the abutments and access ramp (to south of bridge) are early 20th century in date and directly associated with the railway (Plate 4.9.19).
Additional former railway infrastructure in the area includes some sections of stone walling located either side of the existing railway (marked in green on Figure 2.9.2 and shown in Plate 4.9.18). The walls consist of a mixture of coursed and random rubble construction and are all contemporary with the construction of the railway.
Part VIII Report Page 223 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.9.17 Petrol Station on Dock Road, facing west
Plate 4.9.18 Existing railway, facing west
Part VIII Report Page 224 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plate 4.9.19 Railway bridge, facing east-northeast
One further section of railway infrastructure was noted within the southern section of the proposed development area to the south of Dock Road. This consists of a level crossing. Today the adjacent signal box is a modern building and the gates of the crossing are replacements. However, the original posts are original and in good condition (Plate 4.9.20).
Plate 4.9.20 Level crossing, facing west
Further to the west, the proposed development includes an existing access into terraced houses fronting onto Dock Road and a section of the existing railway and Dock Road (where it passes over the railway). The house closest to the proposed development area along the terrace is a protected structure and listed in the NIAH
Part VIII Report Page 225 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
(RPS 507, NIAH 22500061). Where the structure fronts onto Dock Road, it is single storey (Plate 4.9.21), but to the rear possesses two storeys that takes advantage of the south facing slope. The remaining section of Sion Terrace also possesses the same characteristics. The structures further to the west are in ruin.
Plate 4.9.21 No 14 Dock Road (RPS 507), facing southeast
With the exception of the recorded abbey site and graveyard at the eastern end of the proposed development (RMP WA009-008 and WA009-008001, RPS 108), no other sites of archaeological potential were noted during the course of the inspection. However, despite the disturbance within the landscape, from early 20th century railway development and more modern development, the proximity of the proposed development area to the River Suir and the medieval City of Waterford, will increase the general archaeological potential of the landscape.
A number of historic walls were noted during the course of the inspection along with railway infrastructure including two altered bridges and a level crossing. A vernacular terrace of houses survived to the north and west of the proposed development, half of which are in ruinous condition. The large amount of modern development that has taken place within the landscape has resulted in the removal of many features of built heritage merit. 4.9.4 Summary of Findings Analysis of the cartographic sources revealed that much of the proposed development area, on the northern bank of the River Suir, remained largely undeveloped throughout the medieval and post-medieval periods. The exception was the establishment of an Augustinian Priory (RMP WA009-008) during the late 12th century, which then became an abbey until the dissolution in the 16th century. The abbey is shown on the mid-17th century mapping and the abbey church (RPS 103, NIAH 22900905) is indicated within the cartographic resources, before it was replaced in 1820 with the current building.
Part VIII Report Page 226 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The existing graveyard (RMP WA009-008001), which is located to the immediate southeast of the proposed development, may have originally been associated with the abbey church although today it only contains post medieval head stones and is in poor condition.
There are no protected structures or buildings listed in the NIAH contained within the proposed development. The gate lodge for Abbey House (RPS 105, NIAH 22900906) borders the proposed development area to the east. No. 14 Dock Road is located to the immediate south of the western section of the proposed development area (RPS 507, NIAH 22500061).
A review of the Excavations Bulletins (1970-2018) has shown that previous archaeological investigations along Abbey Road revealed evidence of a possible enclosure ditch that was interpreted as being associated with the abbey site. Whilst the abbey church may have been located within the current graveyard, it is not clear where the associated abbey structures were located. It seems likely that associated structures may have been located to the east and northeast of the existing graveyard, within areas later labelled as ‘Abbey House’ and ‘Abbey Farm’ (1908 OS mapping).
A field inspection confirmed the nature of development within the landscape and the fact a large degree of disturbance has been carried out as part of modern developments. Despite this, it is acknowledged that due to the proximity of the proposed development area to the River Suir and the medieval City of Waterford, the general archaeological potential of the landscape will be increased.
Whilst a number of larger and more significant built heritage features survive within the landscape surrounding the proposed development area, modern development has led to the removal of many of the historic structures that the OS maps indicate were once present. Two terraces of houses dating to the 1830s/1840s are present on the southern side of the Dock Road, although half of the terraces are now in a ruinous condition. Subsequent recent development, including the widening of Dock Road, has led to the removal of many historic structures associated with the railway, including multiple buildings once located in the eastern section of the proposed development area, the site of which is now occupied by modern factory buildings.
The former protected structure ‘Access to Ferry Point’, which consists of a bridge over the railway, is located within the proposed development area, along with a level crossing. An altered railway bridge is located to the northeast of the development area and still carries vehicles across Abbey Road.
A number of sections of historic walling were also identified during the field inspection. The bulk of these are early 20th century in date and are contemporary with the construction of the railway. Walling identified in the eastern section of the development area (adjacent to Ferry Road and Abbey Church and House) has the potential to date to the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 4.9.5 Impact Assessment and Mitigation Strategy Impacts can be identified from detailed information about a project, the nature of the area affected and the range of archaeological, architectural, and cultural heritage resources potentially affected. Archaeological, architectural, and cultural heritage sites can be affected adversely in a number of ways: disturbance by excavation, topsoil stripping; disturbance by vehicles working in unsuitable conditions; and burial of sites, limiting access for future investigation. Upstanding heritage sites can be affected adversely by direct damage or destruction arising from development, from inadvertent
Part VIII Report Page 227 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
damage arising from vibration, undermining etc. and also by indirect impacts to a building’s visual setting, view or curtilage. 4.9.5.1 Impact Assessment Archaeology • It is proposed to construct a car park to the immediate northeast of the recorded abbey site and graveyard (RMP WA009-008 and WA009-008001). The zone of notification for the abbey and graveyard extends into the car park (currently occupied by factories). It is possible that previously unrecorded subsurface archaeological features, such as an enclosure, which are associated with the abbey may extend beyond the limits of the current graveyard beneath the current ground level. If present, ground works associated with the proposed development may have a negative impact on any surviving remains. • While the majority of the study area has been subject to a level of development and disturbance, it is possible that previously unrecorded archaeological features may survive beneath the current ground level. Ground disturbances associated with the proposed development may have a negative impact on any such remains.
Architecture • It is proposed to remove a number of modern structures as part of the proposed development. These include modern factory buildings, a bus depot, former commercial unit and petrol station. The removal of these features will not impact on the architectural heritage resource. • Two sections of wall associated with Ferry Road and Abbey Road will be removed as part of the proposed development, along with three sections of stone wall directly associated with the railway. These features are deemed to be of local heritage value only and the removal of same will result in a moderate negative impact on the architectural heritage resource. • A level crossing and the former access bridge onto the quays will be removed as part of the proposed development. These features are deemed to be of local heritage value and the removal of same will result in a moderate negative impact on the architectural heritage resource. • The construction of a car park will take place to the immediate northwest of Abbey Church (RPS 103) and gate lodge (RPS 105). These structures are currently screened by the existing road alignment and modern factories. The removal of the factories will open the landscape resulting in a slight improvement to the setting of the buildings. • No other impacts are predicted upon protected structures or buildings included within the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. 4.9.6 Mitigation The following actions in mitigation of the impacts above are recommended.
Archaeology • It is recommended that a programme of archaeological test trenching be carried out in advance of construction within Ferry Lane and in the adjacent former factory complex. The work will aim to investigate whether any archaeological features associated with abbey site and graveyard (RMP WA009-008 and WA009-008001) extend into the proposed development area. Testing should be carried out under licence and in consultation with the National Monument Service (NMS). If any features of archaeological potential are discovered during the
Part VIII Report Page 228 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
course of the works, further archaeological mitigation may be required, such as preservation in-situ or by record. Any further mitigation will require approval from the NMS of the Department of Culture Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DoCHG). • It is recommended that ground disturbances associated with the proposed development be monitored by a suitably qualified Archaeologist. If any features of archaeological potential are discovered during the course of the works, further archaeological mitigation may be required, such as preservation in-situ or by record. Any further mitigation will require approval from the NMS of the DoCHG.
Architecture • It is recommended that a written and photographic record be made of the sections of walling to be impacted upon by the proposed development, along with the level crossing. This should be carried out by a suitably qualified individual and include basic dimensions. • It is recommended that the railway bridge access onto the quays is subject to a measured and photographic survey. This should be carried out by a suitably qualified individual and include rectified photography. • It is recommended that the boundary treatments of the car park in the eastern section of the proposed development area be sympathetically designed to avoid detracting from the setting of Abbey Church and gate lodge.
It is a requirement of an excavation licence that the developer accepts responsibility to ensure full provision is made available for the resolution of any archaeological remains, both on site and during the post excavation process, should that be deemed the appropriate manner in which to proceed.
Please note that all recommendations are subject to approval by the National Monuments Service of the Heritage and Planning Division, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. 4.9.7 References Bangerter, R. 2018 Underwater Archaeological Impact Assessment (UAIA) Waterford City North Quay Footbridge, River Suir, Waterford City. 17D0025, 17R0044
Barry, T. 1995 in Howard B Clarke (ed.), Irish Cities, 204-217.
Bennett, I. (ed.) 1987−2010 Excavations: Summary Accounts of Archaeological Excavations in Ireland. Bray. Wordwell.
Bradley, J. & Halpin, A. 1992 The topographical development of Scandinavian and Anglo-Norman Waterford. In W. Nolan and T. P. Power (eds), Waterford: History and Society, 105-129.
Brindley, A.L. & Lanting, J.N. 1990 ‘The dating of Fulachta Fiadh’, in V. Buckley (ed.) Burnt Offerings: International conference to burnt mound archaeology, 55-56. Dublin: Wordwell.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014a Standards & Guidance for Field Evaluation.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014b Standards & Guidance for Archaeological Excavation.
Part VIII Report Page 229 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014c Standards & Guidance for an Archaeological Watching Brief (Monitoring).
Culleton, E. 1999 Celtic and Early Wexford AD 400-1166. Dublin. Four Courts.
Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. 1999a Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. Dublin. Government Publications Office.
Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. 1999b Policy and Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation. Dublin. Government Publications Office.
Dowd, M. and Carden, R. 2016 First evidence of a Late Upper Palaeolithic human presence in Ireland. Quaternary Science Reviews: 158-163.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2015 Draft Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements). Dublin. Government Publications Office.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2017 Draft Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements. Dublin. Government Publications Office.
Gwynn, A. and Hadcock, R. N. (1970) (reprint 1988) Medieval religious houses in Ireland. Irish Academic Press, Dublin.
Irish, B. 2005 Shipbuilding in Waterford 1820–1882: a historical, technical and pictorial study (3rd edition), Wordwell, Bray
Lewis, S. 1837 (online edition) Topographical Dictionary of Ireland.
McEneaney, E., 2001 Discover Waterford. O’Brien Press.
McErlean, T., 1983 ‘The Irish townland system of landscape organisation’, in Reeves- Smyth, T. Hamond, F. Landscape Archaeology in Ireland. BAR British Series 116. pp. 315–39.
Moore, M. 1999 Archaeological Inventory of County Waterford.
National Monuments Service, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Sites and Monuments Record, County Waterford.
National Museum of Ireland. Topographical Files, County Waterford.
O’Donoghue J. and McCarthy, J. 2018. Waterford North Quays Redevelopment Underwater Archaeology Impact Assessment, 18R0180 and 18D0108
Phelan, C. 2007 Waterford Main Drainage Scheme Contract 1 – Final Report
Raftery, B. 1994 Pagan Celtic Ireland. London: Thames and Hudson
Roughan & O’Donovan 2018 Waterford North Quays SDZ SEA Environmental Report
Ryland, R.H. 1824 The History, Topography and Antiquities of the County and City of Waterford. London (reprint).
Part VIII Report Page 230 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Scully, Ó. (unpublished a) Preliminary report on the excavations and monitoring at the Theatre Royal and Deanery Gardens Waterford, C348, E4019.
Smith, C. 1746 State of the County and City of Waterford: Being a Natural, Civil, Ecclesiastical, Historical and Topographical Description thereof. Reprinted 1969, Mercier Press, Cork.
Waterford City Development Plan, 2013-2019.
Waterford North Quays Strategic Development Zone, Planning Scheme 2018.
Waddell, J. 1998 The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland. Galway. Galway University Press.
Zvelebil, M., Macklin, M.G., Passmore, D.G. & Ramsden, P. 1996 Alluvial archaeology in the Barrow Valley, Southeast Ireland: The Riverford Culture re-visited. The Journal of Irish Archaeology: 13-40.
CARTOGRAPHIC SOURCES William Petty, Down Survey, Map of the Barony of Ida Igrin Ibercon, c. 1655
William Richards and Bernard Scale, Plan of the City and Suburbs of Waterford, 1764
Nicholas Sinnott, Map of Waterford, 1830
Patrick Leahy, Map of the city of Waterford and its environs..., 1834
Ordnance Survey Mapping 1839-1923
ELECTRONIC SOURCES www.excavations.ie – Summary of archaeological excavation from 1970-2018.
www.archaeology.ie – DoCHG website listing all SMR sites.
www.britainfromabove.org.uk – Aerial photographic database.
www.osiemaps.ie – Ordnance Survey aerial photographs dating to 1995, 2000 & 2005 and 6-inch/25-inch OS maps.
www.heritagemaps.ie – The Heritage Council web-based spatial data viewer which focuses on the built, cultural and natural heritage.
www.googleearth.com – Satellite imagery of the proposed development area.
www.bingmaps.com – Satellite imagery of the proposed development area.
www.booksulster.com/library/plnm/placenamesC.php - Contains the text from Irish Local Names Explained by P.W Joyce (1870).
www.booksulster.com/library/plnm/placenamesC.php – Contains the text from Irish Local Names Explained by P.W Joyce (1870).
www.buildingsofireland.ie – Contains the NIAH Building and Garden Survey.
