An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL.10.242806

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development: Permission for removal of all structures/buildings on site, construction of an off-line motorway service area, relocation of access to/from R693, amenities building, drive-through facility.

Site Address: Near M8 junction 4, townland of Mountfinn, Urlingford, County

Planning Application Planning Authority:

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 13/445

Applicants: Applegreen Services Area Limited

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Refuse Permission

Planning Appeal

Appellant: Applegreen Services Area Limited

Type of Appeal: First Party V Refusal

Observers: P. Kavanagh & Family and Others

Date of Site Inspection: 20 th March 2014

Inspector: Joanna Kelly

Appendices:

Appendix 1 Site Location Map

Appendix 2 Photographs and Site key Plan

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 30

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The appeal in question is a First Party appeal against the decision by Kilkenny County Council to refuse permission for an off-line Motorway Services area. There is one valid observation to the appeal.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The appeal site is located off junction 4 of the M8 along the R-693. The site is a prominent brownfield site with a hard surface area at a gateway location into Urlingford, a designated town in . There is an existing single storey pre-fabricated type structure in the centre of the site that it is proposed to demolish.

2.2 The appeal site has a stated site area of 4.43 hectares. There is currently an agricultural gate serving the site with large concrete pipes located at the entrance. The existing entrance traverses an open ditch along the front of the site. The site itself contains post wire fencing that divides the site into specific sections. The documentation on site indicates that the site was previously used as a compound during the construction of the M8.

2.3 The site is located north east of the town of Urlingford in a prominent location. The site is visible from the northern end of the R-639, main street leading into Urlingford. The Emeralds GAA grounds bound the south-western section of the appeal site. The entrance to the sports ground immediately abuts an entrance to the appeal site located on the site location map submitted by the applicant. St. Mary’s avenue, an established housing estate of single storey cottages is located west of the sports ground. The appeal site is highly visible from the northern section of this estate where there are clear views of the site and immediate road infrastructure leading to the M8. The appeal site is located on higher grounds than the residential units.

2.4 Pursuant to inspection of the town of Urlingford, it was noted that there are a number of existing garages within the town. The nearest garage is the “XL” garage located at the northern entry point in the town. There are other garages to the southern section of the main street. Further it was noted, as submitted by Third Parties to the appeal, that there are several dining establishments located to the southern end of the main street.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 30

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The applicant is seeking permission to remove all structures/buildings on the site and construct an off-line motorway service area. It is proposed to provide a 4 pump island car/van forecourt and a 1 pump island HGV forecourt, both with canopy over.

3.2 The proposed amenities facility with a total gross floor area of c. 1154sq.m. consists of a ground floor area of c. 922sq.m. and a mezzanine floor of c. 232sq.m. There is a proposed convenience shop of c. 100sq.m. of net sales area; 3 no. eat in/take-away restaurants/cafes and a drive-through facility; a game zone; business centre; public toilets; internal play areas; and other ancillary store areas.

3.3 It is proposed to provide parking for 92 cars and 13 HGVs, 3 no. coaches and 5 motorcycles. It is also proposed to provide a car wash with rainwater harvesting system and pumping station. Signage and underground storage tanks are also proposed as part of the development.

3.4 The initial application form indicated a connection to the public sewer.

4.0 TECHNICAL REPORTS

4.1 Planning report

4.1.1 The Assistant Planner’s report counter signed by the Senior Executive Planner noted a number of third party submissions in relation to the proposal. These submissions noted concerns about inter alia waste water treatment facility at/near capacity; surface water run-off; impact on residential amenity; contravention of development plan; traffic safety; un-zoned land; excessive signage; noise pollution; need for development; EIS should be sought; scale excessive.

4.1.2 The Planner set out that the proposed development is considered such that would impact on the town centre of Urlingford. Reference is made to the need for an on-site waste-water treatment system due to the limited capacity available in the treatment plant in Urlingford. The Planner raised concerns about light pollution and lack of assessment supplied by the applicant. Reference is made to the insufficient landscaping proposal for the proposed development.

4.1.3 The Planner recommended a refusal of permission for 2 no. reasons set out in paragraph 5.0 of this report.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 30

4.2 Environment Section

Further information is required in respect of light pollution; noise impact assessment and details to be provided for a waste water treatment plant.

4.3 Water Services Section

This report set out inter alia that the waste water treatment plant in Urlingford cannot cater for the proposed development. The applicant will be required to install a waste water treatment plant.

4.4 Roads Design

4.4.1 This report makes reference to existing field entrances located near the proposed entrance to the service facility and that they are used on a regular basis as cattle crossing areas. Reference is made to the lack of construction details for the proposed widening, carriageway make-up and impact on existing verges, side-slopes and drainage.

4.4.2 Reference is made to the proposed way-leave to accommodate the foul sewer, which joins the public road on the R639 adjacent to the GAA grounds. It is recommended that the roadside boundary at this location be closed up on completion of the works and access to this section of the way-leave be from the proposed development.

External Consultees

4.5 NRA

The main points raised in this submission are as follows:

• The proposal is not an NRA on-line service area.

• With regard to signage the erection of advance signage for the service area should be subject to approval of the NRA.

• It is set out that the Authority is aware of a number of similar developments for services proximate to the M8 and a number of permitted developments in Laois and South Tipperary.

• It is set out that the Authority is unaware of a forward planning approach that has been taken with regards the provision of such services along the M8.

4.6 Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

An archaeological impact assessment should be prepared to assess the potential impact if any, on archaeological remains in the area. PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 30

5.0 PLANNING AUTHORITYS DECISION

The Planning Authority refused permission for the following reasons and considerations:

1. “Having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed development and the location of the site on unzoned lands which are outside the settlement boundary of Urlingford, ……it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not contravene the provisions of the development plan, in particular policies PS 10, PS 15 (Core Strategy, Variation No. 2) and PS 16 (Core Strategy Variation No. 2)….., thereby detracting from the viability of the town centre of Urlingford and weakening its role as an important rural centre in the North west of Kilkenny……”.(my emphasis)

2. “…..the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development would not be harmful by virtue of light pollution and noise pollution on these areas. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would seriously injure the amenities of the area and depreciate the value of property in the vicinity ….” (my emphasis)

6.0 APPEAL GROUNDS

The First Party grounds of appeal are summarised as follows:-

• The appeal submission is structured in a manner that addresses the two reasons for refusal. An overview of the application is also set out.

• With regard to the first reason for refusal, it is set out that the decision of the Planning Authority was influenced by a number of incorrect assumptions with regard to the function and role of the proposed off- line Motorway Service Area.

• On one hand, the planning authority consider that the proposal, due to its location and size of retail provision, will compete with and threaten the town centre of Urlingford and will undermine its local service centre role.

• An overview of the development plan review is presented.

• Urlingford is promoted as a local service centre under policies PS10 and PS16. However, the current application is not proposed nor intended to be a local development to serve the town. MSAs have a PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 30

clearly established regional, inter-urban function and customer base as set out in Section 2.8 of the Spatial Planning & National Road Guidelines 2012.

• The current proposal is clearly presented and designed as an off-line MSA to serve inter urban motorists on the M8, as well as those motorists entering the motorway at Junction 4 via the R-693. It is not a local service use that can or should be accommodated within a small town such as Urlingford.

• Siting the MSA within the town would be clearly unsustainable and would encourage a significant local customer base to develop that would use the facility on a daily basis. This is clearly contrary to Section 2.8 of the national guidelines.

• It is set out that motorway traffic including HGVs would have to divert at some length from the motorway if the facility was located within the town.

• Offline MSA cannot be readily accommodated within the streetscape or reconciled with the traditional character of the small town of Urlingford.

• With regard to Policy PS 15 it is noted that there are no suitable infill, vacant, or backland sites in the town to accommodate such a development. To impose the MSA form would be completely inappropriate to the scale and character of the town and would negatively impact the built heritage.

• The basic site requirement is substantially in excess of any available infill or backland sites available in the town.

• With regard to zoning an industrial/warehousing zone was located to the south of the town, furthest from the motorway, where a single business park and semi-complete hotel is located. This was the only zoned area in the town where petrol or service stations were “open for consideration”. None of the other zoned areas of the town either permitted petrol/service stations or considered them open for consideration.

• It is submitted that in addition to policy PS16 which seeks to promote development within, and that is appropriate to the scale and character of the town, policy 16a also allows for “employment” uses on un-zoned lands outside the settlement boundary of towns. Such proposals are not subject to the same restriction with regard to respecting existing built scale and character given the location outside the town boundary.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 30

It is submitted that the principle of this policy is applicable to the current proposal, which clearly would not be suitably located within the settlement boundary of Urlingford and is also an employment generating use.

• Policy 16a should also be read in conjunction with the reference in Policy PS15 to “ribbon development” which the development plan seeks to avoid in favours of infill development within towns and villages. A number of third party objectors on the planning file refer to this issue seeking to justify refusing the development.

• Given the commercial use proposed and its location along the R693, at distance from the town and any other uses and buildings, it is evident that the current application does not represent ribbon development in this case.