Part VIII Report Page 231 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.9.1 SMR/RMP Sites within the Surrounding Area
SMR No. WA009-008 RMP Status Yes Townland Abbeylands Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 661353/612703 Classification Religious house - Augustinian, of Arrouaise nuns Dist. From Immediate southeast Development Situated on a slight knoll on the N bank of the River Suir. The parish church of Kilculliheen is within a large subrectangular graveyard (WA009-008001-) (dims. c. 75m NE-SW; c. 70m NW-SE), and it is the possible site of an Arroasian convent founded as a priory of St Mary de Hogges (Dublin) by Dermot Mac Murrough in 1151. It had become an abbey by 1257 and was suppressed in Description 1540 at which time the church was parochial. Other buildings at that time included a belfry, hall, dormitory, four chambers, kitchens and a granary (Gwynn and Hadcock 1970, 319). No trace of these buildings or the church survive, and there is no indication of an antiquity. The present C of I church was built in 1820 (Lewis 1837, vol. 2, 77). (Burke 1902). Reference SMR file
SMR No. WA009-008001 RMP Status Yes Townland Abbeylands Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 661340/612689 Classification Graveyard Dist. From Immediate southeast Development Situated on the N bank of the River Suir. The C of I church of Kilculliheen is on the probable site of the nunnery (WA009-008----), whose church had become parochial at the time of the Suppression in 1540. It is within a subrectangular Description graveyard (dims. c. 75m NE-SW; c. 70m NW-SE), but there are no indications of the ancient foundation. Archaeological monitoring (08N0119) associated with building work at Abbey Lodge in the N extremity of the graveyard uncovered some 19th century headstones, but no medieval material (Kearns 2008). Reference www.archaeology.ie/ SMR file
SMR No. WA009-017001 RMP Status Yes Townland Mountmisery Parish Kilculliheen
Part VIII Report Page 232 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660165/613203 Classification Standing stone Dist. From c. 240m northwest Development Situated on a scrub-covered, SW-facing slope, on top of a S-facing cliff which overlooks the River Suir and Waterford City. Two conglomerate stones, placed 20m apart, form an alignment-oriented ENE-WSW. The W stone has a Description diamond-shaped cross-section (dims. 0.6m x 0.35m; H 1.2m) and is oriented E- W. The E stone has a square cross-section (dims. 0.6m x 0.45m; H 1.45m). A mound (WA009-017003-) is 30m to W. Although recorded in 1998, it was not present in 2010. Reference www.archaeology.ie/ SMR file
SMR No. WA009-017002 RMP Status Yes Townland Mountmisery Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660165/613203 Classification Standing stone Dist. From c. 240m northwest Development Situated on a scrub-covered, SW-facing slope, on top of a S-facing cliff which overlooks the River Suir and Waterford City. Two conglomerate stones, placed 20m apart, form an alignment-oriented ENE-WSW. The W stone has a Description diamond-shaped cross-section (dims. 0.6m x 0.35m; H 1.2m) and is oriented E- W. The E stone has a square cross-section (dims. 0.6m x 0.45m; H 1.45m). A mound (WA009-017003-) is 30m to W. Although recorded in 1998, it was not present in 2010. Reference www.archaeology.ie/ SMR file
SMR No. WA009-017003 RMP Status Yes Townland Mountmisery Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660112/613221 Classification Mound Dist. From c. 290m northwest Development Situated on a steep scrub-covered, SW-facing slope, on top of a S-facing cliff which overlooks the River Suir and Waterford City. Circular grass- and fern- Description covered, flat-topped mound (dims. at top 6.5m N-S; 6m E-W: dims. at base 9.5m N-S; 8.8m E-W: H 0.2m at N (upslope) to 1m at S). Stone pair (WA009-017002- ) is 30m to E. Although recorded in 1998, it was not present in 2010. Reference www.archaeology.ie/ SMR file
Part VIII Report Page 233 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
SMR No. KK046-007 RMP Status Yes Townland Newrath Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660316/613361 Classification Gibbet Dist. From c. 335m north Development Description Site of Gibbet marked within Down Survey mapping. Reference www.archaeology.ie/ SMR file
Part VIII Report Page 234 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.9.2 RPS/NIAH Sites within the Surrounding Area
RPS No. (delisted) NIAH Ref. - Townland Mountmisery Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660853/612882 Classification Access to ferry point Dist. From Within site Development On the northern side of the river the existing wharfs are built out over the river on piles, the deck and the piles being of concrete, with timber fenders along the river margin. Access to this area is via a bridge over the railway and a ramp Description running down to the wharf, flanked by stone walls. The bridge has abutments of stone, while the deck is of reinforced concrete. This access is a protected structure and is included in the Record of Protected Structures under reference 529. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 105 NIAH Ref. 22900906 Townland Abbeylands Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 661360/612750 Classification Gate lodge of Abbey House Dist. From Immediate east Development Detached two-bay single-storey gate lodge, c.1840, retaining most original fenestration. Renovated and part refenestrated, c.1990. Hipped slate roof with clay ridge tiles, rendered panelled chimney stack, and replacement uPVC rainwater goods, c.1990, on replacement uPVC eaves, c.1990, having decorative open work timber brackets. Painted rendered walls. Paired round- Description headed window openings with stone sills, rendered surrounds having keystones, and timber windows having pivoting (vertical) panes. One square- headed window opening with stone sill, rendered surround, and replacement uPVC casement window, c.1990. Interior with timber panelled shutters to window openings. Set back from line of road with rear (north-east) elevation fronting on to road having sections of wrought iron railings with foliate finials. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 507 NIAH Ref. 22500061 Townland Mountsion
Part VIII Report Page 235 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660734/612988 Classification Door of No. 14 House Dist. From Immediate south Development End-of-terrace three-bay single-storey over basement house, c.1835, with three-bay two-storey rear (south) elevation. Refenestrated and extended, c.1985, comprising two-bay single-storey lean-to return to south possibly with openings remodelled. Pitched slate roof with red clay ridge tiles, rendered chimney stacks, rendered coping, and cast-iron rainwater goods on rendered eaves. Lean-to artificial slate roof to return with plastic rainwater goods on Description timber eaves. Unpainted roughcast walls. Unpainted cement rendered walls to return. Square-headed window openings (possibly remodelled, c.1985) with replacement concrete sills, c.1985. Replacement timber casement windows, c.1985. Elliptical-headed door opening with replacement timber panelled door, c.1985, having timber side panels and original decorative fanlight. Set back from line of road in own grounds with roughcast boundary wall to front, and enclosed garden to south. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. - NIAH Ref. 22900908 Townland Mountsion Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660821/612910 Classification R. and H. Hall Dist. From Immediate south (demolished) Development Attached ten-bay nine-storey flat-roofed grain store or warehouse, built 1905-6, on a rectangular plan; three-bay nine-storey side elevations. Now disused. Flat roof not visible behind parapet with concealed rainwater goods retaining cast- iron downpipes. Fine roughcast reinforced concrete walls on rendered chamfered plinth with rendered pilasters supporting "Cavetto"-detailed Description stringcourses including rendered pilasters (upper floors) supporting "Cavetto"- detailed cornice to parapet. Square-headed window openings with concealed dressings framing steel fittings having square glazing bars. Interior retaining reinforced concrete floors on reinforced concrete beams on reinforced concrete chamfered piers. Set in unkempt grounds. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 103 NIAH Ref. 22900905 Townland Abbeylands Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen
Part VIII Report Page 236 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
I.T.M. 661354/612704 Classification Abbey Church of Ireland Dist. From c. 15m southeast Development Detached three-bay double-height single-cell Board of First Fruits Church of Ireland church, dated 1821, with single-bay three-stage entrance tower to north- west. Extended, c.1970, comprising two-bay single-storey block to south-east possibly originally accommodating vestry. Now in use as clubhouse. Pitched slate roof with clay ridge tiles, rendered coping to gables, and cast-iron rainwater goods on overhanging eaves. Roof to tower not visible behind parapet. Shallow pitched felt roof to additional block with plastic rainwater goods on timber eaves. Unpainted rendered, ruled and lined walls with cut-stone plaque, cut-stone date stone/plaque to tower and rendered dressings including stringcourses to each stage, advanced corner piers to top stage, and battlemented parapet on profiled stringcourse having rendered coping. Unpainted cement rendered walls to additional block. Pointed-arch window openings to nave with cut-stone sills, chamfered surrounds, hood mouldings over, timber mullions and tracery forming three-light lancet arrangement, and fixed-pane diamond-leaded windows. Tudor-arched window opening to south- east with rendered sill and hood moulding, timber mullions and tracery forming three-light arrangement (profiled central opening with trefoil-headed flanking openings), and fixed-pane leaded stained-glass window. Square-headed Description window openings to first and to second stage to tower with cut-stone sills, hood mouldings, and diamond-leaded timber casement windows. Pointed-arch openings to top (bell) stage with cut-stone sills, chamfered reveals, hood mouldings over, and louvered timber panel fittings in bipartite lancet arrangement. Tudor-arched door opening to tower with two cut-stone steps, chamfered surround having hood moulding over, and timber panelled door. Square-headed window openings to additional block with concrete sills. Now blocked-up. Tudor-arched door opening to additional block with chamfered reveals, hood moulding over, and timber panelled door. Interior to tower with tongue-and-groove timber panelled wainscoting, carved timber spiral staircase with timber newels and handrail. Full-height interior to nave with remains of timber gallery to first floor to north-west, carved stone wall monuments, moulded plaster colonette surrounds to window openings having stained glass panels, Tudor-arched recess to altar having moulded plaster colonette surround, and profiled cornice to plaster ceiling. Set back from road in own grounds with unpainted rendered boundary wall to perimeter having unpainted rendered piers. (ii) Graveyard to site with various cut-stone grave markers, c.1825 - c.1975. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 104 NIAH Ref. 22900907 Townland Abbeylands Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 661430/612724 Classification Abbey House Dist. From c. 30m east Development
Part VIII Report Page 237 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Detached five-bay two-storey over part-raised basement house, c.1840, with two-bay two-storey return to south-east. Refenestrated and extended, c.1940, comprising single-bay two-storey flat-roofed infill return to south-east. Reroofed, c.1990. Hipped roof (pitched to return) with replacement artificial slate, c.1990, clay ridge tiles, rendered chimney stacks, and replacement uPVC rainwater goods, c.1990, on replacement uPVC eaves, c.1990. Flat roof to infill bay not visible behind parapet. Unpainted rendered walls. Square-headed window openings with stone sills, and replacement 1/1 timber sash windows, c.1940. Round-headed door opening approached by flight of ten cut-limestone steps having wrought iron railings with timber pilaster doorcase supporting Description entablature, timber panelled door, sidelights, and decorative fanlight (archivolt over now gone). Interior with timber panelled shutters to window openings. Set back from road in own grounds with landscaped grounds to site, and unpainted roughcast boundary wall to perimeter. (ii) Detached three-bay single-storey rubble stone coach house with half-attic, c.1840, to south-east. Reroofed, c.1940. Hipped gabled roof with replacement corrugated-asbestos, c.1940, clay ridge tiles, and remains of replacement aluminium rainwater goods, c.1940. Painted lime rendered walls over random rubble stone construction with unpainted roughcast wall to side (north-east) elevation. Square-headed window openings with timber lintels, and timber panel fittings. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. - NIAH Ref. 22500042 Townland Mountmisery Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660407/612947 Classification Crane Dist. From c. 30m south Development Freestanding steel crane, c.1910, retaining original mechanisms. Now disused. Lattice steel trusses on mass-concrete posts on a triangular plan with steel- Description sheeted operator cabin on pivot having cable-hung lattice steel crane arm with forged steel hook, and lattice steel masts over. Sited on quay. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 107 NIAH Ref. 22500072 Townland Mountsion Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660711/613128 Classification Sion Hill House Dist. From c. 115m north Development
Description Detached three-bay two-storey over part-raised basement house, c.1820, on an L-shaped plan retaining early fenestration with single-storey flat-roofed prostyle
Part VIII Report Page 238 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
tetrastyle Doric portico to centre approached by flight of steps, three-bay two- storey side elevations, and three-bay three-storey return to north having single- bay three-storey flat-roofed infill bay to corner. Reroofed, c.1970, to infill bay. Now in use as guesthouse. Hipped slate roofs with clay ridge tiles, rendered chimney stacks and cast-iron rainwater goods on modillioned timber eaves. Flat timber roof to portico with timber eaves having dentilated cornice. Flat roof to infill bay with replacement corrugated-iron, c.1970. Painted rendered walls. Square-headed window openings with stone sills. 1/1 timber sash windows with 8/8 timber sash windows to return. Square-headed door opening under portico approached by flight of ten cut-limestone steps with cut-granite Doric columns, responsive columns and pilasters, and glazed timber panelled double doors with overlight. Interior with timber panelled doors having moulded architraves, timber panelled shutters to window openings, plasterwork cornices to ceilings, and timber staircase to stairhall. Set back from road in own grounds on an elevated site with gravel forecourt, and landscaped formal gardens to site. (ii) Pair of freestanding single-bay single-storey flanking pavilion blocks, c.1820. Now disused and part derelict. Pyramidal slate roofs with clay ridge tiles and cast- iron rainwater goods on timber eaves. Painted rendered walls with rendered piers to corners having stringcourses. Square-headed window openings in round-headed recessed panels with no sills, and fixed-pane timber windows. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 709 NIAH Ref. 22500032 Townland Mountmisery Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660247/613089 Classification Plunkett Railway Station Dist. From c. 120m west-northwest Development Detached fifteen-bay single-storey red brick building, opened 1908, retaining early aspect, and originally built as wing to railway station. Now in use as offices. Pitched slate roof with clay ridge tiles, cut-stone coping, and cast-iron rainwater goods on timber eaves. Red brick English bond walls with moulded red brick course to eaves. Square-headed window openings to front (south) elevation with cut-limestone flush sills, wrought iron sill guards and cut-limestone lintels Description having chamfered reveals. 6/9 timber casement windows. Square-headed door openings with cut-limestone lintels, timber panelled doors and overlights. Square-headed window openings to platform (north) elevation with timber sills, surrounds and continuous cornice over. 6/2 timber casement windows. Square- headed door openings with timber surrounds, continuous cornice over, timber panelled doors and overlights. Road fronted with concrete flagged footpath to front, and concrete flagged platform to north. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 107 NIAH Ref. 22500074 Townland Mountmisery Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen
Part VIII Report Page 239 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
I.T.M. 660627/613130 Classification Sion Hill House, gate lodge Dist. From c. 135m north Development Detached three-bay single-storey lodge, c.1820. Now disused and part derelict. Hipped slate roof with clay ridge tiles, rendered chimney stack and remains of Description cast-iron rainwater goods on rendered eaves. Painted rendered walls. Square- headed window openings with stone sills. Now boarded-up. Square-headed door opening. Now boarded up. Set in grounds shared with Sion Hill House. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 107 NIAH Ref. 22500073 Townland Mountsion Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660730/613146 Classification Sion Hill House, outbuilding Dist. From c. 140m north Development Detached single-bay single-storey gable-fronted coach house with half-attic, c.1820, with square-headed carriageway. Pitched (gable-fronted) slate roof with clay ridge tiles, rendered coping and cast-iron rainwater goods on stepped Description rendered eaves. Unpainted rendered walls. Square-headed carriageway with timber boarded double doors and square-headed window opening over with timber boarded fitting. Set back from road in grounds shared with Sion Hill House. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
RPS No. 709 NIAH Ref. 22500033 Townland Mountmisery Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 660232/613099 Classification Platform, Plunkett Railway Station Dist. From c. 180m west-northwest Development Freestanding canopy, built 1908, over platform on cast-iron piers. Series of hipped felt roofs in timber frames on cast-iron beams and lattice girders with Description reeded Perspex skylights, and cast-iron rainwater goods on timber eaves having timber boarded apron. Series of paired cast-iron girder piers on cast-iron plinths having moulded necking. Sited sheltering concrete flagged platform. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
Part VIII Report Page 240 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
RPS No. 106 NIAH Ref. 22900904 Townland Abbeylands Parish Kilculliheen Barony Kilculliheen I.T.M. 661376/613148 Classification Catholic Church of Sacred Heart Dist. From c. 240m northeast Development Detached seven-bay single- and two-storey Gothic Revival Catholic church, built 1904, possibly incorporating fabric of earlier church, 1834, on site comprising five-bay double-height nave with five-bay single-storey lean-to side aisles to north-east and to south-west, single-bay double-height transepts to north-east and to south-west, single-bay double-height lower chancel to south- east having single-bay single-storey over raised basement flanking bays, and single-bay three-stage tower, dated 1867, to north-west on a square plan having polygonal broach spire. Pitched slate roofs (lean-to to side aisles) behind parapets with clay ridge tiles, cut-stone coping to gables having cross finials to apexes, and cast-iron rainwater goods. Limestone ashlar polygonal broach spire to tower on moulded profiled cut-limestone band with cut-limestone dressings including quoins. Broken coursed rock-faced snecked limestone walls with cut-limestone dressings including piers to nave and to side aisles, stepped buttresses to chancel, and battlemented parapets on moulded stringcourses. Broken coursed snecked limestone walls to tower with cut-limestone dressings including stringcourses, bands, and stepped clasping corner buttresses. Paired cinquefoil window openings to nave forming clere-storey with cut-stone surrounds having squared limestone voussoirs. Paired trefoil-headed window openings to side aisles in pointed-arch frames having cut-limestone sill course, and cut-stone block-and-start surrounds having squared limestone voussoirs. Pointed-arch window openings to transepts and to chancel with cut-limestone block-and-start surrounds having hood mouldings over, lancet-arch openings Description (three-light to transepts; five-light to chancel) with cut-stone mullions, and cut- stone tracery to arches. Trefoil-headed window openings in bipartite arrangement to bays flanking chancel on cut-stone aprons having coat-of-arms panels, cut-stone columnar mullions, trefoil panels, and hood mouldings over. Fixed-pane leaded stained-glass windows to all openings. Paired elongated trefoil-headed window openings to second stage to tower with cut-stone block- and-start surrounds, hood mouldings over supporting squared limestone and sandstone voussoirs, and fixed-pane windows. Trefoil-headed openings in bipartite arrangement to top (bell) stage with cut-stone block-and-start surrounds, hood mouldings over supporting squared limestone and sandstone voussoirs, and louvered panel fittings. Pointed-arch door opening to tower with cut-stone chamfered surround having hood moulding over supporting squared limestone and sandstone voussoirs, timber panelled double doors, and cut- stone date stone/plaque (1867) over having moulded surround extending into triangular panel containing coat-of-arms. Full-height interior open into roof with decorative clay tile to central aisle, carved timber pews, pointed-arch arcades to side aisles on pillars having clustered colonettes and moulded reveals, trefoil panelled gallery to first floor to north-west on shallow segmental arch, exposed timber roof construction on moulded consoles, pointed-arch chancel arch on clustered colonettes, decorative Gothic-style reredos, and exposed timber roof construction to chancel. Set back from road in own grounds with tarmacadam forecourt. (ii) Graveyard to site with various cut-stone grave markers, c.1835 - present. Reference www.buildingsofireland.ie/ Waterford City County Development Plan 2013-2019
Part VIII Report Page 241 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.9.3 Stray Finds within the Surrounding Area
Information on artefact finds from the study area in Waterford City has been recorded by the National Museum of Ireland since the late 18th century. Location information relating to these finds is important in establishing prehistoric and historic activity in the study area.
A review of the topographical files for the townlands contained within the study area revealed that no stray finds have been recorded from the vicinity.
Part VIII Report Page 242 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.9.4 Legislation Protecting the Archaeological Resource
Protection of Cultural Heritage The cultural heritage in Ireland is safeguarded through national and international policy designed to secure the protection of the cultural heritage resource to the fullest possible extent (Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands 1999, 35). This is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Valletta Convention), ratified by Ireland in 1997.
The Archaeological Resource The National Monuments Act 1930 to 2014 and relevant provisions of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 are the primary means of ensuring the satisfactory protection of archaeological remains, which includes all man-made structures of whatever form or date except buildings habitually used for ecclesiastical purposes. A National Monument is described as ‘a monument or the remains of a monument the preservation of which is a matter of national importance by reason of the historical, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching thereto’ (National Monuments Act 1930 Section 2). A number of mechanisms under the National Monuments Act are applied to secure the protection of archaeological monuments. These include the Register of Historic Monuments, the Record of Monuments and Places, and the placing of Preservation Orders and Temporary Preservation Orders on endangered sites.
Ownership and Guardianship of National Monuments The Minister may acquire national monuments by agreement or by compulsory order. The state or local authority may assume guardianship of any national monument (other than dwellings). The owners of national monuments (other than dwellings) may also appoint the Minister or the local authority as guardian of that monument if the state or local authority agrees. Once the site is in ownership or guardianship of the state, it may not be interfered with without the written consent of the Minister.
Register of Historic Monuments Section 5 of the 1987 Act requires the Minister to establish and maintain a Register of Historic Monuments. Historic monuments and archaeological areas present on the register are afforded statutory protection under the 1987 Act. Any interference with sites recorded on the register is illegal without the permission of the Minister. Two months’ notice in writing is required prior to any work being undertaken on or in the vicinity of a registered monument. The register also includes sites under Preservation Orders and Temporary Preservation Orders. All registered monuments are included in the Record of Monuments and Places.
Preservation Orders and Temporary Orders Sites deemed to be in danger of injury or destruction can be allocated Preservation Orders under the 1930 Act. Preservation Orders make any interference with the site illegal. Temporary Preservation Orders can be attached under the 1954 Act. These perform the same function as a Preservation Order but have a time limit of six months, after which the situation must be reviewed. Work may only be undertaken on or in the vicinity of sites under Preservation Orders with the written consent, and at the discretion, of the Minister.
Record of Monuments and Places Section 12(1) of the 1994 Act requires the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (now the Minister for the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht) to establish and maintain a record of monuments and places where the Minister believes that such monuments exist. The record comprises a list of monuments and relevant places and a map/s showing
Part VIII Report Page 243 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub each monument and relevant place in respect of each county in the state. All sites recorded on the Record of Monuments and Places receive statutory protection under the National Monuments Act 1994. All recorded monuments on the proposed development site are represented on the accompanying maps.
Section 12(3) of the 1994 Act provides that ‘where the owner or occupier (other than the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands) of a monument or place included in the Record, or any other person, proposes to carry out, or to cause or permit the carrying out of, any work at or in relation to such a monument or place, he or she shall give notice in writing to the Minister of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands to carry out work and shall not, except in case of urgent necessity and with the consent of the Minister, commence the work until two months after giving of notice’.
Under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004, anyone who demolishes or in any way interferes with a recorded site is liable to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months. On summary conviction and on conviction of indictment, a fine not exceeding €10,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years is the penalty. In addition, they are liable for costs for the repair of the damage caused.
In addition to this, under the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1989, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) are required for various classes and sizes of development project to assess the impact the proposed development will have on the existing environment, which includes the cultural, archaeological and built heritage resources. These document’s recommendations are typically incorporated into the conditions under which the proposed development must proceed, and thus offer an additional layer of protection for monuments which have not been listed on the RMP.
The Planning and Development Act 2000 Under planning legislation, each local authority is obliged to draw up a Development Plan setting out their aims and policies with regard to the growth of the area over a five-year period. They cover a range of issues including archaeology and built heritage, setting out their policies and objectives with regard to the protection and enhancement of both. These policies can vary from county to county. The Planning and Development Act 2000 recognises that proper planning and sustainable development includes the protection of the archaeological heritage. Conditions relating to archaeology may be attached to individual planning permissions.