• In summary it is considered that locating the off-line MSA proposal within the settlement boundary of Urlingford would be inappropriate in both functional and physical terms. It is not a local service use and it would not revitalise the town but would damage it particularly in terms of impact on the streetscape character, urban design and continuity of form, all of which are to be respected.

• The proposal is located away from the town on the R693 and will be easily accessible to motorway traffic via junction 4 and to traffic entering onto the motorway at Junction 4 via the R693. It is an appropriate form of development at the chosen location.

• It is contended that the retail proposal is part of the offline MSA is at a suitable location and is of a size and function, which is acceptable and in accordance with national and local retail planning policy.

• The format and size is limited and ancillary to the main fuel vending service available to these motorists. It will not compete directly with the broader convenience retail offer that is available in the town centre for the local population.

• The planner’s report disagrees and considers that the proposed retail will compete with the town centre retail of Urlingford. This is based on the planner’s assumption that the 100sq.m. cap which is applied to convenience shops as part of petrol and service station type developments is an insufficient restriction in this case.

• It is contended that the planner’s view is unsubstantiated and is not supported by the retail strategy of the development plan and the draft

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 30

2014-2020 development plan, all of which state that the 100sq.m. net cap is a sufficient restriction to avoid impact on existing town centres.

• Urlingford represents a Level 4 retail centre in the County retail Hierarchy under the current development plan. In the new retail strategy prepared as part of the Draft County Development Plan 2014- 2020 Urlingford is classified as a level 5 “small town/village centre/rural area”.

• Under the retail strategy only retail proposals of 500sq.m. gross floor area or greater in smaller towns such as Urlingford are required to undergo retail impact assessment. Under the new retail Strategy prepared as part of the Draft County Development Plan the threshold has been increased to 500sq.m. net.

• Section 10.28 of the development plan provides specific policy in relation to ancillary retail within petrol and service station proposals, and which is of relevance to the current proposal. This section also acknowledges that town centres are not appropriate locations for petrol and service stations and states that they will not be permitted at locations where their appearance, noise and fumes would be injurious to the amenities of the area. Neither will they be permitted in areas of traffic hazard or where hazards might be likely to arise.

• Reference is made to the provisions of the Retail Planning Guidelines, 2012, and section 4.11.9 that deals with retailing as part of motor fuel stations. Section 2.4 of the Guidelines refers to the various national retail caps in place including the referred 100sq.m. cap for convenience shops as part of petrol and service stations. Only shops above the 100sq.m. will be assessed against the sequential approach with regard to town centre.

• Section 2.8 of the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines 2012, states that retail facilities proposed in service areas “should be of a type that avoids the attraction of short, local trips”.

• It is set out that national and local retail policy establishes that a convenience shop of 100sq.m. net or less, as part of a petrol/service station format irrespective of location is not of a scale that requires application of the sequential approach to town centre development nor retail impact assessment.

• Typically forecourt retailing is based on a small range of goods aimed at the customer paying for petrol or diesel. They include drinks, confectionary, snacks, newspapers and magazines, cigarettes. Within PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 30

the existing “Applegreen ” MSA facilities grocery elements such as milk, bread and fresh produce typically represent less than 3% of the total shop and food sales volumes and less than 1% when the main fuel sales are included. It is “top up” shopping in its most limited sense and ancillary to the main fuel vending service.

• It is set out that the three petrol stations in the town have remained operational despite the opening of the motorway in 2010 and given that there are also two other competing petrol stations in nearby Johnstown, three kilometres away. It is also set out that there are seven dining facilities along the main street that have also remained opened.

• The primary customer base is long distance, inter urban motorists on the M8 and traffic commencing their journey on the M8 at Junction 4. The location of the facility, less than 500m from the junction makes it ideal to facilitate both.

• Reference is made to Figure 5, which confirms the net sales areas for the retail and dining uses at ground floor within the proposed services building. The retail shop is capped at 100sq.m. as per the Retail Planning Guidelines. The 3 no. dining options total only 75sq.m. net sales area and individually are either similar in size or smaller than the 7 no. restaurants operating in the town. The remainder of the ground floor within the building is taken up principally by the communal area. This is a rest area available to all travellers not just those availing of dining options. The remainder of the ground floor is taken up by back of house, storage and administration areas.

• The actual sales areas for retail and dining is therefore modest and not of a dominant scale compared to the range of services existing within the town. Current figures available to Applegreen indicate that fuel sales represent over 75% of the sales volumes in the MSAs. The shop represents less than 10% of the sales volume with the dining options representing c. 15%.

• A number of third party objections claim that their petrol station and restaurant businesses in the town depend on “passing trade” from M8 motorists and that the proposed off line MSA will capture all of this trade to the detriment of the town centre.