Waterford City Development Plan 2013-2019 The Development Plan contains the following policies with regard to the archaeological resource: POL 10.1.1: To protect and enhance archaeological monuments and their settings including city walls, embankments and ditches, gates, bastions or ancillary fortifications, church sites and associated graveyards and other monuments. POL 10.1.3: To protect the archaeological heritage of the City as a source and instrument for historical and scientific study. POL 10.1.4: To facilitate appropriate guidance in relation to the protection of the archaeological heritage of the City. POL 10.1.5: To promote pre-planning consultations in relation to the archaeological heritage with the Planning Authority and with the National Monuments Service, Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht. POL 10.1.7: To promote the use of the archaeological heritage of the City as an educational, cultural and tourism resource and to promote public access and awareness of this rich archaeological heritage.
Part VIII Report Page 244 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
It is an objective of Waterford City Development Plan: OBJ 10.1.1: To secure the preservation (in-situ or by record) of all sites and features of historical and archaeological interest. OBJ 10.1.2: To preserve the integrity of existing archaeological monuments in their settings including the integrity of city defences and to ensure that development in the vicinity of a site of archaeological interest does not unduly affect the character of the archaeological site or its setting by reason of its location, scale, bulk or detailing. OBJ 10.1.3: In securing such preservation, and with regard to proposed development and/or works within or in the vicinity of archaeological monuments in Local Authority or State ownership or guardianship (i.e. National Monuments) to consult and to have regard to the advice and recommendations of the National Monuments Service, the Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht, authorization/Ministerial Consent may be required to proceed under Section 14 of the National Monuments Acts. OBJ 10.1.4: To seek to retain the existing street layout, including laneways, historic building lines and traditional plot widths where these derive from medieval or earlier origins. OBJ 10.1.5: When considering development in the vicinity of upstanding archaeological/historical monuments, to aim to achieve a satisfactory buffer area between the development and the monument in order to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the amenity associated with the presence of upstanding monuments within the historic urban pattern. OBJ 10.1.6: In considering development in the vicinity of all upstanding monuments, including city defences, or development that may have implications for archaeological heritage, the Planning Authority will require the preparation and submission of an archaeological assessment report detailing the potential impact of the development on the archaeological heritage including upstanding, buried structures and deposits. The report will also include a visual impact assessment to ensure adequate consideration of any potential visual impact the proposed development may have on any upstanding remains. OBJ 10.1.7: To promote the incorporation of or reference to significant archaeological finds in a development, where appropriate, through layout, displays, signage, plaques, information panels or use of historic place names. OBJ 10.1.8: To provide guidance for developers, based on the experience of the archaeological environment in Waterford, and guidelines on development issued by the National Monuments Service, Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, in order to ensure that the degree of commitment to a development in terms of finance and programme, may be planned in relation to Waterford City Development Plan 2013 - 2019 the degree of uncertainty concerning the archaeology and the stages in its clarification and resolution.
North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme, 2018 The Planning Scheme list the following specific objectives in relation to the archaeological resource: PSS 18: To facilitate tourism/cultural development on the North Quays with associated tourism related retail. PSS 24: To promote the integration community, cultural and recreational development, through the provision of generous landscaped amenity areas and public realm. PSS 33: Develop a high-quality public realm through the provision of appropriate public open space, surface treatments, street lightning, furniture and public art that promotes the North Quays as a modern innovative urban quarter while also respecting its rich historical past and cultural heritage. Reference should be made to Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (2013), Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Environment, Community and Local Government.
Part VIII Report Page 245 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.9.5 Legislation Protecting the Architectural Resource
The main laws protecting the built heritage are the Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and National Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1999 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts 1963–1999, which has now been superseded by the Planning and Development Act, 2000. The Architectural Heritage Act requires the Minister to establish a survey to identify, record and assess the architectural heritage of the country. The background to this legislation derives from Article 2 of the 1985 Convention for the Protection of Architectural Heritage (Granada Convention). This states that:
For the purpose of precise identification of the monuments, groups of structures and sites to be protected, each member state will undertake to maintain inventories of that architectural heritage.
The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) was established in 1990 to fulfil Ireland’s obligation under the Granada Convention, through the establishment and maintenance of a central record, documenting and evaluating the architecture of Ireland (NIAH Handbook 2005:2). As inclusion in the inventory does not provide statutory protection, the survey information is used in conjunction with the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities to advise local authorities on compilation of a Record of Protected Structures as required by the Planning and Development Act, 2000.
Protection Under the Record of Protected Structures and County Development Plan Structures of architectural, cultural, social, scientific, historical, technical or archaeological interest can be protected under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, where the conditions relating to the protection of the architectural heritage are set out in Part IV of the act. This act superseded the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1999, and came into force on 1st January 2000.
The act provides for the inclusion of Protected Structures into the planning authorities’ development plans and sets out statutory regulations regarding works affecting such structures. Under new legislation, no distinction is made between buildings formerly classified under development plans as List 1 and List 2. Such buildings are now all regarded as ‘Protected Structures’ and enjoy equal statutory protection. Under the act the entire structure is protected, including a structure’s interior, exterior, attendant grounds and also any structures within the attendant grounds.
The act defines a Protected Structure as (a) a structure, or (b) a specified part of a structure which is included in a Record of Protected Structures (RPS), and, where that record so indicates, includes any specified feature which is in the attendant grounds of the structure and which would not otherwise be included in this definition. Protection of the structure, or part thereof, includes conservation, preservation, and improvement compatible with maintaining its character and interest. Part IV of the act deals with architectural heritage, and Section 57 deals specifically with works affecting the character of Protected Structures or proposed Protected Structures and states that no works should materially affect the character of the structure or any element of the structure that contributes to its special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest. The act does not provide specific criteria for assigning a special interest to a structure. However, the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) offers guidelines to its field workers as to how to designate a building with a special interest, which are not mutually exclusive. This offers guidance by example rather than by definition:
Part VIII Report Page 246 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Archaeological It is to be noted that the NIAH is biased towards post-1700 structures. Structures that have archaeological features may be recorded, providing the archaeological features are incorporated within post-1700 elements. Industrial fabric is considered to have technical significance and should only be attributed archaeological significance if the structure has pre- 1700 features.
Architectural A structure may be considered of special architectural interest under the following criteria: • Good quality or well executed architectural design • The work of a known and distinguished architect, engineer, designer, craftsman • A structure that makes a positive contribution to a setting, such as a streetscape or rural setting • Modest or vernacular structures may be considered to be of architectural interest, as they are part of the history of the built heritage of Ireland. • Well-designed decorative features, externally and/or internally
Historical A structure may be considered of special historical interest under the following criteria: • A significant historical event associated with the structure • An association with a significant historical figure • Has a known interesting and/or unusual change of use, e.g. a former workhouse now in use as a hotel • A memorial to a historical event.
Technical A structure may be considered of special technical interest under the following criteria: • Incorporates building materials of particular interest, i.e. the materials or the technology used for construction • It is the work of a known or distinguished engineer • Incorporates innovative engineering design, e.g. bridges, canals or mill weirs • A structure which has an architectural interest may also merit a technical interest due to the structural techniques used in its construction, e.g. a curvilinear glasshouse, early use of concrete, cast-iron prefabrication. • Mechanical fixtures relating to a structure may be considered of technical significance.
Cultural A structure may be considered of special cultural interest under the following criteria: • An association with a known fictitious character or event, e.g. Sandycove Martello Tower, which featured in Ulysses. • Other structure that illustrate the development of society, such as early schoolhouses, swimming baths or printworks.
Scientific A structure may be considered of special scientific interest under the following criteria:
Part VIII Report Page 247 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• A structure or place which is considered to be an extraordinary or pioneering scientific or technical achievement in the Irish context, e.g. Mizen Head Bridge, Birr Telescope.
Social A structure may be considered of special social interest under the following criteria: • A focal point of spiritual, political, national or other cultural sentiment to a group of people, e.g. a place of worship, a meeting point, assembly rooms. • Developed or constructed by a community or organisation, e.g. the construction of the railways or the building of a church through the patronage of the local community • Illustrates a particular lifestyle, philosophy, or social condition of the past, e.g. the hierarchical accommodation in a country house, philanthropic housing, vernacular structures.
Artistic A structure may be considered of special artistic interest under the following criteria: • Work of a skilled craftsman or artist, e.g. plasterwork, wrought-iron work, carved elements or details, stained glass, stations of the cross. • Well-designed mass-produced structures or elements may also be considered of artistic interest.
(From the NIAH Handbook 2003 & 2005 pages 15–20)
The Local Authority has the power to order conservation and restoration works to be undertaken by the owner of the protected structure if it considers the building to need repair. Similarly, an owner or developer must make a written request to the Local Authority to carry out any works on a protected structure and its environs, which will be reviewed within three months of application. Failure to do so may result in prosecution.
Waterford City Development Plan The Development Plan contains the following policies with regard to the architectural resource: POL 10.2.1: To promote the protection of the architectural heritage of the City through the identification of structures of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest, by the inclusion of such structures on the RPS and by taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the protection of those structures. POL 10.2.2: To promote the sustainable reuse of protected structures for any such purpose compatible with the character of the structure. The Planning Authority may, where considered appropriate, relax use zoning and other site development restrictions and may grant exemption from or reduce the amounts of development contributions payable in order to secure the protection and conservation of protected structures. These restrictions may be relaxed and development contributions reduced or exempted where the protected structure will be rehabilitated to a high standard, where the special interest, character and setting of the building is protected and where the proposed use and development is consistent with conservation policies and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. In such cases the proposed development shall be open for consideration notwithstanding the current zoning objective for the site and therefore shall be considered as not materially contravening the Development Plan. POL 10.2.3: To protect the structures included on the Record of Protected Structures their curtilage and setting from any works that would result in the loss or damage to their special character.
Part VIII Report Page 248 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
It is an objective of Waterford City Development Plan: OBJ 10.2.1: To review the Record of Protected Structures during the lifetime of the Development Plan to ensure all records are consistent with the criteria for inclusion on the RPS, by being of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest. OBJ 10.2.2: To include all of the structures within the city which are, in the opinion of the planning authority, of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest, in the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) and to ensure the protection of all structures included in the RPS. OBJ 10.2.3: To carry out an audit of all protected structures in the ownership of the City Council with a view to securing uses that are compatible with the character of the individual protected structure. OBJ 10.2.4: To achieve the protection of the architectural heritage within the city by giving advice to owners of protected structures on appropriate measures or actions to take in regard to their property; by promoting best practice in the use of materials in repair and adaptation work, including referral to appropriate documents such as the ‘Architectural Heritage Protection, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2004’ issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; and the use of skilled specialist practitioners in the conservation of protected structures. OBJ 10.2.5: In considering development which may have a significant impact on the architectural heritage to require the preparation and submission of an architectural heritage impact assessment detailing the potential impact of the development on the architectural heritage. The report shall be compiled generally in accordance with the details set out in Appendix B of the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities, Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government, 2004. OBJ 10.2.6: To issue declarations on request to owners or occupiers of protected structures detailing the type of works that it is considered would or would not materially affect the character of the structure or of any element of the structure which contributes to its special interest. OBJ 10.2.7: To promote public awareness of the value of the protected structures within the city and the positive contribution protected structures make to the built environment, the distinctiveness and authenticity of the city and the tourism potential of the city and to develop specific measures to achieve such awareness. OBJ 10.2.8: To identify and implement measures for promoting the character and distinctiveness of the historic city and improving its physical condition and presentation. OBJ 10.2.9: To seek the retention and repair of shop and pub fronts of architectural interest.
North Quays SDZ Planning Scheme, 2018 The Planning Scheme list the following specific objectives in relation to the architectural resource: PSS 18: To facilitate tourism/cultural development on the North Quays with associated tourism related retail. PSS 24: To promote the integration community, cultural and recreational development, through the provision of generous landscaped amenity areas and public realm. PSS 33: Develop a high-quality public realm through the provision of appropriate public open space, surface treatments, street lightning, furniture and public art that promotes the North Quays as a modern innovative urban quarter while also respecting its rich historical past and cultural heritage. Reference should be made to Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (2013), Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Environment, Community and Local Government.
Part VIII Report Page 249 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.9.6 Impact Assessment and the Cultural Heritage Resource
Potential Impacts on Archaeological and Historical Remains Impacts are defined as ‘the degree of change in an environment resulting from a development’ (Environmental Protection Agency 2003: 31). They are described as profound, significant or slight impacts on archaeological remains. They may be negative, positive or neutral, direct, indirect or cumulative, temporary or permanent.
Impacts can be identified from detailed information about a project, the nature of the area affected and the range of archaeological and historical resources potentially affected. Development can affect the archaeological and historical resource of a given landscape in a number of ways. • Permanent and temporary land-take, associated structures, landscape mounding, and their construction may result in damage to or loss of archaeological remains and deposits, or physical loss to the setting of historic monuments and to the physical coherence of the landscape. • Archaeological sites can be affected adversely in a number of ways: disturbance by excavation, topsoil stripping and the passage of heavy machinery; disturbance by vehicles working in unsuitable conditions; or burial of sites, limiting accessibility for future archaeological investigation. • Hydrological changes in groundwater or surface water levels can result from construction activities such as de-watering and spoil disposal, or longer-term changes in drainage patterns. These may desiccate archaeological remains and associated deposits. • Visual impacts on the historic landscape sometimes arise from construction traffic and facilities, built earthworks and structures, landscape mounding and planting, noise, fences and associated works. These features can impinge directly on historic monuments and historic landscape elements as well as their visual amenity value. • Landscape measures such as tree planting can damage sub-surface archaeological features, due to topsoil stripping and through the root action of trees and shrubs as they grow. • Ground consolidation by construction activities or the weight of permanent embankments can cause damage to buried archaeological remains, especially in colluviums or peat deposits. • Disruption due to construction also offers in general the potential for adversely affecting archaeological remains. This can include machinery, site offices, and service trenches.
Although not widely appreciated, positive impacts can accrue from developments. These can include positive resource management policies, improved maintenance and access to archaeological monuments, and the increased level of knowledge of a site or historic landscape as a result of archaeological assessment and fieldwork.
Predicted Impacts The severity of a given level of land-take or visual intrusion varies with the type of monument, site or landscape features and its existing environment. Severity of impact can be judged taking the following into account: • The proportion of the feature affected and how far physical characteristics fundamental to the understanding of the feature would be lost;
Part VIII Report Page 250 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• Consideration of the type, date, survival/condition, fragility/vulnerability, rarity, potential and amenity value of the feature affected; • Assessment of the levels of noise, visual and hydrological impacts, either in general or site-specific terms, as may be provided by other specialists.
Part VIII Report Page 251 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
APPENDIX 4.9.7 Mitigation Measures and the Cultural Heritage Resource
Potential Mitigation Strategies for Cultural Heritage Remains Mitigation is defined as features of the design or other measures of the proposed development that can be adopted to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset negative effects.
The best opportunities for avoiding damage to archaeological remains or intrusion on their setting and amenity arise when the site options for the development are being considered. Damage to the archaeological resource immediately adjacent to developments may be prevented by the selection of appropriate construction methods. Reducing adverse effects can be achieved by good design, for example by screening historic buildings or upstanding archaeological monuments or by burying archaeological sites undisturbed rather than destroying them. Offsetting adverse effects is probably best illustrated by the full investigation and recording of archaeological sites that cannot be preserved in situ.
Definition of Mitigation Strategies Archaeological Resource The ideal mitigation for all archaeological sites is preservation in situ. This is not always a practical solution, however. Therefore, a series of recommendations are offered to provide ameliorative measures where avoidance and preservation in situ are not possible.
Archaeological Test Trenching can be defined as ‘a limited programme of intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area or site on land, inter-tidal zone or underwater. If such archaeological remains are present field evaluation defines their character, extent, quality and preservation, and enables an assessment of their worth in a local, regional, national or international context as appropriate’ (CIfA 2014a).
Full Archaeological Excavation can be defined as ‘a programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which examines, records and interprets archaeological deposits, features and structures and, as appropriate, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area or site on land, inter-tidal zone or underwater. The records made and objects gathered during fieldwork are studied and the results of that study published in detail appropriate to the project design’ (CIfA 2014b).
Archaeological Monitoring can be defined as ‘a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for non-archaeological reasons. This will be within a specified area or site on land, inter-tidal zone or underwater, where there is a possibility that archaeological deposits may be disturbed or destroyed. The programme will result in the preparation of a report and ordered archive (CIfA 2014c).
Underwater Archaeological Assessment consists of a programme of works carried out by a specialist underwater archaeologist, which can involve wade surveys, metal detection surveys and the excavation of test pits within the sea or riverbed. These assessments are able to access and assess the potential of an underwater environment to a much higher degree than terrestrial based assessments.
Architectural Resource The architectural resource is generally subject to a greater degree of change than archaeological sites, as structures may survive for many years but their usage may change continually. This can be reflected in the fabric of the building, with the addition and removal of doors, windows and extensions. Due to their often more visible presence within the
Part VIII Report Page 252 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub landscape than archaeological sites, the removal of such structures can sometimes leave a discernible ‘gap’ with the cultural identity of a population. However, a number of mitigation measures are available to ensure a record is made of any structure that is deemed to be of special interest, which may be removed or altered as part of a proposed development.
Conservation Assessment consists of a detailed study of the history of a building and can include the surveying of elevations to define the exact condition of the structure. These assessments are carried out by Conservation Architects and would commonly be carried out in association with proposed alterations or renovations on a Recorded Structure.
Building Survey may involve making an accurate record of elevations (internal and external), internal floor plans and external sections. This is carried out using an EDM (Electronic Distance Measurer) and GPS technology to create scaled drawings that provide a full record of the appearance of a building at the time of the survey.
Historic Building Assessment is generally specific to one building, which may have historic significance, but is not a Protected Structure or listed within the NIAH. A full historical background for the structure is researched and the site is visited to assess the standing remains and make a record of any architectural features of special interest. These assessments can also be carried out in conjunction with a building survey.
Written and Photographic record provides a basic record of features such as stone walls, which may have a small amount of cultural heritage importance and are recorded for prosperity. Dimensions of the feature are recorded with a written description and photographs as well as some cartographic reference, which may help to date a feature.
Part VIII Report Page 253 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.10 Material Assets and Land 4.10.1 Introduction Material assets are taken to include infrastructure and utilities including rail, road, water supply, electricity, gas network, telecommunications, wastewater treatment facilities and surface water drainage infrastructure. Material assets also include economic assets. There are a number of material assets present within the vicinity of the development. Traffic and Transportation including rail lines is discussed in Section 4.1 of this Report. This section discusses land and property, economic operations and utilities (electricity supply, gas networks, telecommunications, water supply, wastewater treatment facilities and surface water drainage infrastructure) as detailed in the following subsections. 4.10.2 Methodology The following information sources have been consulted as part of this assessment: • Existing ESB Distribution Network Records • Existing Gas Networks Ireland Records • Existing Eir Records • Existing Virgin Media Records • Irish Water Existing Foul and Watermain Records • Local Authority Existing Drainage Records • Underground Utility Survey – Apex, Murphy’s 2017 4.10.3 Receiving Environment Land The total site area of the proposed development is 3.88 hectare (38,835m²). The existing uses of the lands required for the proposed development include: • transport infrastructure comprising parts of R711 Dock Road Dual Carriageway, existing rail line and associated railway infrastructure (Waterford to Rosslare rail line); • Top Oil service station; • Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ)/ Bus Éireann Bus Depot; • empty commercial unit along the Dock Road; • former commercial/ warehousing uses associated with the former Dunlop site (and the outside area of which is currently in use as a temporary timber storage area and which is approved to be demolished as part of a previous planning application); • Ferrybank bus stop with shelter serving services by J.J. Kavanagh & Sons namely the 607 and 617 Bus routes (Waterford City Ballyguner routes); and • Ferrybank bring bank (glass bottle recycling facilities).
The railway line that will be used for the proposed development (located east of Plunkett Station) is currently sporadically used for goods (freight) and engineering trains only (Waterford to Belview Port). Low frequency rail traffic (approximately 2 trains fortnightly) operates on the railway east of Plunkett Station i.e. one Iarnród Éireann freight/engineering train operate every two weeks, used for deliveries to/from Waterford Port to various Iarnród Éireann sites. There was a twice weekly rail service connecting the North West Ireland region in/out of Port of Waterford chartered by DFDS and operated by Iarnród Éireann, but this operation is currently suspended.
Part VIII Report Page 254 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
The following utilities exist within the proposed development boundary:
Electricity The ESB distribution network comprises medium voltage (MV) (10kV / 20kV) and low voltage (LV) electricity lines which are managed by ESB networks area offices.
These include: • Existing MV / LV and public lighting underground lines along the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street) and Abbey Road; • Existing overhead line along the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street); • Existing ESB MV / LV underground lines and public lighting ducts on the proposed Transport Hub site; • Existing ESB MV cables along the proposed Greenway route; • Existing ESB (unknown voltage) cables on the Bus Eireann Depot site; and • Existing ESB (unknown voltage) cables and sub-station located within the proposed bus overflow car park site and Ferry Lane.
Gas Network Gas Networks Ireland records indicate that there are existing medium pressure gas distribution pipes within the vicinity of the proposed development along the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street) and Abbey Road. The records also indicate that there are abandoned gas mains within the footprint of the proposed Transport Hub access road and there is a low pressure feed on Dock Road feeding the houses on Sion Row, west of the development.
Telecommunications Eir records indicate that there is existing Eir underground ducting located within the footprint of the proposed access road off the Rockshire Road Junction. The records also indicate that there are existing overhead Eir lines within the Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) site, immediately south of the proposed Transport Hub. Underground Eir ducting is also indicated along the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street), while underground ducting and overhead lines are indicated along Abbey Road. There is also existing Eir ducting located at the bridge structure to be demolished, west of the proposed Transport Hub.
Virgin Media records indicate that there is existing Virgin Media infrastructure located along the R711 (Dock Road), north of the proposed development site.
Rail Infrastructure Following consultation, Irish Rail has advised that there are existing live signalling and fibre cables along the length of the existing rail corridor within the proposed development boundary.
Water Supply Existing water services records have been obtained from Waterford City and County Council and Irish Water. The records present that there is existing watermain infrastructure located within the vicinity of the proposed development which includes: • Existing 100mm / 150mm / 225mm diameter pipes along the southern side of the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street), to the north of the proposed development site;
Part VIII Report Page 255 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
• Existing watermain spurs off the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street) through the proposed development site currently serving the SDZ site and Bus Éireann Depot; • An existing watermain pump house to the north east of the proposed development site; and • Existing 125mm/150mm watermain along Abbey Road and Ferry Lane. There is also an existing watermain spur (unknown size and type) currently serving the eastern portion of the development site boundary in the former factory area (Dunlop Site off Ferry Lane).
Foul Sewage / Wastewater Existing drainage records obtained from Waterford City and County Council and Irish Water indicate that there is foul and combined drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the proposed development site which includes: • Existing foul pipes along the R711 (Dock Road), which pass through the western extents of the proposed development site; • Existing combined sewer at: Rockshire Road – Dock Road Junction. This combined sewer (900mm dimeter) passes through the proposed access to the Transport Hub off the Rockshire Road Junction, and discharges to the existing Ferrybank Pumping Station; • Existing 300mm / 525mm diameter combined sewer along Abbey Road; • Existing 225mm diameter combined sewer along Ferry Lane; • Existing Ferrybank Pumping Station (wastewater), located south of the Rockshire Road Junction within the SDZ area; • Existing 315mm diameter rising main from Ferrybank Pumping Station to Abbey Road; and • Existing combined sewer pipes on the former factory site (Dunlop site).
Surface Water Existing drainage records obtained from Waterford City and County Council and underground utility surveys undertaken by Apex Surveys and Murphy’s Surveys indicate that there is existing surface water drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the proposed development site. Records indicate that there is existing surface water drainage infrastructure at the following locations: • Along the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street); • At the existing service station on the R711 (Dock Road); • Within the footprint of the proposed Transport Hub access road; • At the proposed taxi / car parking area to the east of the new Transport Hub; • Within the Bus Éireann depot site; and • Within the proposed Bus Éireann overflow car park site. 4.10.4 Predicted Impacts 4.10.4.1 Land All buildings and lands required for the proposed development are within the ownership of Waterford City and County Council and Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ).
A Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) citied as Waterford City and County Council, North Quays Development, Waterford Compulsory Purchase Order 2017, (No.1) was
Part VIII Report Page 256 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
approved on 23/10/2018 by An Bord Pleanála which includes the majority of the lands required for the proposed development works.
CIÉ owns the lands required to the east of the proposed Transport Hub which will be made available for the taxi pick-up and drop-off spaces, the short-term car and bus spaces and bicycle spaces. This land will be transferred from CIÉ to Waterford City and County Council subject to planning approval. Bus Éireann who currently operate in this area fully support the proposed development.
North Quays Strategic Development Zone (NQ SDZ) footprint adjoins the proposed development boundary. As part of the NQ SDZ Planning Scheme any development in the SDZ is required to be seamlessly integrated with the proposed development. The lands made available to construct the proposed development will overlap approximately 5m south of the proposed development boundary and construction access will need to be coordinated with any future development occurring with the SDZ Developer depending on the timing of the construction.
Ongoing consultation will be required between all stakeholders in order to program construction phases appropriately. 4.10.4.2 Economic Operators Bus Éireann currently operates a bus depot within the site located off Dock Road which will be subject to works as part of the proposed development. Impacts on the Bus depot have been considered as part of the Section 4.1 Traffic and Transportation impact assessment.
The Top Oil petrol station has been subject to CPO by Waterford City and County Council (Order 2017 no.1). The property will be demolished as part of the proposed development. Compensation has been agreed with Waterford City and County Council, therefore there will be no significant future impacts. 4.10.4.3 Rail Infrastructure & Traffic The proposed development is being progressed in conjunction with Irish Rail. There will be no impact to passenger rail services during the construction stage as all works will take place to the east of the existing Plunkett Train Station. While no works will take place on the rail line itself temporary possession of the rail line will be required in order to construct the proposed development. This may have an impact on the scheduling of Iarnród Éireann engineering trains freight trains, however this impact will not be significant.
During the drainage works the existing Irish Rail signalling and fibre cables along the length of the railway corridor through the proposed development site will be protected in place during construction. Therefore, no likely significant impacts will occur.
Upgrade of the rail line will be required before the Transport Hub building is completed and will be advanced by Iarnród Éireann as part of a separate process.
Significant indirect positive impacts will occur during the operational phase of the proposed development on the rail infrastructure. 4.10.4.4 Utilities Impacts to utilities as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed development are discussed in the following sections:
Part VIII Report Page 257 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Electricity An assessment of the proposed development and the MV and LV ESB network within the vicinity of the proposed development revealed intersections and the predicted resultant impacts are provided below: • The entire MV network in the development area will be replaced. • New Transformers will be located on Dock Road in the vicinity of the existing petrol station and to the north east of the Transport Hub. • An existing Transformer on Abbey Road will be relocated to a new position. • All feeds from these transformers will be re-laid to all properties in the area. • Feeds will be supplied to new and existing public lighting. • All new network and supply feeds will be laid in parallel to the existing network so that supplies will be maintained during these works with only short outages to enable switch over from the old to the new network.
There is potential for brief duration negative impacts to electricity infrastructure during the construction stage particularly during the localised diversion works. No significant short-term impacts are predicted. Long term significant improvement will result from the additional capacity the works will provide to the area and the new cables will provide maintenance and reliability improvements.
Gas Network A review of the gas network has revealed intersections between the gas infrastructure and the proposed development.
The existing live gas main along the northern side of the R711 (Dock Road and Fountain Street) will not be impacted as part of the proposed development. The abandoned gas main within the proposed development site will be retained in its existing location and protected if required. A new spur from the existing gas main on Dock Road will be installed for future proofing while it will not be required immediately to serve the proposed development.
No significant impacts are predicted to the gas network due to the construction or operation of the proposed development.
Telecommunications Eir underground ducting has been identified within the development boundary. Underground Eir infrastructure will be retained and protected as required within the site, while the existing Eir infrastructure at the bridge into the NQ SDZ site will be demolished along with the bridge (at the western extent of the proposed development) and the existing Eir infrastructure at the proposed Bus Éireann bus overflow car park will be removed / made redundant. A new connection from existing Eir infrastructure will be provided (if required at detailed design stage) to serve the proposed development.
There will be no impact on the existing Virgin Media infrastructure along Dock Road to the north of the proposed development site. A new connection from the existing Virgin Media infrastructure will be provided (if required at detailed design stage) to serve the proposed development.
No significant impacts are predicted to the telecommunications network due to the construction or operation of the proposed development.
Part VIII Report Page 258 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Water Supply A comparison of the water services records and the proposed development has revealed intersections. The resultant impacts are:
Existing 100mm/150mm/225mm diameter water supply pipes along the southern side of the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street).
Proposed Works: existing watermains will be retained in their existing location and protected as required.
Existing watermain spurs off the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street) through the proposed development site, serving the NQ SDZ and the existing Bus Éireann Depot.
Proposed Works: There are existing watermain spurs (unknown size and type) currently serving the SDZ site, immediately south of the proposed Transport Hub. The existing connections will be made redundant as new watermain connections will be provided as part of the future development on the SDZ site to provide for future developments. There are also existing watermain spurs (unknown size & type) serving the Bus Éireann Depot off Fountain Street. These will be protected in place during construction.
Existing watermain pump house north east of the proposed development site.
Proposed Works: It is proposed that the existing pump house will be retained and protected in its existing location and will not be impacted by the proposed development.
Existing 125mm / 150mm diameter watermains on Ferry Lane and Abbey Road.
Proposed Works: There is an existing watermain spur (unknown size and type) currently serving the eastern portion of the development boundary in the former factory area (Dunlop Site off Ferry Lane). This existing watermain will be protected in place during construction.
A new branch off the existing watermain on Dock Road will be provided to serve the proposed Transport Hub building.
No significant impacts are predicted to the water supply as a result of the proposed development.
Foul sewage/ wastewater Points of intersection between the wastewater network and the proposed development have been identified and a discussion of the potential resultant impact is hereby presented:
Existing: 3 no. existing foul/combined sewer pipes (unknown size and type) pass through the western extents of the proposed development site. These foul/combined sewer networks are serving the Ard Rí Hotel (disused) and Sion Hill area, a portion of the Bishops Grove housing development, the Sion Row cottages on Dock Road and the Top Oil Service Station. The foul/combined sewer currently combines with surface water drainage from the west Dock Road area and crosses under the railway line and through the SDZ lands to the existing pumping station to discharge into the River Suir.
Proposed Works: provision for new 300mm gravity foul/combined sewer and separate surface water pipe will be constructed along the R711 (Dock Road) and the proposed
Part VIII Report Page 259 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
development access road (provision to assist future development) to divert and separate to the maximum extent possible the existing combined sewer networks along the route and to provide for future development along the Dock Road and also to serve the proposed train station building.
This new foul sewer along the R711 Dock Road and Transport Hub access road will pass through the Transport Hub development site where it will discharge to the existing 900mm diameter combined sewer network south of the Rockshire Junction which discharges to the existing Ferrybank pumping station.
It is proposed to provide for a future small foul pumping station and associated rising main to serve the Sion Row cottages (approx. 10 properties) to be located at a suitable location on the existing access road to the rear of the cottages. The rising main would discharge to a new header manhole at the head of the proposed gravity sewer along the Dock Road. This will divert to the existing pumping station.
Any foul drainage infrastructure from the Top Oil Service Station area will be redundant and will be abandoned/ removed under the proposed Transport Hub access road.
A new foul connection from the train station building to the proposed foul/combined sewer will be provided from the northern side of the proposed development. Toilet facilities for staff and the general public, consisting of male, female and accessible toilet facilities are to be provided at concourse level as part of the development.
Existing: There is an existing 900mm diameter combined sewer which passes through the proposed access to the proposed development off the Rockshire Road Junction, which discharges to the existing Ferrybank Pumping Station.
Proposed Works: The existing 900mm diameter combined sewer that passes through the site will remain in its current position and will be protected in place and will continue to discharge to the existing Ferrybank Pumping Station.
It is proposed to construct a new 900mm diameter combined sewer along the proposed greenway route (future provision to assist development), beneath underpass Structure S23 to the boundary of a site on which a future replacement wastewater pumping station (by others) may be developed. Refer to Planning Drawing WPIP-ROD-ENV- S2_AE-DR-EN-40320.
Future access requirements of Irish Water for maintenance and access to the combined sewer located under the S23 underpass will be agreed with Irish Water. Refer to Planning Drawing WPIP-ROD-ENV-S2_AE-DR-EN-40320 for location of foul sewer relative to underpass Structure S23.
Following the construction of such a future replacement wastewater pumping station and during the commissioning of such a facility, a new manhole would be required to be constructed to divert the flows from the existing 900mm combined sewer to the proposed combined sewer routed along the greenway, which will ultimately discharge to the future replacement wastewater pumping station. The section of the 900mm combined sewer, which passes under the railway line to the boundary of the SDZ lands, which would then become redundant following the decommissioning of the existing Ferrybank Pumping Station would be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of Irish Water.
Existing: There are existing foul drainage pipes currently serving the Bus Éireann depot site which discharge to the existing Ferrybank pumping station.
Part VIII Report Page 260 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Proposed Works: These existing foul drainage pipes will continue to drain the proposed reconfigured bus depot area and will be retained and protected in place during construction and operation. Construction of the proposed set down area will permit the separation of some of this existing network into a surface and foul network. Temporary over pumping to the existing Ferrybank pumping station may be required during the construction of the proposed surface water and combined sewer network along the proposed greenway.
Following the commissioning of any future wastewater pumping station, the foul drainage from the Bus Éireann Depot site will be connected to the 900mm diameter combined sewer pipe along the proposed greenway and thus diverted to the new facility. The surface drainage from the set down area would be directed to the new surface network under the proposed greenway to the new pumping station facility also.
Existing There is existing 150mm diameter combined sewer pipes located on the former factory site (Dunlop site) at the location of the proposed bus/ car parking area.
Proposed Works: The existing combined drainage networks located along the former factory site (Dunlop site) at the location of the proposed bus/ car parking area will be redundant following demolition of the buildings and will be abandoned/removed during the works.
Proposed Works to the existing combined sewers located along Abbey Road and Ferry Lane will include:
Local diversions of the existing combined sewer on Abbey Road are required to facilitate the construction of a retaining wall along the realigned Abbey Road.
Proposed works to the existing foul sewers located along the former factory site (Dunlop site) at the location of the proposed bus/ car parking area.
No significant impacts to the foul sewage/wastewater network are predicted due to the proposed development.
Surface Water A comparison of the surface water drainage records and the proposed development has revealed intersections. Impacts are as follows:
Existing: There are existing surface water pipes along the western end of the R711 (Dock Road) which currently combines with foul/combined sewer flows (from the Ard Rí Hotel, Sion Hill, Bishopsgrove area and the Sion Row Cottages on Dock Road and crosses under the railway line and under the proposed flood defence systems, through the SDZ lands to the River Suir.
Proposed Works: A new surface water pipeline (approximately 525mm diameter) will be constructed along the Dock Road and along the Transport Hub access road to provide connection from the Transport Hub building to the existing surface water drainage network and to facilitate R711 road and surface water network upgrades.
It is proposed that the existing combined outfall to the pumping station which collects the western Dock Road drainage network continues to drain via the current combined sewer pipe network under the railway line (close to the Dock Road Cottages) and through the SDZ lands be retained and remain operational in its current position and
Part VIII Report Page 261 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
protected during construction, until such time as replacement pumping station for the existing Ferrybank Pump Station is provided in the future.
Once a new pumping station is commissioned, the pipeline under the railway line will be redundant and can be abandoned/blanked off.
Existing: There are existing surface water pipes along the R711 (Dock Road & Fountain Street)
Proposed Works: These pipe networks will be retained and protected in place during construction and operation.
Existing: There is existing surface water drainage infrastructure serving the Top Oil service station on the R711 (Dock Road) within the development boundary.
Proposed Works: The surface water drainage infrastructure serving the existing service station on the Transport Hub site is to be made redundant as the existing Top Oil service station will be demolished as part of the proposed development.
Existing: There are existing surface water pipes located within the footprint of the proposed Transport Hub access road.
Proposed Works: These pipes will be diverted into the new surface water pipe along the Dock Road which will connect to the existing surface water drainage network which discharges to the 900mm combined sewer to the existing Ferrybank Pumping Station.
Existing: There are existing surface water drainage pipes located within the footprint of the proposed taxi/car parking area to the east of the new train station.
Proposed Works: These pipes will be retained and protected in place during construction and operation.
Existing: There are existing surface water drainage pipes currently serving the Bus Eireann depot site that discharges to the existing Ferrybank pumping station.
Proposed Works: These surface water pipes will continue to drain the proposed reconfigured bus depot area and will be retained and protected in place during construction and operation. The new surface water pipe on the proposed greenway will clash with the existing Bus Éireann surface water network to the Ferrybank pumping station, therefore temporary over pumping to the existing Ferrybank pumping station may be required during the construction of the proposed surface water and combined sewer network along the proposed greenway.
Existing: There are existing surface water pipes on the site of the proposed Bus Éireann overflow car park. These pipes currently serve the factory building on site.
Proposed Works: The surface water pipes serving the former factory buildings will be made redundant and a new surface water drainage network will be constructed to serve the proposed overflow carpark.
A new surface water drainage system will be constructed to serve the Transport Hub development and as a future provision to assist the development of the NQ SDZ lands. The drainage strategy for the proposed development proposes to:
Part VIII Report Page 262 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Provide a new surface water drainage pipe network along Dock Road and the Transport Hub Access road which will temporarily connect to the existing surface water drainage network east of the Transport Hub (which currently discharges to the 900mm diameter combined network and the existing Ferrybank pumping station). This surface water network will include: • Runoff from the proposed Transport Hub building, access bridges and northern platform which will be collected and discharged to the proposed surface water pipe along the Transport Hub access road; and • Runoff from the proposed southern platform which will be collected and conveyed either to the proposed Irish Rail trackside drainage or alternatively will be pumped to the surface water drainage network east of the Transport Hub via a rising main crossing under the railway line.