• It is submitted that the above claims are unsubstantiated and it is submitted that all bar one of the businesses are located on the southern end of the town approximately two kilometres from motorway. It is questioned how many inter-urban motorists are likely to make the PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 30

four kilometres round trip twice through the centre of the town and traffic lights to avail of these facilities.

• It is submitted that it is more likely that the case is the vast majority of their custom is derived from a combination of local customers and motorists who travel the R-639, the former - Road. Urlingford is also an east-west stopping point for traffic between Kilkenny and Thurles and those travelling onto Nenagh, Limerick and further west.

• The proposed service station is to serve inter-urban M8 motorists and traffic commencing long distance trips on the M8 via junction 4. The proposed signage along the motorway confirms this primary role.

• In relation to the mezzanine business centre, it is proposed to serve mobile corporate drivers on the Cork-Dublin route. It comprises a wi-fi enabled business lounge where business travellers can send and check emails, and includes private meeting rooms where they can meet clients and suppliers or work in peace. Printing and copying facilities are also available. As per the ground floor the majority of the floor area is taken up with seating and tables. It is set out that such features are common in the UK and provide a safer alternative to drivers using their smart phones while driving.

• The proposed facility, by design and location, clearly does not represent a local “office” employment use. It is submitted that there are no other suitable or available facilities within the town that would compete with the proposal to the best of the applicant’s knowledge.

• It is also noted that the overall MSA facility will be similarly distanced from the motorway served as is the case with the recently permitted off-line MSA, granted by the Board at Cullenmore, Junction 14 on the N11/M11 (ABP ref. PL. 27.241347). It is also noted that the offline MSA, now under construction at Junction 23, on the M7 which is also less than 500m from Moneygall, County Offaly, a village that is smaller than Urlingford.

• No off line MSA proposal can fully eliminate the potential for some use by local motorists. However by locating such facilities outside of and at sufficient distance from adjoining towns, and by controlling the size of the retail shop, then it can be ensured that local custom does not become a major feature and does not impact the viability of the town centre.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 30

• This rationale has been applied to all Applegreen offline MSA proposals to date including Cullenmore; Birdhill; Mitchelstown.

• With regard to reason no. 2 for refusal it is set out that the issue of potential noise and light pollution was originally raised in the report of the executive engineer. The report detailed assessments to be carried out in relation to potential light and noise impacts prior to a decision being made.

• The Planning Authority decided not to seek this information but decided to refuse permission on the basis that the light and noise pollution would seriously injure the amenities of the area, depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

• In response, two separate reports were commissioned dealing with light and noise impact.

• The lighting report proposes a lighting design for the roads and other amenities to ISEN 13201 Road Lighting and BS5489 part I Lighting of Roads and Public Amenity Areas, while minimising the effects of spill light and nuisance glare on the surrounding environment demonstrating the measures taken to minimise unwanted spill light and glare.

• The report demonstrates that the proposed installation meets the recommendations for the control and reduction of obtrusive light, while meeting the lighting performance levels recommended in relevant standards. Furthermore the report demonstrates that there will be no significant additional impact on residential properties in St. Mary’s Avenue or on properties in Urlingford generally.

• The noise assessment applies noise and vibration criteria for the proposed offline motorway service area based on NRA Guidelines and using International and British standards. Traffic noise predictions are produced for the base year, opening year and design year and for Do- minimum and Do-Something Scenario.

• The predicted cumulative effect of traffic noise and industrial type noise sources were compared to criteria in the NRA Guidelines. The operational noise from the proposed development will result in a minimal residual impact on existing noise levels. It was concluded that the proposed development satisfies the criteria outlined in NRA Guidelines and that no mitigation measures are required.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 30

• As a result the report concludes that operational mitigation measures are not required. It is suggested that if the Board considered that noise impact needs to be reduced further that installation of a noise barrier, earth berm along the southern boundary of the site closest to the town and St. Mary’s Avenue could be readily conditioned as part of a grant of permission.

• Predicted noise levels from construction activities for the proposed development were also assessed and compared against and the maximum permissible noise levels contained in the NRA Guidelines. Noise level works associated with construction on the main site are below the maximum permissible noise limits.

• It is set out that construction works to connect the foul pipe to the mains result in construction activity occurring closer to noise sensitive receivers and may exceed the maximum permissible day time noise levels in the NRA Guidelines. However, this will be a short-term impact and will occur for a limited number of noise sensitive receivers.