Provide a new surface water pipe (future provision to assist the development of the NQ SDZ lands and a possible future replacement for the existing Ferrybank pumping station) from the Dock Road (crossing under the existing 900mm diameter combined sewer on the Rockshire Junction) and routed through the Transport Hub car parking area and along the proposed greenway. This surface water pipe (circa 1050mm diameter (pipe size varies)) will be routed beneath the Greenway through underpass Structure S23 to the boundary of the site on which any future replacement pumping station (by others) would be constructed; • Runoff from the proposed Bus Éireann overflow car park will discharge via the existing surface water network to the existing outfall from Abbey Road to the Ferrybank pumping station.
No significant impacts are predicted to the surface water network as a result of the proposed development. 4.10.5 Mitigation Measures During construction, it will be ensured that all utilities will be repaired or replaced without unreasonable delay. The following mitigation measures have been proposed for the construction of the proposed development:
Prior to commencing construction works, the Contractor will be required to: • Prepare a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) of which the contents of which must be approved in advance by Waterford City and County Council; • Prepare and agree a Stakeholder Management Plan (SMP) between all stakeholders including a construction stage program and sequence of works. SMP will be required to be approved by WCCC prior to construction commencing on site. • Ensure that the Stakeholder Management Plan includes details of all service providers and stakeholders and how communication will be established and maintained throughout the construction stage to ensure no undue disruptions occur during the construction stage. • Prepare an Emergency Response Plan detailing the procedures to be undertaken in the event of a spill of chemical, fuel or other hazardous wastes, a fire, or non-compliance incident with any permit of license issues; and • Prepare a site plan showing the location of all surface water drainage lines and proposed discharge points to surface water. This will also include the location of all existing and proposed surface water protection measures, including best
Part VIII Report Page 263 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
practice measures such as monitoring points, sediment traps, settling basins, interceptors etc.
During operation, the impacts to material assets will be positive and therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. 4.10.6 Conclusion Majority of the lands required are in the ownership of WCCC apart from the Bus Depot. Bus Éireann have confirmed their support for the proposed development. No significant impacts will occur to land or property.
The proposed development intercepts various utility services along its route. Locations where intersections with significant trunk and distribution services occur along the route have been identified through consultation with the relevant service providers and slit trenching undertaken as part a Utility Survey. No significant effects. 4.10.7 Residual Impacts There are no significant residual impacts predicated. 4.10.8 Difficulties Encountered No difficulties were encountered.
Part VIII Report Page 264 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.11 Major Accidents, Interrelationships and Cumulative impacts 4.11.1 Introduction This section presents the vulnerability of the proposed development to risks of major accidents and/or disasters. In addition, the interrelationships between individual topics discussed in previous chapters of this Part VIII Planning Report have been considered in this section. The predicted interactions between these environmental topics are presented in Table 4.11.1. The cumulative impacts of the proposed development with those of previous development, current development in planning, and proposed future developments which are reasonably foreseeable have also been assessed and are described in this section. Potential transboundary impacts are also assessed. 4.11.2 Methodology 4.11.2.1 Vulnerability to Risks of Major Accidents and/or Disasters A major accident is defined as an event that threatens human health, welfare and/or the environment. Major accidents can result in the loss of life, permanent injury or long-lasting damage to an environmental receptor. This section comprises an assessment of the vulnerability of the proposed development to risks of major accidents and/or disasters.
A desktop study was undertaken to gain an understanding of the common region- specific accident and/or disaster events in order to predict the potential consequences of such major events in the context of the proposed development. There is currently no national guidance available in Ireland. The desktop study consulted Highways England’s (equivalent body to Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII)) guidance.
Only risks with a feasible source-pathway-receptor model were considered as part of the assessment. Risk events which do not have all three components were screened out from the assessment. Environmental receptors considered for this assessment included members of the local public, the built environment, the natural environment and the historic environment. For this assessment, a significant adverse effect is considered to mean the loss of life or permanent injury, and/or permanent or long- lasting damage to an environmental receptor. The significance of the effect takes the extent, severity, duration of harm, and the sensitivity of the receptor into account. 4.11.2.2 Interrelationships The determination of interrelationships was facilitated through an iterative design process that included meetings between designers and specialists where strong interrelationships exist. In addition, the process was informed by consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees and in particular with the Department of Arts, Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (National Monuments Service) and National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI). Where a potential exists for interaction between two or more environmental topics, the relevant specialists have taken these into account when making their assessment. Where necessary, mitigation measures have been proposed. 4.11.2.3 Cumulative Impacts The geographical boundary of 15km was selected for assessment of cumulative impacts comprises a viable study area holding potential for feasible cumulative impacts whilst excluding those areas which are non-viable because of issues such as topography and distance. Significant projects known to WCCC that are not yet within the planning system but have the potential to interact with the proposed development are also considered.
Part VIII Report Page 265 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Cumulative impacts are impacts that result from incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the proposed Transport Hub. Cumulative impacts were assessed by looking at all previous plans and projects, current plans and projects in planning and proposed future plans and projects within 15km of the proposed site location from 2008 to the present. There is too much uncertainty associated with development proposals beyond 5 years into the future and this Part VIII Planning Report can only be based on data that is readily available. This cumulative assessment has considered cumulative impacts that are: (a) Likely; (b) Significant; and (c) Relating to a future event which is reasonably foreseeable.
Data sources included the following: • Waterford City and County Council; • Kilkenny County Council; • Wexford County Council; • An Bord Pleanála website (planning searches); • Web search for major infrastructure projects in Waterford City and County and Co. Kilkenny; • Waterford City Development Plan 2013-2019; • Waterford County Development Plan 2011-2017; • Kilkenny County Development Plan 2014-2020; • Ferrybank Belview Local Area Plan 2009-2020 (including Amendment 1). 4.11.3 Major Accidents and/or Disasters It is considered that the four main areas of potential for major accidents and/or disasters relevant to the project are: • Proximity to Seveso Sites; • Weather Events (Extreme rain events, flooding); • Risks of Collisions/ Accidents involving Trains; and • Fire or Emergency.
These are discussed in the sections below.
Proximity to Seveso Sites There is one Seveso (Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH)) site in proximity to the proposed development. Trans Stock Warehousing and Cold Storage Ltd. is a chemical warehouse, located approximately 500m to the east of the proposed development. As the proposed development is within the 700m consultation radius for the site, the proposed development will be referred to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA). However, as the current uses within the 700m will be parking related, it is not expected that there will be a likely significant impact as a result of the proposed development.
Weather Events The proposed development is situated in close proximity to the River Suir Estuary. The character of the site is influenced by its proximity to the tidal waterbody, as such, the
Part VIII Report Page 266 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
most prevalent flood risk to the site is from extreme tidal inundation events, or tidal events in combination with extreme fluvial events.
A review of the previous flood risk assessments and the analysis carried out for this project as part of the Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment (SSFRA) has determined that the site is liable to flood in a 1 in 200 year combination tidal/fluvial event.
A hydraulic assessment of the potential impact of the proposed development has been completed using best practice hydraulic modelling techniques (See Appendix C Transport Hub Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment). The Design Height for flood protection measures along the Railway Corridor east of Plunkett Station and the future Transport Hub is a minimum top of wall level of 4.24mOD. This is based on: • 200 year tide + 2 year fluvial flood: 3.39mOD. • Climate Change: a 0.55m climate change allowance plus isostatic tilt factor. • 0.3m allowance for freeboard to account for modelling uncertainties and local wave effects.
The combination 1000 year tide and 2 year fluvial flood level including climate change is 4.183mOD. The proposed Design Flood level of 4.24mOD is above the 1000 year flood including climate change level which is a requirement for “Highly Vulnerable developments” as per the OPW Guidelines 2009.
The proposed flood defence measures consist of a reinforced concrete wall to 4.24mOD in conjunction with a below ground impermeable barrier to limit shallow groundwater movement. Additionally, an isolation structure is proposed at a suitable location east of the Transport Hub development to limit flood waters flowing along the railway into the Transport Hub site from the east.
Further details and the location of the proposed flood defence measures are outlined in Appendix C on Drawings: • “Flood Protection Measures East of Plunkett Station” [WPIP-ROD-GEN-S1_AE- DR-CD-300230-300234]; • “Flood Protection Measures East of Plunkett Station- Typical Cross Sections” [WPIP-ROD-GEN-S1_AE-DR-CD-300241-300243].
The proposed development has been designed with regard to flood resilient construction measures and materials. The proposed development, including flood defence structures, will be subject to a maintenance plan. The maintenance of the proposed development will be undertaken by the relevant competent authority. The proposed development does not affect any existing flood defence measures. In the case of a flood event exceeding the design event, tidal/fluvial flooding will be limited to the railway track and portions of the platforms. All egress routes from the platforms will be useable with refuge available within the proposed station building which is defended to a level of 9.35mOD.
The hydraulic assessment concluded that there will be an imperceptible effect on extreme flood levels upstream or downstream of the proposed development and will therefore not increase flood risk within the locality.
Part VIII Report Page 267 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Risks of Collisions/ Accidents involving Trains The Transport Hub has been designed to a number of design standards to include Iarnród Éireann standards to ensure design considered risks such as collisions, derailment and passenger safety, these design standards include: • I-PWY-1141 Engineering Requirement for Passenger Platforms and Barrow Paths; • I-PWY-1101 Requirements for Track and Structures Clearances; • CCE-B&F-SPN-001 Specification for Station Furniture.
I-PWY-1141 will ensure the relationship between the platforms and tracks are designed to safety standards so as to avoid accidents. The other standards will also be of assistance as the design progresses to ensure issues such as collisions, accidents are designed out. The rail line is segregated from other traffic and does not intersect with any roads or pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian footbridges are fully enclosed from the rail line, and therefore the risk of accidents from the eastern and western footbridge.
The design ensures the proposed development is resilient to major accidents and disasters includes the provision of warning systems to warn users of incidents in advance of hazards and the management and operation of the proposed development. The likelihood of the proposed development causing major accidents and/or disasters is negligible.
During construction, construction workers will be vulnerable to accidents while working on-site close to a rail line, however temporary possession of the line will ensure the risk of accidents involving trains does not pose a risk to construction workers. The contractor will be required to have CEMP, EOP, Method Statements, Safety Statement and safety plan in place which will include procedures to protect their employees while on site.
Fire or Emergency An Outline Fire Strategy and Emergency Response Plan has been prepared for the proposed development contained in Appendix F of this Part VIII Report. The guidance used for the design of the Transport Hub station is the “Guidance for Fire Precautions on Existing British Rail Surface Stations” previously published by British Rail in associated with London Fire Brigade. Through these guidelines, the minimum exit width requirements, and maximum travel distance limits have been ensured. Comprehensive fire detection and alarms will be provided as per IS 3218: 2013 and emergency escape lighting will also be provided. First aid and firefighting requirements have also been included while access for Fire Services has been ensured. A Fire Safety Certificate application will be undertaken as part of the detailed design stage. 4.11.4 Interrelationships Interrelationships are interactions between the impacts and proposed mitigation for one discipline, to either reduce or increase the impact on another associated discipline when considered in combination. An example of this would be the provision of noise barriers to mitigate the impacts of noise on the surrounding environment and in turn, these could have a negative impact in terms of landscape and visual impact. The impacts of the mitigation provided have been considered by all disciplines to ensure all the interactions have been fully considered within this Part VIII Planning Report. Table 4.11.1 shows a matrix of interactions likely to occur for the proposed Transport Hub. The boxes ticked in Table 4.11.1 indicate that a potential relationship exists between the two environmental topics.
Part VIII Report Page 268 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.11.1 Matrix Summarising Key Interrelationships
Receptor
Activity
TrafficandTransport Populationand HumanHealth Biodiversity Geology Soils, and Hydrogeology Hydrology Landscapeand Visual and Noise Vibration Quality Air and Climate Archaeologicaland HeritageCultural MaterialAssets
Traffic and Transport ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Population and
Human Health ✓ ✓ ✓
Biodiversity ✓ ✓ Soils, Geology and
Hydrogeology ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Hydrology ✓ ✓ ✓
Landscape and Visual ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Noise and Vibration ✓ ✓ ✓ Air Quality and
Climate ✓ ✓ ✓ Archaeological, Architectural and ✓ Cultural Heritage Material Assets ✓ ✓
4.11.4.1 Traffic and Transport Traffic and transport will interact and / or interrelate with the following:
Population and Human Health During construction phase, construction traffic for importing and exporting material to, and from the construction site is likely to interact with road users on the R711 Dock Road. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be prepared to ensure that the traffic environment and residents are not significantly impacted by the construction traffic volume. There will be no significant effect on population and human health during construction stage.
During operation phase, there will be a long-term positive effect on transport and travel due to improved accessibility and connectivity of the station together with public transport (bus services) and sustainable modes of travel (walking and cycling) in the immediate area, and across the wider city and region. Consequently, there will be a long-term positive effect on population and human health.
Biodiversity Construction activities including demolition of existing structures and piling could result in noise and vibration impacts which could cause disturbance to both aquatic and
Part VIII Report Page 269 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
terrestrial species including Otter. Movements of construction traffic to, and from the site have the potential to increase noise, air and vehicular emissions and also spread Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Knotweed within and outside the construction site. Routine practice and procedures to prevent pollution of the environment will apply to the construction site. An invasive species management plan will be prepared and implemented to prevent the spread of invasive species. Furthermore, a CEMP, EOP and C&D WDP will be developed and agreed with WCCC prior to construction. Impact to biodiversity will be short term in nature and will not be significant.
Hydrology A section of the proposed construction site is within an area indicated to be liable to flood in extreme tidal/fluvial events. There are no existing flood mitigation measures on site that would be interfered with during construction. Increased construction traffic will have a negligible effect on hydrological process.
During the operational phase the proposed development, including rail traffic will be protected with a flood defence system. All proposed transport infrastructure, access points to the proposed development and sections of existing rail line will be protected to a minimum standard of the 1 in 200 year tidal/fluvial flood event (including climate change), thereby having a net positive effect on transport services.
Landscape and Visual The increase in construction traffic, other plant, machinery and hoarding associated with the site will result in temporary negative visual impacts. The visual impacts are considered to be moderate and negative short-term effects for all receptors during construction.
During operation phase, the proposed development will create a higher quality landscape than is there at present and improve the traffic and transport infrastructure in the area.
Noise and Vibration During construction phase, an increase in traffic volumes is likely to cause an increase in noise levels in the area. However, this effect is short term in nature and will not be significant. The TII derived guidance limits will be followed as an appropriate target criterion for this assessment and relevant noise mitigation measures will be followed during construction.
During operation phase, the proposed development will improve transport infrastructure and services to the area, encourage the use of public and sustainable modes of travel which may, over time, reduce noise associated with vehicles.
Air Quality and Climate During construction, there is potential for impacts due to dust emissions from construction vehicles. A dust minimisation plan will be implemented on-site to control emissions of dust and PM10 /PM2.5. Such measures are in common use on all well- managed construction sites and will control emissions so that a significant effect does not occur.
During operation, as population increases in the city the provision of a Transport Hub with public transport services in the city centre together with walking and cycling infrastructure has the potential to have positive air and climate impacts.
Part VIII Report Page 270 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Climate standards, agreements, policies and strategies will be adhered to during the construction and operation phases and therefore, impacts on climate due to emissions from construction vehicles are not expected as a result of the proposed development.
Architectural Heritage During construction phase, the setting of the Abbey Church is likely to be slightly impacted by the volumes of construction traffic. However, the impact will be short term in nature and will not be significant.
The construction of a car park immediately northwest of two protected structures, Abbey Church and gate lodge will have a positive impact due to a slight improvement to the setting and buildings.
Material Assets During the construction phase, there will be improvements to utilities as part of the proposed development. There are not likely to be any significant impacts as a result of the proposed development.
The operational phase will result in benefits to land use and economic environment through improvements to the transport infrastructure across the City and region. During operation, there will be significant positive impacts on access to the City which may include benefits to the tourism amenities. There will also be associated benefits to local users, tourists and wider communities as a result of the greenway due to the provision improved connectivity with existing and new walking and cycling infrastructure across the City and region. 4.11.4.2 Population and Human Health Population and Human Health will interact and / or interrelate with the following:
Traffic and Transport The construction activities will be carried out off the existing road network. However, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be implemented for the works involving tie-in points and upgrades to the existing roads in order to maintain all traffic movements, and therefore impacts will not be significant on journey characteristics.
The operational phase of the proposed development will result in a small increase in traffic at Rockshire Road Junction, the traffic increase will be minimal and will not have significant effects on the operation of the road network. The improved accessibility of the proposed Transport Hub will improve the journey characteristics and journey amenity of those using public transport within the City and will also encourage people to use sustainable public transport over the private car due to improved connectivity between different transport modes.
The provision of pedestrian and cycle routes connecting to public transport and Waterford City centre will provide the opportunity for the surrounding populations, including tourists to access these locations by alternative non-motorised forms of transport.
Noise and Vibration Construction activities including demolition of existing structures and piling could result in noise and vibration impacts which could cause disturbance to sensitive receptors in the area. A CEMP, EOP, CD & WDP, TMP and SMP will be developed and agreed with WCCC prior to construction. These impacts will be short term in nature.
Part VIII Report Page 271 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Air Quality and Climate Best practice mitigation measures are proposed for the construction phase of the proposed development which will focus on the pro-active control of dust and other air pollutants to minimise generation of emissions at source. The mitigation measures that will be put in place during construction of the proposed development will ensure that the impact of the development complies with all EU ambient air quality legislative limit values which are based on the protection of human health. Therefore, the impact of construction of the proposed development is likely to be short-term and imperceptible with respect to human health.
During operation the impact pact on local air quality will not be significant in the long term. 4.11.4.3 Biodiversity Biodiversity will interact and / or interrelate with the following:
Population and Human Health There is a risk of Invasive Alien Species (IAS), namely Hymalayan knotweed and Japanese knotweed being spread at the site, and to a wider area during the construction phase of development through the movements of workers and machinery in and out of construction site. An invasive species management plan will be produced by the contractor and submitted to WCCC for approval to prevent the risk of spread of IAS.