• It is set out that overall it is demonstrated that no undue negative impact will result from the proposed development due to noise or lighting. The nearest sensitive receptor, St. Mary’s Avenue residential area, is c. 200 metres away from the site. The reports demonstrate that the proposed development will not be harmful by virtue of light pollution or noise pollution on this area or the remainder of the town.

• The submission concludes by summarising points already raised.

• It is requested that the Board overturn the two reasons for refusal and grant permission for the development in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

7.0 RESPONSES

7.1 Panning Authority response to grounds of appeal

The main points set out in this response are summarised as follows:

• The Planning Authority remain of the view that the proposed facility has not been shown to be sufficiently distant from the town so as to not compete with and thus impact on the viability of the various facilities.

• It is considered that the facility would not solely serve the needs of the motorway traffic but would result in the creation of a local service hub, which would duplicate facilities, which already exist within Urlingford.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 30

• It is set out that the Planning Authority is not insistent that the development be located within the town boundary.

8.0 OBSERVERS

8.1 Patrick Kavanagh & Others

The contents of this observation are summarised as follows:

• This submission represents the views of three observers.

• The decision to refuse permission is welcomed and it is submitted that there are additional grounds for refusal.

• The existing waste water treatment plant does not have the capacity to support the application. Concerns are raised that possible impact on the adjacent water course was not addressed.

• It is set out that the applicant has indicated that the noise level will be unacceptable at the entrance to St Marys Avenue and notwithstanding this no indication of exact measures to mitigate this has been detailed.

• With regard to light pollution it is set out that light trespass had not been measured past the area of existing sight. Reference is made to the location of the lighting at 10m in height. No reference is made in the light analysis of the signage.

• Reference is made to the similar facility at Monasterevin and that the facility is visible for c. 1 mile causing significant light pollution.

• The nearest house is 200m from the boundary of the development and the scale of the development together with the extensive lighting to be used will create a 24 hour highly lit area impacting on St. Marys Avenue in particular.

• This is unzoned land that creates a delineation between town and open space.

• It is submitted that the study errs in its classification as an “E3” area medium district brightness as it is rural unlit and outside the zoning of the town and therefore incorrect levels of acceptable lighting were used. It is submitted that the correct category of environmental zone is E2 as the site is a low district brightness area for rural small village or relatively dark locations.

• The facility will create noise pollution in particular when the residents of St Marys are in their gardens. PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 30

• It is noted that a noise barrier is proposed at the boundary adjacent the observers’ homes. It is submitted that the nearest residence is merely 200m away and creates an unacceptable noise impact on the residential amenity of the area.

• A true test of a similar facility such as Monasterevin where noise and light impact at a distance of 200m can be realised more accurately than a desktop study.

• The need for the second floor is raised submitting that the population and travelling distance is considerably smaller in Ireland than the UK. The facilitation of such business facilities would significantly detract from the ability of adjacent hotels and restaurants to maintain viability and have a further negative impact on the viability of smaller towns/villages.

• Concerns are raised about the scale and impact of the development. The scale and massing is considered inappropriate for the town of Urlingford and therefore also for an unzoned area in the county.

• Proximity to other off-line facilities is noted. The provision of facilities on a county basis as opposed to distance basis would represent poor planning practice.

• Reference is made to the impact the proposal would have on the town of Urlingford and the observers’ businesses. Concerns are raised about the drive thru facility that will clearly attract use outside that of motorway uses.

• The scale of the restaurant and seating is significantly large to support a variety of restaurant types and attract considerable traffic. It is submitted that the interpretation of the c. 1000sq.m. facility could not be interpreted as providing a restaurant of 75sq.m. only. If it is a correct interpretation then the remainder of the facility is disproportionately sized and should not be granted in its current size.

• Reference is made to the facilities in Mitchelstown and Cashel, which were granted adjacent to significantly larger towns not as well serviced as Urlingford currently is.

• A report is attached prepared by HRA Planning and Environment Consultants who were commissioned to review the applicant in relation to national and local planning policies together with economic and environmental impacts. A summary of more pertinent issues not already set out is provided as follows: PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 30

• It is submitted that the development is not located such to serve inter- urban motorists having regard to its location on the R639 situated 1.3km from the northbound exit and 0.8km from the southbound exit at Junction 4.

• It is submitted that the proposal would adversely impact on the built character and visual amenities of the area particularly at key nodal entry point into the village.

• With regard to principle of development reference is made to the expired LAPs and that the expired plans will be used as supplementary guidance documents for planning purposes.

• It is submitted that the proposal is a material contravention of the development plan due to the location of the proposal outside the settlement boundary.

• It is submitted that the proposed location is not an inter urban location and that Urlingford already functions and performs the role of a service area for road users providing fuel, food, and toilet facilities and therefore the provision of an additional service area on un-zoned land immediately outside the development boundary of the village is not warranted and cannot be justified.

• Reference is made to the existing facilities in the town of Urlingford. The proximity of Junction 4 to Urlingford does not warrant or justify the construction of additional motorway services in an un-zoned rural area.

• It is submitted that the provision of dedicated motorist service area outside of but immediately adjoining the development boundary of the town will have an adverse impact on the viability of Urlingford as a service centre and thus directly contravenes Objective 8 of the CDP. Reference is made to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2012, which states that off line MSA’s should be located to avoid the attraction of short local trips thereby seeking to protect existing urban centres.

• It is submitted that it is most likely that the development would become a destination in its own right. The provision of a drive thru restaurant is particularly significant in this regard.

• The proposed development would be incongruous with the existing built form in the village.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 30

• With regards to visual impact it is contended that the proposal on rural land adjoining the settlement of Urlingford would not be capable of satisfactory assimilation into the local environment and would significantly detract from the character of the existing urban character.

• Reference is made to an Urban Design Study included as an appendix to the expired LAP and that it will be used as supplementary guidance documents for planning purposes. This study makes reference to the importance of maintaining an appropriate urban edge. The proposal would blur the distinction between the urban and rural divide

• Reference is made to the past use of the site for purposes associated with the construction of the M8 and that the site did not have an industrial or commercial use. As it was used on a temporary basis it is submitted it should have reverted back to agricultural use on cessation of the temporary use.

• Reference is made to the visual impact assessment and the lack of adequate visual assessment of the development on the existing built form of the village. It is submitted that the single storey structure can be clearly seen from the entrance to the GAA pitch. It is submitted that the proposal will visually dominate the approach into and out of the village.

• With regard to the proliferation of MSA’s on the M8 it is contended that the proposed development of another off line MSA on the M8 which would be the fifth permitted off-line MSA on the motorway, and particularly when considered in conjunction with the planned on line service areas by the NRA, would lead to the unnecessary proliferation of such services which would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable provision of the area.

• It is submitted that having regard to the permitted off line service station permitted at Ballacolla Junction 3 some 17 km north of the application site and the existing services and facilities currently available in Urlingford Village, it is contended that the proposed development would result in an undesirable proliferation of such facilities, contrary to the provisions of the Guidelines.

• Reference is made to the recently updated design standards for Type 2 Service Areas “The location and Layout of One Line Service Areas”, March 2013, (NRA TA 70/13). The proposed development is described as a type 2 Service Area and particular reference is made to Section 2.6 that “in general, on-line Type 2 Service Areas should be provided at nominal 50-60 kilometre intervals on Motorways and Type 1 Dual

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 30

Carriageways, although evolving guidance from the European Commission suggests that a larger spacing may be appropriate”. It is set out that although the recommended distance is for an on line MSA and the proposed development is an off line MSA, it must be recognised that the proposed development is a Type 2 service area and regardless of whether it is off line or on line, the same distance criteria should apply, as the extent of services required at any one location is dependent on distance between services, traffic flows and traffic levels.

• Reference is made to the NRA’s intention to resume work on the MSA identified once the Exchequer finances permit.

• With regard to the reference to other MSA permitted, it is set out that the existing off line facility in Cashel is small and has been provided on appropriately zoned commercial lands within the development boundary of the town and is not of the same scale as the Type 2 Service area. A truck services area was permitted some 20km south of Cashel at Cahir and this is completely understandable given that the existing off line Cashel facility is substandard particularly in terms of accommodating truck facilities. Reference is made to the ABP refusal for PL.23.242382 for the expansion of the permitted truck facility into a full off line MSA.

• The submission makes particular reference to the Inspector’s report PL.11.240927 for the off line facility at Ballacolla and more specifically quotes “the proliferation of services areas was not a concern…even as built out as currently granted its limited services and facilities would fall short of the minimum expected of an equivalent NRA guidance compliant facility….”. The same it is submitted cannot be said of the subject proposal as it has been designed as a Type 2 Service Area. It is submitted that the proposed development would give rise to an undesirable proliferation of service areas and accordingly should be refused permission.

• The submission concludes by re-iterating the main points set out. It is set out that the development is not plan-led.

9.0 PLANNING HISTORY

The planner’s report notes that there is no planning history with the appeal site.

Reference is made to a number of applications on the adjoining Emeralds GAA grounds. PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 30

10.0 PLANNING POLICY

10.1 National Policy 10.1.1 National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 This sets out a 20-year national spatial planning framework for the development of the country. The NSS is mandated to identify broad spatial development patterns for areas and to set down indicative policies in relation to the location of industrial development, residential development, services, rural development, tourism and heritage.