Material Assets and Land The removal of IAS will remove the threat of spread to neighbouring properties. The presence of IAS can devalue and degrade properties and land. An invasive species management plan will be put in place at the site as outlined in the Biodiversity Section of this Part VIII Report. 4.11.4.4 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Soils, geology and hydrogeology will interact and/or interrelate with the following:
Traffic and Transport Peak construction traffic will occur during the importing and exporting of material. The construction period is over the 22-26month period and will generate up to 5,250 truck movements, which equates to less than 70 truck movements a day at the peak of excavation in the development. The number of daily truck movements will reduce following this peak for the remainder of the excavation phase. The haulage of these materials will generally take place outside normal peak traffic times on the surrounding road network, a CTMP will be required to be provided by the appointed contract and the local authority in advance of construction. Given the modest volume of construction traffic, this will not have a significant effect on traffic in proximity to the site. The contractor will be required to prepare a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and associated CTMP that maximises the safety of the workforce and the public and minimises traffic delays, disruption and maintain access to residences and businesses, and must meet the approval of the Waterford City & County Councils’ Roads Department.
As part of the Waterford City Public Infrastructure Project and the North Quays SDZ regeneration project, it is likely that a number of infrastructure projects will take place concurrently. Traffic management and phasing of works and transport/haulage routes
Part VIII Report Page 272 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
will be required to be co-ordinated by all stakeholder through the various construction stages in the area.
Population and Human Health The construction works will be carried out with the least feasible disturbance of the soils, minimising the amount of the excavated soil. During the construction phase, there is the potential for health impacts relating to excavation of potentially contaminated material through potential dermal contact and/or ingestion of contaminated material by construction workers. Normal good construction practice requires the use of personal protective equipment which will minimise the risk posed however specific mitigation measures will be required as outlined in Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology section of this Part VIII Planning Report.
There are no groundwater supplies at the site, and not are proposed as part of this development. Consequently, no hydrogeological impacts on human health are envisaged.
Biodiversity Deep excavations which encounter contaminated material may require dewatering of potentially contaminated surface water or groundwater, in the absence of control measures, discharge could travel to the River Suir. Should contaminated surface water or groundwater enter the River Suir the associated impact rating is assessed as Slight to Moderate Negative Impact. During the construction stage, standard construction and site management practices will be implemented by the contractor (e.g. CIRIA Guideline Document C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Site).
Hydrology Given that there is a buffer (minimum 25m) between the proposed development and the River Suir, no impact on the existing water quality of the river is predicted.
Connectivity between the subsoils and/or weathered bedrock beneath the site and the River Suir is known to exist (particularly at extreme high tides) and therefore there is potential for infiltrating rainwater to make contact with contaminated material either during or post construction and discharge to the River Suir. The majority of the proposed development will comprise concrete/hardstanding during operation, thus preventing infiltration. However, some portions of the site will remain permeable and will allow infiltration during and post-construction, as is currently the situation.
Landscape and Visual Construction activities will have an impact on the landscape of the site during the construction stage however the site is a disused site and is not of particular landscape importance. Any landscape and visual impacts due to construction activities will be short term and hoarding will be provided during construction to mitigate impacts.
Noise and Vibration Construction activities including earthworks activities and the movement of construction materials will have the potential for short term impacts on noise and vibration during construction. Earthworks machinery have been included in a noise model and mitigation measures have been included in the Noise and Vibration Section of this Part VIII Report.
Part VIII Report Page 273 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Air Quality and Climate The construction of the proposed development will involve construction activities and the transportation of materials. These activities will have the potential to create air quality impacts for the surrounding receptors. A project-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) will be prepared by the Contractor for the development in line with the Outline CEMP and EOP appended to this report (Refer to Appendix D, G, H).
Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Earthworks have the potential to impact on unidentified archaeological sites during excavation and construction. The zone of notification for the abbey and graveyard extends into the car park (currently occupied by factories). It is possible that previously unrecorded subsurface archaeological features, such as an enclosure, which are associated with the abbey may extend beyond the limits of the current graveyard beneath the current ground level. If present, groundworks associated with the proposed development may have a negative impact on any surviving remains. A programme of archaeological test trenching will be carried out in advance of construction within Ferry Lane and in the adjacent former factory complex.
Material Assets The potential risk of pollution to groundwater from routine run-off would have a resultant impact on water quality and therefore material assets. The proposed development will address the water supply network by providing surface water and foul infrastructure within the proposed development which will allow for the proposed development, maintain the existing drainage regime. The proposed development will also facilitate future development related to the North Quays SDZ area and an associated pumping station. 4.11.4.5 Hydrology Hydrology will interact and/or interrelate with the following:
Population and Human Health A site-specific flood risk assessment has been undertaken to inform the proposed development. The proposed development will provide flood defences across the southern boundary of the rail line. The impact associated with flooding during the operational stage is therefore deemed to be not significant.
Biodiversity Construction activities have the potential to pose a risk to watercourses, particularly if contaminated surface water was to enter the River Suir. Should contaminated surface water or groundwater enter the River Suir the associated impact rating is assessed as Slight to Moderate Negative Impact. During the construction stage, standard construction and site management practices will be implemented by the contractor (e.g. CIRIA Guideline Document C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Site). The existing drainage regime will be maintained.
Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Deep excavations which encounter contaminated material may require dewatering of potentially contaminated surface water or groundwater, in the absence of control measures, discharge could travel to the River Suir. Should contaminated surface water or groundwater enter the River Suir the associated impact rating is assessed as Slight to Moderate Negative Impact. During the construction stage, standard construction and site management practices will be implemented by the contractor
Part VIII Report Page 274 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
(e.g. CIRIA Guideline Document C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Site). 4.11.4.6 Landscape and Visual Landscape and Visual will interact and/or interrelate with the following:
Population and Human Health During the construction phase, several viewpoints will be affected due to the presence of construction machinery on site. Site hoarding will be erected to restrict views of the site. Hours of construction activity will also be restricted in accordance with local authority guidance.
During the operational phase, the main landscape impacts of the proposed development are associated with the presence of the proposed Station Building, proposed North Plaza including car and bus parking, greenway and associated public realm works. These works will create a higher quality landscape than is there at present. The landscape will be better organised as a result of the proposed development, which will now form a new northerly approach entrance into the city.
Biodiversity The removal of 19 no. trees and green area from the southern edge of Dock Road are not likely to impact on local biodiversity of the area.
The landscaping design of the proposed Transport Hub encourages the use of native tree species and has been developed in conjunction with the recommendations of the project ecologist. Tree planting will create habitats for local biodiversity while also having positive landscape effects.
Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage The majority of the study area has been subject to a level of development and disturbance in recent years and the landscape in a state of flux. Ground works associated with the proposed development may have a negative impact on any surviving remains associate with the proposed construction of a car park to the immediate northeast of the recorded abbey site and graveyard (RMP WA009-008 and WA009-008001).
Two sections of a wall associated with Ferry Road and Abbey Road will be removed as part of the proposed development, along with three sections of the stone wall directly associated with the railway. These are not deemed to be a landscape value but are a part of the architectural heritage resource.
A level crossing and the former access bridge onto the quays will be removed as part of the proposed development. These features are deemed to be of local heritage value and the removal of same will result in a moderate negative impact on the architectural heritage resource.
The construction of a car park will take place to the immediate northwest of Abbey Church (RPS 103) and gate lodge (RPS 105). These structures are currently screened by the existing road alignment and modern factories. The removal of the factories will open the landscape resulting in a slight improvement to the setting of the buildings.
Part VIII Report Page 275 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Material Assets During operation, landscape mitigation measures will enhance, rather than detract from, material assets and will attract visitors and likely future investment to the area which will improve the overall landscape and visual of the area. 4.11.4.7 Noise and Vibration Noise and Vibration will interact and / or interrelate with the following:
Population and Human Health Construction activities and machinery will interact with sensitive receptors during construction phase of the proposed development. During operation, noise from trains and additional traffic at Dock Road and within the site of proposed Transport Hub will interact with population. Impacts are not likely to be significant.
Biodiversity Construction activities including demolition of existing structures and piling could result in noise and vibration impacts which could cause disturbance to both aquatic and terrestrial species including Otter. Movements of construction traffic to, and from the site have the potential to increase noise, air and vehicular emissions. Routine practice and procedures to prevent pollution of the environment will apply to the construction site and reduce noise and vibration impacts. A CEMP, EOP and CWDP will be developed and agreed with WCCC prior to construction. Impact to biodiversity will be short term in nature and will not be significant.
Material Assets Noise and vibration levels during construction stage associated with construction machinery and construction traffic are likely to effect sensitive receptors. Measures to mitigate noise impacts on sensitive receptors include good communication between the contractor and adjacent business owners and residents during the construction phase. This is particularly pertinent when excessively loud activities are programmed in order to prevent undue disturbance during construction. A SMP, CEMP, EOP and CWDP will be developed by the contractor and agreed with WCCC prior to construction. 4.11.4.8 Air Quality and Climate Air Quality and Climate will interact and / or interrelate with the following:
Population and Human Health The pro-active control of fugitive dust will ensure the prevention of significant emissions, rather than an inefficient attempt to control them once they have been released. The main contractor will be responsible for the coordination, implementation and ongoing monitoring of the dust management plan. The key aspects of controlling dust are listed below. Full details of the dust management plan can be found in Appendix G. Construction vehicles, generators etc., may give rise to some CO2 and N2O emissions however due to short-term and temporary nature of these works, the impact on climate will not be significant.
The operational phase of the proposed development is predicted to have an imperceptible impact on ambient air quality and climate. The impact of the proposed development on national greenhouse gas emissions will be insignificant in terms of Ireland’s obligations under the EU 2020 Target.
Part VIII Report Page 276 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Emissions as a result of the proposed development are compliant with all National and EU ambient air quality limit values and, therefore, will not result in a significant impact on human health.
Biodiversity
The impact of NOX (i.e. NO and NO2) emissions resulting from the traffic associated with the proposed development at the Lower River Suir SAC was assessed. Based on 3 the low predicted increases in NOX (does not increase by 2 μg/m ). The impact of the development on the Lower River Suir SAC was not required to be assessed by the project ecologist.
Material Assets Measures to control the production of dust will be put in place by the contractor. Good communication between the contractor and business owners in the proximity of construction activities will facilitate on-going operations through the SMP. Full details of the dust management plan can be found in Appendix G. 4.11.4.9 Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Archaeological and Cultural Heritage will interact and/or interrelate with the following:
Population and Human Health The design of the Transport Hub has incorporated the modern design and also references to Waterford’s historic and cultural heritage.
The roof structure is a modern horizontal plinth structure with a circular lift feature sited at a kink in the canopy roof which is also in alignment with Reginald’s Tower on the south quays, and its form is a reference to this medieval monument. The access to the east bridge has a glazed lantern, that will be illuminated at night as a way finding beacon, and its inclusion is also a reference to the tradition of Waterford Crystal.
The proposed development is in proximity to the Abbey Church and Gate Lodge the improvements to this general area may increase the visibility of these structures to the population, tourists alike and result in increased visitor numbers to the sites. 4.11.4.10 Material Assets Material Assets will interact and/or interrelate with the following:
Population and Human Health The demolition of the petrol station on the Dock Road will result in the loss of a service station in the area. However, alternative service stations are operational within close proximity and across the city and is not expected to have a significant impact.
During operation, the proposed development will have positive impacts on Population and Human Health by relocating the existing Plunkett train station to the north quays, better integrating public transport within Waterford City. There will be positive impacts on tourism resources due to improved public transport and connection with the Waterford to New Ross greenway.
Hydrology The proposed development will address the water supply network by providing surface water and foul infrastructure within the proposed development which will allow for the future development of the north quays SDZ area and an associated pumping station.
Part VIII Report Page 277 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
4.11.5 Residual Impacts Residual impacts are considered as part of the respective environmental topics detailed in Section 4 of this Part VIII Report. 4.11.6 Cumulative impacts Cumulative effects are effects that result from incremental changes caused by other existing or approved projects together with the proposed development. Cumulative effects were assessed by looking at all previous development and current developments for which planning has been received.
This cumulative assessment has considered cumulative impacts that are: • Likely; • Significant; and • Relating to a future event which is reasonably foreseeable.
Plans and Projects which were identified and may be of significance are discussed in Tables 4.11.2 and Table 4.11.3 below.
Part VIII Report Page 278 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.11.2 Assessment of Projects in Respect of their Potential to Result in Cumulative/ in-combination Effects with the Proposed Development
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) Project Ireland 2040 - The National Planning Framework (NPF) is the Government’s high-level strategic plan for shaping the future growth Significant positive direct, National Planning and development of the country out to the year 2040. The NPF with the National Development Plan will also set the indirect, cumulative effects are Framework context for each of Ireland’s three regional assemblies to develop their Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies predicted to arise from the (Distance: 0 m) taking account of and co-ordinating local authority County and City Development Plans in a manner that will ensure combination of this plan with national, regional and local plans align. An SEA and AA have been completed to support the plan. the proposed development. Draft Southern Region Arising under the Local Government Reform Act 2014 the Southern Regional Assembly has assumed a number of Significant positive direct, Regional Spatial and new functions. Chief among these responsibilities is the preparation of a Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy indirect, cumulative effects are Economic Strategy (RSES) for the Southern Region. The Southern Regional Assembly prepared the draft Regional Spatial and Economic predicted to arise from the (SRRSES) Strategy (RSES) which has been submitted for public consultation in December 2018. combination of this plan with (Distance: 0 m) As part of the RSES, a Metropolitan Area Strategic Plan (MASP) for Waterford City has been developed and identified the proposed development. objectives for the City. To integrate land use with transportation, the Plan identifies that the development of a “concentric city including the north of the river - the North Quays and other key locations will be supported by integrated transport investment to create an attractive liveable city, connecting city and suburbs and building north—south linkages.” The proposed development is in line with the objective. The proposed development is also in line with the Regional Policy Objective RPO 155 which aims to promote sustainable mobility by supporting “Steady State Investment to maintain and upgrade the existing road, rail and bus networks to provide a quality service to transport users”. The existing Plunkett Train Station in Waterford City is isolated, with users often finding it difficult to access and exit the station due to a busy roundabout. The proposed development is consisted with the Southern RSES and will relocate the train station to the North Quays, providing better access to the railway line for the residents of Ferrybank and those residing in South Quays via a new footbridge as part of the SDZ development. Consequently, positive long-term cumulative impacts are predicted. Waterford City The Waterford City Development Plan 2013- 2019 sets out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable Significant positive direct, Development Plan 2013- development of the functional area of Waterford City, pursuant to section 9 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 indirect, cumulative effects are 2019 as amended (as amended). predicted to arise from the The purpose of the Plan is to inform the public, statutory authorities, service providers, developers and other interested combination of this plan with parties, of the policy framework that will guide development decisions within the city over the Plan period. the proposed development. The Plan provides: • A sustainable strategy to guide the location and pattern of development • Guidance on the phased release of housing land for development • A framework for infrastructural provision. • A framework for the conservation and protection of the heritage, built and natural, whilst facilitating appropriate use • A framework for the integration of development with the social, community and cultural requirements of the population • Guidance for the public and developers on development. An SEA , SFRA and AA have been completed to support the plan.
Part VIII Report Page 279 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) Waterford Heritage Plan The Heritage Plan sets out the priorities for Heritage in Waterford over the next 5 years and is a cross agency plan No likely significant effects are 2017-2022 with input from as wide a sector as possible who are involved in heritage projects, policy and work programmes across predicted to arise from the (Distance: 0 m) the city and county along with an extensive public consultation process. The plan also sets the framework for the combination of this plan with Heritage Council allocation that we apply for through the annual Heritage Plan Fund. the proposed development. The plan sets out a Vision to: To increase engagement with, and access to, all aspects of heritage in Waterford City and County and promote conservation, best practice, appreciation and enjoyment of our shared heritage. The Mission Statement for this plan is: To set out a strategic and co-ordinated approach for heritage in recognition of the benefits that heritage delivers; identifying a sense of place for Waterford, learning lessons from our past to plan for the future and added value for the development of Waterford City and County Waterford North Quays The North Quays Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) Planning Scheme was adopted by Waterford City and County Significant positive direct, Strategic Development Council in February 2018. The Planning Scheme sets out a Vision to include: indirect, cumulative effects are Zone Planning Scheme • To create a sustainable, compact extension to the City Centre that will serve a future population of 83,000 people predicted to arise from the 2018 combination of this plan with • A regeneration catalyst for the City and Region and the establishment of a sustainable modern city quarter. (Distance: 0 m) the proposed development • Creation of an integrated multi-modal transport hub designed to sustainably meet the access requirements of The City. • Building on the context and the riverside location of the site to create a high quality urban quarter as a natural extension of the City Centre The Vision is supported by a range of principal goals for the SDZ. Relevant to the Project is the Goals: • To provide a sustainable transport hub on the North Quays. • To provide for sustainable patterns of movement and access with priority for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport The Vision and Goals are supported by several ‘Specific Objectives’ relating to: Physical and Social Infrastructure. Planning Strategy, Architectural Strategy and Actions and Implementation objectives. The Project is consistent with the Vision, Goals and objectives of the Planning Scheme. Rock Stabilisation and Part VIII application has been approved for Rock Stabilisation and Rock Protection measures at Plunkett Railway Likely significant positive Rock Protection Station. The rockface running parallel to the railway line behind Plunkett station requires works to reduce the risk of effects are predicted to arise measures Plunkett global slope instability and of rockfalls which could affect railway infrastructure, Irish Rail personnel or the public. The from the combination of this Railway Station project comprises of approximately 380 metres of rockface remedial works consisting of a combination of rock face plan with the proposed (Distance: >10 m stabilisation measures (rock bolting and netting) and rock fall protection systems (metal rockfall barriers fixed to the development. approximately)) rockface or rockfall strengthened earth embankments). Other works which are anticipated to be required to facilitate the construction include the temporary removal of the existing signal cabin adjacent to the rockface (to be reinstated following the works), construction of a temporary access embankment from imported & site won material in front of sections of the rockface to enable rockface reprofiling, installation of a cut off drain at the top of the rockface and its
Part VIII Report Page 280 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) connection into the existing station drainage network, excavation of existing rockfall debris at the place of the proposed rockfall embankment and de-vegetation of the rock face where required. SDZ Access and Public Part VIII planning application was approved for the proposed SDZ road and access infrastructure improvement that The construction phase of this Road Infrastructure will consist of modifying and upgrading the existing R711 dual carriageway and Abbey Road to facilitate the connection Project and of the proposed (Distance: 0 m) of the existing and proposed future planned road, cycling and pedestrian network with a future planned internal road, development are likely to cycle and pedestrian network within the NQ SDZ. overlap. Connection into the SDZ is proposed through two bridge access points located at the eastern and western ends of the With the implementation of a SDZ respectively. The eastern access will connect into a realigned Abbey Road and the western access will connect TMP and OCEMP, the impacts to the R711 opposite the currently unoccupied ‘Ard Rí Hotel’ entrance. The site is set back from the existing Dock will be minimised, no significant Road and adjacent properties and is also set back from the River Suir. impacts are likely to arise from the combination of this project with the proposed development. Waterford Planning Land The Waterford Planning Land Use and Transportation Strategy (PLUTS) was adopted by Waterford and Kilkenny Significant positive direct, Use and Transportation Councils in 2004 in order to provide a vision and strategy for the development of Waterford City and Environs up to indirect, cumulative effects are Study 2004 the year 2020. The core provisions of PLUTS are: predicted to arise from the (Distance: 0 m) • Provision for a population increase of almost 30,000 people (or 57% population growth) in Waterford City and combination of this plan with Environs; the proposed development. • Investment needed for almost 12,800 new jobs or 46% growth; • Requirement for approximately 11,500 new dwellings transitioning predominantly to the north of the River Suir; • Significant retail expansion in the expanding City Centre; • A Downstream River Crossing to facilitate the extension of the Outer Ring Road northwards to the N25; • A new City Centre Bridge for pedestrians and cyclists to link the redeveloped North Quays with the existing City Centre; • Provision of a rail-passenger platform on the North Quays as part of a new Public Transport Interchange; • Development of a high-quality bus-based public transport system in the City supported by Park and Ride facilities located north and south of the River; Waterford has developed some of this infrsatructure since 2004, most notably the provision of the Waterford Bypass and up river crossing of the River Suir and the Outer Ring Road. No progress has been made in transitioning connectivity to the City Centre to the North side, however, or in addressing key weaknesses in public transport infrastructure and the development of the North Quays represents a key opportunity in these respects. The PLUTS may result in projects being developed adjacent to the Project. Transforming Waterford This document relates to costing relating to transportation proposals some of which are based on the PLUTS Strategy Significant positive direct, Integrated transport and strategic City infrastructure, necessary for the future development of the City. They are consistent with the indirect, cumulative effects are proposals Planning Land Use and Transportation Strategy for the City and with Regional and National Planning Policies. predicted to arise from the
Part VIII Report Page 281 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) (Distance: 0 m) The proposed transportation components include: combination of this plan with • City centre – Enabling City Growth the proposed development. • City Centre Improvement – Building On The Essential Character • Sustainable Transport Corridor/Regional Greenway • Abbey Road Improvement Works • Dock Road Improvement Works • Integrated Transport Hub – Redefining Urban Transport Modal Integration A recent review of the river crossing needs of the City for further expansion has indicated that another city centre crossing of the river for general/public transport traffic will be necessary in the medium term but that there is sufficient capacity in the existing network for the anticipated development of the North Quays area. Provision is required however to tie this development in to such a future city centre crossing and this provision will form part of the Council’s immediate infrastructure proposals. Some of the above components originate from PLUTS recommendations. The PLUTS may result in projects being developed adjacent to the Project. Port of Waterford Port of Waterford (PoW) is the fifth largest of the State owned commercial ports in terms of total tonnage handled. The No significant effects predicted Masterplan 2020-2044 Vision of the Masterplan is “to be the preferrred cargo gateway for the South East region” throughh the provison of to arise from the combination of (Distance: 4.4 km) infrastrutcure and services to enable trade and economic development in the region. The Port of Waterford Company this plan with the proposed is responsible for the management and development of the Port. The Masterplan provides the framework to allow the development. PoW bring forward essential projects for planning and consent purposes as required. The Masterplan concentrates on the physical developments required to efficiently handle the future traffic demands. It also adresses the future requirements for land areas, improvements to road and rail access. Belview Port has full rail access with four rail sidings into the container terminal, allowing contrainers to be loaded directly to/ from ships from rail or road transport. There was a twice weekly rail service connecting the North West Ireland regioin in/ out of PoW chartererd by DFDS and operated by Irish Rail. This operation is reported as currently being suspended. The Masterplan states “it is a core objective of the Port of Waterford to get this connection to the West/ North-West back in action.” An SEA, AA and SFRA have been completed to support the plan. the Masterplan is currently at public consultation stage. Port of Waterford The Port’s corporate plan covers the period 2017 to 2021. It states the Port’s vision to be the preferred cargo gateway No significant effects predicted Corporate Plan 2017- for the South East Region and its mission to provide infrastructure and services to enable trade and economic to arise from the combination of 2021 development in the region. The plan outlines the Port’s objectives for achieving this vision and mission and groups this plan with the proposed (Distance: 4.4 km) these as follows: development. • Commercial development: container traffic; bulk; new activity; parking and rental income; cruise. • Infrastructure: masterplan; port zone development; North Quays SDZ; Belview Quays; environmental (appropriate environmental certification by 2019; opportunities for alternative power generation also being evaluated and investment in energy reduction technologies and practices being implemented). • People: Health & Safety; employees; community; pension.
Part VIII Report Page 282 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) • Systems: information technology; security; environmental/Health & Safety; governance and control. The plan states that the Port Company will spend up to €5 million on capital projects over the period. Port of Waterford’s centre of operation is at Belview Port, 5 km downriver from Waterford City. The Port Company has strategic plans and licences for maintaining river depth from Belview Port to the sea for port traffic. The dredging of this stretch of water is covered by EPA Licence. The Port of Waterford Corporate Plan 2017-2021 refers to proposed Masterplan for the Port which, at a high level, will set out the main infrastructural works envisaged to facilitate trade in the Region for the next 25 years. Implicit in this Masterplan will be maintaining water depths for cruise (Tourist) and commercial river traffic into Belview Port. Some small cruise (tourist) vessels still utilise the North Quays and water depth is sufficient to enable berthing of these cruise ships. The Port of Waterford holds a dredging licence issued by the EPA for dredging works on the Frank Cassin Wharf, North Wharf, Forde Wharf and Harbourmasters Pontoon. Hence, depth management work can be carried out if and as required in these areas. From consultations with the Port of Waterford Company there are no current plans to carry out dredging or ploughing works upstream of Belview Port at this time. Port of Waterford Waste The Port’s waste management plan outlines the Port’s policies and procedures in relation to the management of waste. There are no significant effects Management Plan 2017 The plan describes the Port’s current facilities in terms of waste management and also how the adequacy of these predicted to arise from the (Distance: 4.4 km) facilities will be reviewed. In the context of the plan, “waste” includes waste originating both from ships using the Port combination of this plan and and from the Port itself. Procedures for the handling of different types of waste (e.g. general waste, galley waste, the proposed development. international catering waste, cargo waste, hazardous waste and electrical waste) are described. Procedures for how incoming ships must notify the Port regarding their waste reception needs and how Port users may lodge complaints about waste management are also included. Port of Waterford A permit was granted with conditions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the dumping at sea of dredged No significant effects predicted Company – Dumping at material arising from maintenance dredging by Port of Waterford Company at a number of discrete locations in the to arise from the combination of Sea / Dredging (Granted Suir Estuary/Waterford Harbour over an 8-year timeframe (2014-2021). This disposal site has been used in the past this plan with the proposed 08/05/2014 under EPA by Waterford Port Company and licensed previously (1996, 1999-2002, 2003-2007 and 2008-2012) to dispose dredge development. Licence No. S0012-02) material excavated from Waterford Port. A Natura Impact Statement (NIS) was prepared as part of the application. (Distance: 4.4 km) The NIS concluded that the increase in suspended solids and associated sedimentation will be very limited both in concentration, duration and spatial extent and will be comparable to naturally occurring conditions in the estuary. Therefore, no impact on protected shoreline habitats (salt marshes, Salicornia beds, mudflats, sandflats, shallow inlets and bays) or reef habitat is anticipated. The NIS further concluded that migrating fish will not be impeded by the temporary increases in suspended sediments as Salmon, shad and lampreys are adapted to migrate through turbid estuarine waters and in most cases will bypass the affected areas. Otter are similarly adapted to turbid estuarine environments and are limited to foraging within 80 m of the shore. Grey seals are mobile species and will vacate an area that is temporarily disturbed, therefore the impact on this qualifying interest is negligible. The NIS concludes as follows: “The proposed dredging and disposal operations will not negatively impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites, their qualifying interests or marine mammals.” Port of Waterford The Port of Waterford Company is seeking a Dumping at Sea Permit from the Environmental Protection Agency to No significant effects predicted Company – Dumping at dispose of the dredged material in an approved disposal site located c. 2.5km west of Hook Head and c. 2.8km to arise from the combination of Sea / Dredging (Applied southeast of Dunmore East within the Port’s limits. The Port of Waterford’s current dredging and disposal at sea regime
Part VIII Report Page 283 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) 8/12/2017 under EPA is licensed by Permit No. S0012-02 and covers the period 2014 to 2021. The disposal site is currently licensed for the this plan with the proposed Licence No. S0012-03) 2014-2021 campaign and it has also been licensed and used in the past (1996, 1999-2002, 2003-2007, 2008-2012) development. (Distance: 4.4 km) to dispose dredge material excavated from Waterford Port. This new license is being sought within the active license period as two areas of dredging require extending for navigational safety and some minor increase in disposal tonnages are requested. A Natura Impact Statement (NIS) was prepared as part of the application. The Southern Waste The Southern Waste Management Plan 2015-2021 is a statutory planning document whose objective is to set out a No significant effects predicted Management Plan 2015- framework for the prevention and management of wastes for the Southern region. to arise from the combination of 2021 The overarching strategic objectives of the SRWMP as presented in June / July of 2014 were: this plan with the proposed development. (Distance: 0 m) 1. Policy & Legislation The Region will implement EU and national waste and related environmental policy, legislation, guidance and codes of practice to improve management of material resources and wastes. 2. Prevention Natura Impact Report: Southern Region Waste Management Plan MDR0998RP0015F02 9 Prioritise waste prevention through behavioural change activities to decouple economic growth and resource use. 3. Resource Efficiency. The Region will encourage the transition from a waste management economy to a green circular economy to enhance employment and increase the value, recovery and recirculation of resources. 4. Coordination Coordinate the activities of the Regions and to work with relevant stakeholder to ensure the effective implementation of objectives. 5. Infrastructure Planning. The Region will promote sustainable waste management treatment in keeping with the waste hierarchy and the move towards a circular economy and greater self sufficiency. 6. Enforcement & Regulations. The Region, will implement a consistent and coordinated system for the regulation and enforcement of waste activities in cooperation with other environmental regulators and enforcement bodies 7. Protection Apply the relevant environmental and planning legislation to waste activities to protect and reduce impacts on the environment, in particular European Sites, and human health from the adverse impact of waste generated. 8. Other Wastes. The Region will establish policy measures for other waste streams not subject to EU and national waste management performance targets. An SEA, AA and SFRA have been completed to support the plan. Suir River Basin Flood The purpose of the Plan is to set out the strategy, including a set of proposed measures, for the cost-effective and No significant effects predicted Risk Management Plan sustainable, long-term management of flood risk in the River Basin, including the areas where the flood risk has been to arise from the combination of (Distance: 0 m) determined as being potentially significant. This Plan, which is for the period of 2018-2021, is one of 29 Plans being this plan with the proposed published; each setting out the feasible range of flood risk management measures proposed for their respective River development. Basins. The preparation of these Plans addresses Ireland's obligations under the 2007 EU 'Floods' Directive (EU, 20074). The Plan includes feasible measures developed through a range of programmes and policy initiatives including: • Non-structural flood risk prevention and preparedness measures that are applicable nationally, aimed at reducing the impacts of flooding, that have been and are being developed to implement Government policy on flood risk management (OPW, 2004).
Part VIII Report Page 284 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) • Structural flood protection measures proposed for communities at significant flood risk, aimed at reducing the likelihood and/or degree of flooding, identified through the National Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM) Programme. The CFRAM Programme has examined the flood risk, and possible measures to address the risk, in 300 communities throughout the country at potentially significant flood risk. These communities were identified through the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, which was a national screening assessment of flood risk. The communities identified through the PFRA process as being at potentially significant flood risk in the Suir River Basin, along with the sources of flood risk that were deemed to be significant for each community. A set of flood maps, indicating the areas prone to flooding, has been developed and published for each of the communities. The Plan builds on and supplements the national programme of flood protection works completed previously, that are under design and construction at this time or that have been set out through other projects or plans, and the ongoing maintenance of existing drainage and flood relief schemes. A Strategic Environmental Assessment, and an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive where appropriate, have been undertaken as part of the preparation of, and have been published with, the Plan. Ferrybank Local Area The Ferrybank- Belview Local Area Plan (LAP) 2017 – 2023 outlines a strategy for the proper planning and sustainable Significant positive direct, Plan (LAP) 2017 – 2023 development of an area of land stretching from Grannagh to Belview and from the River Suir to the line of the Waterford indirect, cumulative effects are (Distance: <10m) bypass, adjacent to the proposed Transport Hub. The Ferrybank LAP supports the recommendation of the PLUTS for predicted to arise from the the “provision of a rail-passenger platform on the North Quays as part of a new Public Transport Interchange”. The combination of this plan with proposed development is in line with the Ferrybank LAP by relocating the existing Plunkett Railway Station to the the proposed development. North Quays accommodating the potential population increase in the area. The plan screened out for Appropriate Assessment. Waterford-New Ross The proposed development of the disused railway line on lands which extend from within Waterford City and County Positive long-term effects are Greenway Council’s administrative boundary through to Rosbercon, New Ross as a cycle and pedestrian route. The route which predicted. The proposed (Distance: <10m) is 22km in length will begin at Abbey Road, Ferrybank, Waterford and will follow the disused line through or in close development will integrate with proximity to the townlands of Abbeylands, Rathculliheen, Gorteens, Drumdowney Lower, Rathpatrick, Luffany, the proposed Waterford – New Curraghmore, Ballyrowragh, Scartnamoe, Rathinure, Rochestown, Aylwardstown, Carrickcloney, Ballyverneen, Ross Greenway, providing Forestalstown, Shanbogh Upper and Raheen (Rosbercon), Co. Kilkenny. The Greenway will be integrated into the better public transportation design of the Project and will utilise the proposed NQ SDZ and sustainable transport bridge once operational. The network in Waterford City. No project screened out for Appropriate Assessment. other significant in-combination effects are predicted. Bilberry to Waterford Part 8 application to carry out works at existing greenway car park at Bilberry, to the Clock Tower on Merchants Quay. Positive long-term effects are City Centre Greenway • Construction of an approximate 4000mm wide cycle and pedestrian corridor from the Greenway car park at predicted. No other significant Link Bilberry, along Bilberry Road, Grattan Quay and Merchants Quay, to the proposed South Quay Plaza in-combination effects are predicted. (Distance: 300m approx.) • Road widening along Bilberry Road, erection of railings and fences and provision of accommodation works where necessary for adjoining landowners • Provision of 2 No. 4000 mm wide boardwalks at the eastern end of Bilberry Road
Part VIII Report Page 285 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) • Upgrade the existing facilities on Grattan Quay and Merchants Quay, and upgrade the existing facilities in the car parks in Merchants Quay The proposed development has undergone Appropriate Assessment Screening under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and the Planning Authority has determined that a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is not required in this instance. In addition, the proposal has also undergone screening for Environmental Impact Assessment under the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU (and the relevant provisions of the Planning and Development Act, as amended), and the Planning Authority has determined that there will be no likelihood of significant effects on the environment arising from the proposed development and therefore, an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required. Development of a Part 8 application for the construction of a footway at Knockanduff Road L4059, Tramore, Co. Waterford. There are no significant effects footway at Knockenduff, The proposed development will consist of: predicted to arise from the Tramore, Co. Waterford combination of this footway and • Construction of a new footway, 3m in width, to serve both pedestrians and cyclists on the Knockanduff Road L4059. the proposed development. (Distance: 11.5 km) This new footpath will serve the new residential development of Cluain Lárach Knockanduff up as far as the Coast Road R675. This footway will be illuminated with new public street lighting and provide a safe passage for pedestrians. • In order to ensure that a 3m wide footway and 6m wide road are achieved, the existing ditch on either side of the L4059 Knockanduff Road will need to be cut back/ removed. It is proposed to replace the existing ditch outside Parklands with a new wall measuring 1.2m in height and capped. A small section of the existing road ditch on the Ballycarnane Woods side will have to be removed to enable a 6m wide roadway. Existing mature trees will be avoided and saved where possible. • The junction onto the Coast Road R675 will be re- engineered to improve pedestrian safety. A new controlled pedestrian crossing will be provided across the Coast Road. The Junction between the L4059 and R675 will have footpath widening works completed to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. In accordance with Section 250 of SI 476/2011, Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, 2011, the Council has carried out an appropriate assessment screening and has determined that an Appropriate Assessment is not required. Renovation of Mount Part 8 application to carry out works at Mount Congreve House and Gardens, Co. Waterford, which is a protected There are no significant effects Congreve House & structure (WA 7500 35). The development will consist of: predicted to arise from the Gardens • Renovation and up-grade of Mount Congreve House to provide for access by the public, host events, visitor combination of this Project and (Distance: 13.6 km) accommodation and offices. Works will include installation of a lift, universal access, toilets, kitchen, fire safety the proposed development. improvements and installation of a bio-energy heating system. • Development of the farm yard to incorporate a café; offices, meeting facilities, craft yard; children’s play area and a retail unit. • Other works will include the development of a car park, waste water treatment facility, creation of a wetland garden, upgrade of existing greenhouse, upgrade of apartments and cottages to provide high quality tourist accommodation, enhancements to the grounds and paths and development of a children’s playground.