10.1.2 Smarter travel, A sustainable transport future Section 1.4 of this document deals with strategic traffic and sets out that “the planning system must ensure that the strategic traffic function of national roads is maintained by limiting the extent of development that would give rise to the generation of short trip traffic on national roads or alternatively by ensuring that the trip demand from future development will primarily be catered for on the non-national network.” 1 Section 2.7 of these Guidelines deals with development at national road interchanges or junctions. These set out that development in such locations must be consistent with planning policies avoiding compromising the capacity and efficiency of the national road/associated junctions and possibly leading to premature and unacceptable reduction in the level of service available to road users.

10.1.3 Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2012 These guidelines are designed to ensure that development is guided to the most appropriate locations by ensuring that transport and land-use planning considerations are taken into account at development plan stage. The Guidelines recognise that a modern economy requires a world-class road transport network that is sustainable from an economic, social and environmental perspective. Better national roads improve access to the regions, enhancing their attractiveness for inward investment and new employment opportunities and contribute to enhanced competitiveness by reducing transport costs. The guidelines recognise that “new retail and employment opportunities tend to be attracted to motorways and national road corridors, particularly junctions and can lead to dispersed and car dependent forms of development. Such patterns of development are uneconomic and also lead to increases in trip distance making it difficult to develop attractive

P3, Spatial Planning and National Roads, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 22

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 30

public transport, cycling, and walking networks while also having serious implications for the viability and sustainability of town and city centres.”

10.1.4 Retail Planning, Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2012 The aim of the Guidelines is to ensure that the planning system continues to play a key role in supporting competitiveness in the retail sector for the benefit of the consumer in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development. In addition, the planning system must promote and support the vitality and viability of city and town centres thereby contributing to a high standard of urban design and encouraging a greater use of sustainable transport. The Retail Design Manual accompanies the guidelines and is also of relevance in seeking to promote quality design in retail developments.

10.2 Regional Planning Policy 10.2.1 Regional Planning Guidelines for the South East 2010-2022 The Regional Planning Guidelines provide a strategic planning framework for the South-East Region with the objective of implementing the National Spatial Strategy at regional level and achieving balanced regional development. The South-East region includes Kilkenny, Carlow, South Tipperary, Wexford and Waterford. Section 2.6.1 of the Plan identifies sub-regional issues. There is particular reference to strengthening towns and villages and also improving road networks.

10.3 Local Policies 10.3.1 Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008-2014 This is the statutory development plan for the area. This plan is currently under review. Section 9 of the Plan deals with Infrastructure and Environment. Section 10.28 provides guidance on the development of petrol filling stations.

10.3.2 Urlingford Local Area Plan 2004 This Plan was adopted in 2004 and to date has not been reviewed. This Plan was in force at the time of adopting the current Development Plan.

10.3.3 Draft County Development Plan 2014-2020 I would draw the Board’s attention to the Draft County Development Plan which has not yet been adopted that it makes reference to LAPs that have expired and specifically refers to the use of these Plans as guiding documents. The Draft plan sets out in Section 3.3.5.1 that the towns where plans have expired which include Urlingford have not been assigned a separate population projection as part of the core strategy but are considered as part of the remainder area. There are no land-use zonings in these areas where the plans have expired.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 30

11.0 ASSESSMENT Having examined the file, relevant history files, considered local and national policies, inspected the site and immediate environs, assessed the proposal and all of the submissions on file, I consider the key issues to be: • Principle of development • Existing and planned motorway service areas • Impact on Urlingford town centre • Visual impact and layout • Residential Amenities • Waste water • Appropriate Assessment • Other Issues

11.1.0 Principle of development and locational context 11.1.1 The applicant is seeking to construct an off-line Motorway Services Station off the M8. The proposed development as outlined heretofore would be located on the R-693 a . The regional road links the M8 with Kilkenny via a roundabout located approximately 200 metres from the appeal site, which also provides direct access into Urlingford. The appeal site does not have the benefit of any land use zoning and therefore the Kilkenny County Development Plan is the relevant statutory plan.