Part VIII Report Page 286 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) • Improvements to sight lines on the L4411 by setting back the estate wall at the entrance just west of the main entrance into the House and Gardens. The second entrance will be used for traffic entering the gardens and the existing main entrance will be used for traffic exiting the gardens. • The works materially effect the character of Congreve House and demense, WA 7500 35, a protected structure. The proposed development has undergone Appropriate Assessment Screening under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended, and the Planning Authority has determined that a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is not required in this instance. In addition, the proposal has also undergone screening for Environmental Impact Assessment under the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU (and the relevant provisions of the Planning and Development Act, as amended), and the Planning Authority has determined that there will be no likelihood of significant effects on the environment arising from the proposed development and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required. Kilbarry Development An application for a ten-year permission for a solar energy park on a site of approximately 3.88 hectares in Lacken, No significant effects predicted Ltd. Kilbarry. The development consists of the following: solar photovoltaic panels on ground mounted steel frames; to arise from the combination of (Distance: 4km) electrical substation and associated compound with palisade fence; 1 no. inverter transformer station; 1 no. battery this project with the proposed storage container, underground power cables and ducts; boundary security fence; internal access tracks and development. associated drainage infrastructure; access road and associated drainage infrastructure; new access to the Lacken Road; CCTV cameras; temporary construction compound; and all associated site services and works. This application is associated with an overall residential masterplan which has been subject to planning consent pursuant to Planning Ref. 18/734, 18/735, 17/895 & 17/896. An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) and a Natura Impact Statement (NIS) accompanies this application. The NIS concludes: whilst it has been acknowledged that there is the potential for the project to have significant indirect impacts on two European sites, with the implementation of the detailed mitigation measures identified in this NIS, it is concluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposed development shall not result in a significant impact to any European sites. Cone Pine Properties An application for permission for a strategic housing development on a c. 10.1225ha sire adjacent to the existing No significant effects predicted Limited Paddocks residential development on the Williamstown Road, Grantstown, County Waterford. The development to arise from the combination of (Distance: 3.9km) consists of 324 no. residential units, provision of a creche/childcare facility of 323m2, some 657 no. car parking spaces. this project with the proposed Additionally, the development includes site entrance and access avenue upgrades to include new signage, pedestrian development. and cycle way improvements, and provision of on-site landscaping, open space, lighting, services and internal access arrangements, provision of all associated works. An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) and Natural Impact Statement (NIS) have been prepared in respect of the proposed development. Gracedieu LIHAF Public Infrastructure: An access road. Housing Delivery: Located in the North West Suburbs of Waterford City, it is No significant effects predicted Scheme proposed to develop roads infrastructure to support the initial development of 200 housing units. The roads to arise from the combination of (Distance: 1.7 km) infrastructure will serve a site of approx. 7.4 ha, part of which is in WCCC / HSCA ownership and part of which is this project with the proposed privately owned. The proposal is to construct an access road along with roundabouts at the northern and southern development. end of the Phase 1 road proposal. Kilbarry LIHAF Scheme Public Infrastructure: A ring and distributor road. Housing Delivery: This proposal relates to the provision of a distributor No significant effects predicted (Distance: 3.5 km) road network to open up a landbank in the Lacken/Kilbarry area of Waterford City. This involves opening up of a large to arise from the combination of tract of residentially zoned lands consisting of c. 105 ha. The land is zoned as High Density and Low Density housing
Part VIII Report Page 287 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) with mixed use, open space and community facilities. It will provide community facilities, amenity spaces, parkland this project with the proposed and neighbourhood services along with the development potential of 450 housing units by 2021 with a longer-term development. potential of 1500 units. Ferrybank LIHAF Public Infrastructure: Provision of community and amenity facilities.Housing Delivery: This proposal relates to the No significant effects predicted Scheme provision of a Neighbourhood Park at Ferrybank in South Kilkenny. This is a joint venture between Kilkenny County to arise from the combination of (Distance: 14 m) Council and Waterford City & County Council. Housing supply in this area has been almost stagnant since mid-2000. this project with the proposed The provision of a park will increase the attractiveness of the area and lead to the activation of housing supply. In development. addition, Ferrybank District shopping centre is located across the Belmount Road from the proposed park. This is constructed, but largely vacant apart from Kilkenny County Council Area office and library. This will support the provision of 200 housing units immediately. Michael Doyle Civil Construction of 42 No. houses consisting of 1 No. 2-storey 4-bed detached house, 11 No. 2-storey split-level 4-bed There are no significant effects Engineering Ltd - detached houses and 30 No. 2-storey split-level 3-bed semi-detached houses along with connections to public drains predicted to arise from the Development at Gibbet and all associated site works at Gibbet Hill, Quarry Road, Waterford. combination of this Hill, Quarry Road, development with the Project. Waterford (Distance: 1.6 km) Nevin Construction - Demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of 9 No. dwelling houses comprising 6 No. semi-detached 3-storey No significant effects predicted Development at Waters 4-bed units, 2 No. semi-detached 2-storey 3-bed units and 1 No. detached 2-storey 3-bed unit together with a 2 m to arise from the combination of Gate, Bilberry, Waterford high boundary wall/railing and all associated site works. A Natura Impact Statement (NIS) was submitted with the this project with the proposed (Distance: 1.5 km) application development. McInerney Homes Ltd – Construction of 42 dwelling houses and associated boundary treatments, drainage connections and associated site No significant effects predicted Housing Development works at Bowe’s Land, Gibbethill Quarry Road, on the south side of the River Suir. to arise from the combination of (Distance: 1.7 km) this project with the proposed development. Michael Hanrahan – Construction of 36 dwelling houses with associated site developments and services installation at Gracedieu There are no significant effects Housing Development Road/Quarry Road/Billberry Road, on the south side of the River Suir. predicted to arise from the (Distance: 1.2 km) combination of this development with the Project. Dermot Fitzpatrick – Construction of 97 dwelling units, a two storey crèche, change of use of Prospect Lodge (protected structure) from No significant effects predicted Housing Development residential to office use and four bed dwelling including demolitions, landscaping, boundary treatment, outfall sewers to arise from the combination of (Distance: 1 km) to Billberry Road and River Suir and vehicular access from Gracedieu Road on the south side of the River Suir. this project with the proposed development. ESB Substation ESB Waterford 110 kV station at Gracedieu Road, Waterford, on the south side of the River Suir. No significant effects predicted Development to arise from the combination of (Distance: 570m) this project with the proposed development.
Part VIII Report Page 288 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) Noel Frisby Construction Construction of 18 houses including associated works at Carrickphierish, Gracedieu, Waterford, on the south side of No significant effects predicted Ltd – Housing the River Suir. to arise from the combination of Development this project with the proposed (Distance: 3 km) development. Seed Technology Ltd – Construction of a seed processing and storage building (4,836m2), fertilizer bagging and storage building (6,094m2), No significant effects predicted Seed Processing 2 No. external dust extraction silos, single-storey office building and car parking (156m2), weighbridge, external to arise from the combination of Development fertilizer pallet storage yard, 4No. external fire-water storage tanks, storm water attenuation pond, on site borewell and this project with the proposed (Distance: 4.4 km) associated pump house, wastewater treatment system and percolation area, extension of existing site access road, development. infilling of low lying portion of site with excavated material from the development, signage, boundary fencing and landscaping together with all associated site development works at Gorteens, 5.12km east of the Draft Planning Scheme. Glanbia Ingredients Amendments to a previous permission for a dairy processing facility including a reduction in overall floor space, a No significant effects predicted Ireland DAC Dairy reduction in the height of the drier tower and other minor changes to the buildings at Gorteens, Belview, on the north to arise from the combination of processing facility side of the River Suir. this project with the proposed (Distance: 3.2 km) development. Glanbia Ingredients Extension to existing milk powder processing plant including a new warehouse, a five-storey production building, No significant effects predicted Ireland DAC extension to evaporating building, new boiler buildings, new dairy intake building and various other extensions at Gorteens, to arise from the combination of existing Dairy Belview, on the north side of the River Suir. this project with the proposed processing facility development. (Distance: 3.2 km) Glanbia Ingredients Extension to existing milk powder processing plant including alternations to existing roads, drainage, services, a new No significant effects predicted Ireland DAC extension to 97 space car park and associated landscaping and lighting at Gorteens, Belview, on the north side of the River Suir. to arise from the combination of existing milk powder this project with the proposed processing plant development. (Distance: 3.2 km) Target Fertilisers Ltd – Construction of an Industrial Warehouse Building for the storage and bagging of fertiliser products (this Planning No significant effects predicted Industrial Development Application will supersede a previous Application for a similar building on this site which was Granted Permission to arise from the combination of (Distance: 4.6 km) under Planning Reg. No.15/263) together with alterations to site boundaries including new boundary wall and fencing this project with the proposed and all associated site works and ancillary services at Gorteens, Slieverue, Waterford, on the north side of the River development. Suir. The project screened out for Appropriate Assessment. Glanway Ltd Waste Permission for an extension of use including additional processing and an increase in throughput up to 95,000 tonnes No significant effects predicted Treatment Facility per annum of municipal waste material at waste facility. The Applicant also seeks permission for a prefabricated to arise from the combination of (Distance: 4 km) building with an office, canteen and toilet; alterations to site works and retention of existing doors on the north elevation this project with the proposed of Store No.5 (P11/397) and on the east elevation of Store No. 6 (P13/585) at Belview Port, Gorteen. The project development. screened out for Appropriate Assessment.
Part VIII Report Page 289 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) Jackie Greene Permission for construction of 318 no. residential units (170 no. houses, 148 apartments/maisonettes) and all No significant effects predicted Construction Ltd. – associated site works (ref no. 302493) at Knockboy, Waterford. An Bord Pleanála made a decision on 31/10/2018 that to arise from the combination of Strategic Housing it requires further consideration/amendment and a submission. The project is located 4.3km south east of the proposed this project with the proposed Development development. development. (Distance 4.3km)
Kilbarry Developments An application was granted by WCCC for a permission for the construction of a residential development (ref no. 18735) No significant effects predicted Ltd – Housing at Kilbarry, Co. Waterford. The Project will comprise construction of 90 no. dwellings consisting of: 24 no. apartments to arise from the combination of Development in 3 no. 2 storey blocks containing 4 no. 2-bed and 4 no. 1-bed apartments in each block; 46 no. 2 storey 3-bed semi- this project with the proposed (Distance: 4.4km) detached dwellings; 20 no. 2 story 4-bed semi-detached dwellings; and all associated works. The application is development. accompanied by An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) and Natura Impact Statement (NIS). The NIS concludes: whilst it has been acknowledged that there is the potential for the project to have significant indirect impacts on two European sites, with the implementation of the detailed mitigation measures identified in this NIS, it is concluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposed development shall not result in a significant impact to any European sites. Glanway Ltd. Application (ref no. 19328) was submitted for permission for a change of use at units 3 and 4 Belview Port. It is intended No significant effects predicted (Distance: 4.3km) to change its current warehousing use to allow for the acceptance and processing of non-hazardous waste into Solid to arise from the combination of Recovered Fuel (SRF) and for the composting of organic fines. The application will allow for acceptance and this project with the proposed processing of up to 98,500 tonnes per annum at the facility. The application is accompanied by An Environmental development. Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) and Natura Impact Statement (NIS). The Project is located 4.3km east of the proposed development. Waterford Scrap Metal Application for extension of duration planning application 13/418 - Waste Transfer Facility consisting of storage bays, No significant effects predicted Ltd quarantine area, inspection area, together with two-storey portacabin with offices and toilet facilities, boundary to arise from the combination of (Distance: 9km) treatment and connections to existing services and associated site works. The Project is located 9km south east of this project with the proposed the proposed development. development. Noel Frisby Construction Application (ref no. 18716) was submitted for the construction of a Phase 1 (84 units) of their proposed housing No significant effects predicted Ltd – Housing development, consisting of detached, semi-detached, three and four bedroomed, two storey houses, together with the to arise from the combination of Development associated site development works, including access from the existing Outer Ring Road and the required necessary this project with the proposed (Distance: 2.4km) services installation, including connecting to existing foul and storm drainage outfall and also connection from existing development. public watermain. The Project is located 2.4km south east of the proposed development. The Board of Application (ref no. 19100) for the demolition an existing redundant single storey storage building and construct a new No significant effects predicted Management of St. three storey school building. The Project is located 640m south of the proposed development. to arise from the combination of Stephen’s De La Salle this project with the proposed (Distance: 640m) development.
Part VIII Report Page 290 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) Kilbarry Developments Application (ref. 19112) for the construction consisting of a single storey café/shop, a two-storey medical centre and No significant effects predicted Ltd a two-storey crèche with accommodation for 150 children together with all associated car parking, drainage and to arise from the combination of (Distance: 4.1km) associated site works and road access from existing roundabout. The Project is located in Kilbarry, Ballyhoo, this project with the proposed Waterford. The application has not been granted yet as awaiting further information from the applicant. The Project is development. located 4.1km south of the proposed development. Neville Hotels t/a The Application (ref no. 1982) has been submitted for (a) the demolition of existing 4 storey terrace No.'s 16-20 Lombard No significant effects predicted Tower Hotel Waterford Street inclusive and 4 storeys over basement corner building at No. 36 The Mall (protected structure RPS. ref.260) to arise from the combination of (Distance: 370m) including 15 no. hotel rooms and 2 storey laundry and stores to the rear of the Tower Hotel at Rose Lane and (b) the this project with the proposed erection of a 5 storey extension to The Tower Hotel consisting of 60 no. guest bedrooms, conference centre with main development. conference room and 6 smaller conference rooms, break out space and roof terrace at first floor level, stores, toilets, staff facilities, service yard and (c) alterations to existing front elevation of Tower Hotel at The Mall. Further information about the development was requested by WCCC. The Project is located 370m south of the proposed development Finn Homes Ltd – A planning permission application (ref no. 1589) was granted for the extension of duration of construction of 225 No significant effects predicted Housing Development dwelling houses consisting of detached, semi-detached, terraced, courtyard and duplex units along with associated to arise from the combination of (Distance: 800m) site development works and associated services installation. The Project is located in Belmount, Waterford 800m north this project with the proposed of the proposed transport hub, on the north side of the River Suir. development. Action Enterprises Permission was granted for construction of a Community Primary Healthcare Centre and Pharmacy comprising a No significant effects predicted Limited – Development structure with two levels over split level basement (ref no. 17686). The Primary Healthcare Centre facility will provide to arise from the combination of at Ard Daire, Ferrybank, for HSE services (including Dental), General Practice, floor space for non-allocated private healthcare consultancy this project with the proposed Co. Kilkenny and future diagnostic health services, meeting rooms, administrative offices, staff accommodation, receptions and development. (Distance: 630m) associated uses. External works to the structure includes roof plant and signage. The proposals also include for town road entrances off Ard Daire, pedestrian access off the R711 and through the site, parking, circulation, external amenities (including landscaping), lighting, ESB substation, signage and all associated services with connections to public services and all associated site works. The Project is located in Ard Daire, Ferrybank 630m northeast of the proposed transport hub, on the north side of the River Suir. No significant effects are predicted to arise from the combination of this project with the proposed development. John J. Fleming Application (ref no. 10631) was granted for the extension of duration for the construction of a residential development No significant effects predicted Construction Company and ancillary site development works on site at ‘Clover Meadows’ Abbeylands, Ferrybank. The proposed development to arise from the combination of (Distance: 830m) is Phase 3 of the mixed development, which was granted planning permission, planning reference No. 03/760, An this project with the proposed Bord Pleanala Reference No. 10.205242. The development consists of 168 houses and ancillary works. The subject development. site includes four protected structures. The Project is located 830m north east of the proposed development. Pinacle Cross Ltd Application (ref no. 17658) was granted for the demolition of 3 existing outbuildings and erection of 11 dwellings at No significant effects predicted (Distance: 5.4km) Lower Kilmacow, Co. Kilkenny. The Project is located 5.4km north west of the proposed development to arise from the combination of this project with the proposed development. Solas Eireann Application (ref no. 20170330) was granted for the construction of a solar PV panel array at Kilmannock & Great No significant effects predicted Development Ltd Island, Kilmokea, Co. Wexford. The development comprises photovoltaic panels on ground mounted frames within a to arise from the combination of
Part VIII Report Page 291 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Plan or project Description of plan or project In-combination effect(s) (Distance: 9.3km) site area of 28.14 ha, 11 no. single storey mv substations, 1 no. single storey DSO substation, 1 no. single storey this project with the proposed customer. The Project is located 9.3km north east of the proposed development. development. Bord Gais Eireann Application (ref no. PA0016A) for the development of a natural gas pipeline, with ancillary ducts, manholes and No significant effects predicted (Distance: 7.9km) associated above ground installations. The gas pipeline will connect to the existing natural gas network at Baunlusk to arise from the combination of above ground installation, County Kilkenny and to the Great Island above ground installation located (planning granted this project with the proposed under An Bord Pleanala planning ref. PL26.PA0016) within Great Island power station in County Wexford. Currently, development. the applicant is awaiting decision from WCC. The Project is located 7.9km north east of the proposed development. SSE Generation Ireland Application (ref no. 20180581) relates to an establishment which holds an integrated pollution prevention and control No significant effects predicted Ltd (IPPC) License and to which the major accident regulations apply. The application was granted for the retention of two to arise from the combination of (Distance: 7.3km) no. construction support buildings, warehouse storage building, alterations to administration building, chemical storage this project with the proposed units and all associated site works and permission for the construction of minor internal and external alterations to the development. construction support buildings and warehouse, three traffic barriers and the construction of a new on-site waste water treatment system associated with the construction support area and all ancillary works. The Project is located 7.3km north east of the proposed development.
Part VIII Report Page 292 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Table 4.11.3 Assessment of Future Planned Projects in Respect of their Potential to Result in Cumulative Effects with the Proposed Development Waterford City and County Council are currently progressing a number of projects in support of the SDZ. Based on this knowledge, consideration of likely future planned projects was deemed to be required, as far as is practicable at this stage in the process. Projects are at different stages in the design process with some nearing completion and others at Scoping Stage. However, in the interests of ensuring that all known likely and potential cumulative impacts are identified, Table B.2 assesses the likely cumulative effects as a result of these projects. Each of these projects will also be the subject of their own Screening process and EIA and AA where required.
Project Description of project In-combination effect(s) Waterford The proposed 5-span, 8m wide sustainable transport bridge will be a shared space for pedestrians, cyclists and a public Positive long-term Sustainable transportation service. The bridge crossing point is approximately 550m downriver of the existing Rice Bridge. The Lower cumulative/ in-combination Transport Bridge River Suir is in the region of 207m wide at this location and is part of the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation effects are predicted. No (Distance: 10 m (SAC). The proposed development is located approximately adjacent to Barronstrand Street (commercial partially likely significant adverse approximately) pedestrianised and in front of the existing Clock Tower on the south quays in Waterford city centre. An EIAR and Natura effects are predicted to arise Impact Statement have been prepared in support of the project. from the combination of this project with the proposed development. Flood Defences West The aim of this future project is to provide flood protection to the west of Rice Bridge along Iranród Éireann rail line. This An assessment of cumulative of Plunkett Station project will be developed between Irish Rail, the Office of Public Works and Waterford City and County Council and is effects with this project (Distance: 80 m currently at preliminary stage. In the absence of any design or design options, an assessment of cumulative effects with without detail on location, approximately) this project cannot be undertaken at this stage. Once developed, this project will be required to undertake the appropriate scale and design is not assessments including EIA Screening and AA Screening and consider the cumulative effects resulting from all other feasible at this stage and is projects as appropriate. not included as part of this assessment.
Part VIII Report Page 293 Roughan and O’Donovan Waterford City and County Council Consulting Engineers Transport Hub
Section 5 Conclusion
This Part VIII Planning Application Report, supporting drawings and appendices provide a description of the nature and extent of the Proposed Transport hub development and associated works. It has considered and assessed the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development.
The environmental considerations have included assessing likely impacts on a range of environmental topics including traffic; population and human health; biodiversity; soils, geology and hydrogeology; hydrology; landscape and visual; noise and vibration; air quality and climate; archaeology; historical and built heritage; and material assets. A summary of the likely environmental effects and recommended mitigation measures are detailed at the end of each environmental topic addressed in Section 4 of this Report. The Contractor will be required to demonstrate how it addresses the likely environmental effects and will be required to include suitable mitigation measures to be detailed as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, Traffic Management Plan and Stakeholder Management Plan which will be agreed with Waterford City and County Council prior to the works commencing. This assessment found that there are no likely significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the Proposed Development.
Part VIII Report Page 294