11.1.2 Whilst the appeal site is located in close proximity off the M8 – a Strategic National Transportation Corridor as identified in the NSS, it is also the case that the appeal site is in close proximity to Urlingford, identified as a small town/village in the County Development Plan 2008. The most recent Local Area Plan for Urlingford is 2004 and whilst LAPs are normally reviewed every six years as provided for in Section 18 of the Planning and Development Acts, as amended, this LAP has not been reviewed. Whilst the Draft Kilkenny County Development Plan makes reference to the expiration of these plans and that the lands within the settlement boundary will no longer have a specific land-use zoning objective this plan has not yet been adopted. The status of the Urlingford LAP 2004 is therefore currently questionable in terms of existing zoning status of land. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the appeal site is located outside the settlement boundary of Urlingford and the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008 remains the overarching statutory document.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 30

11.1.3 An important consideration of the proposed development is the appeal site’s locational context vis-à-vis the settlement boundary of Urlingford. As previously mentioned, the appeal site is located outside the existing settlement boundary of Urlingford although it immediately abuts the settlement boundary to the north-east. A copy has been provided as an appendix for ease of reference. Therefore, careful consideration needs to be afforded to the impact the proposed off-line motorway would have on vitality and viability of the settlement of Urlingford.

11.1.4 With regard to reference in the observer’s submission that the proposal represents a material contravention of the Kilkenny County Development Plan, I would comment that motorway service stations by their very nature are located outside settlement boundaries in close proximity to motorways and therefore tend to be located on un-zoned lands. The Development Management Guidelines 2007 (currently under review by the Department) offer guidance in Section 5.12 as to whether a development represents a material contravention. In this regard I would comment that the proposal by the very nature of the development i.e. off line motorway service station is not considered to be a fundamental departure of the development plan due to its proposed location on un-zoned lands in close proximity to the M8. Regard must be given to other provisions/policies of the development plan which will be discussed further in this report.

11.1.5 Having considered all national, regional and local policies I do not consider that there is any precluding policy for the siting of an off-line motorway service station at this location. Notwithstanding the acceptability of the principle, there are other locational considerations that are of relevance to this application, namely the proximity of the site to the town of Urlingford and need for plan-led approach for such facilities.

11.2.0 Existing and planned Motorway service areas

11.2.1 Having regard to the strategic location of the appeal site and the purpose of the proposal i.e. an off-line motorway service station, it is considered that regard should be given to the existing level of services constructed/planned along this route. The Spatial Planning and National Roads, Guidelines for Planning Authorities publication, January 2012 acknowledges the considerable investment made in the road network and it is therefore important that the efficiency, capacity and safety of the national road network is maintained. It follows that any on-line or off-line motorway service stations should be carefully positioned with a view to maximising safety and efficiency of the road network.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 30

11.2.2 Concerns have been cited throughout the course of the application about the proliferation of motorway service stations. It is not the role of the planning system to inhibit competition however it is considered that careful consideration should be given to any potential impact on the vitality and viability of town centres and the need to protect the efficiency, safety and carrying capacity of the road network. For the purposes of assessing the need or justification for the proposed development, it is considered important to give a general overview of existing and planned service stations along the strategic road network namely the M8. The appeal site is located off Junction 4 of the M8.

11.2.3 At junction 3, Ballycolla there is an extant permission for an off-line motor service and filling station permitted under PL.11.240927 (File Ref. No. 11/331). The site forms part of a larger landholding which is occupied by Manor Stone Quarries. The permission includes provision for a HGV refuelling area, shop, restaurant, toilet and shower block, car wash, picnic area, play area etc. This site is located approximately 16 kilometres north of the appeal site in question.

11.2.4 I note the reference by observers to a refusal from the Board PL.23.242382 for the expansion of the permitted truck facility in Cashel into a full off line MSA. It is important to note that the reason for refusal in that instance did not pertain to principle but rather to a traffic issue namely sightlines. There were 2 no. applications for motorway service stations in Cork off Junction 13 and 14, PL.04.242586 and PL.04.242495 respectively that were refused on appeal.

11.2.5 I refer to the guidance provided for in the Spatial Planning and National Roads, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2012, which refers to service areas in Section 2.8. The guidelines provide that Planning Authorities in the preparation of their plans, may consider policies for the provision for off-line motorway service areas facilities with reference to the requirements and advice included in the most up-to-date NRA guidance on the location and layout of the NRA’s service areas and also similar type existing or planned privately promoted service facilities within existing towns/settlements and located in the general environs of the relevant road corridor. The Guidelines advocate a coordinated approach between planning authorities be undertaken in conjunction with the NRA as part of drafting of development plans.

11.2.6 In this instance, having regard to the provisions of the development plan I make specific reference to the policy IE 10

“To co-operate with the National Roads Authority to identify the need for service areas and/or rest areas for motorists along the route of the N8/N9

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 30

dual carriageway and to assist in the implementation of suitable proposals for provision of service and/or rest areas.”

11.2.7 There is a submission from the NRA on the file and whilst it does not object to the proposal the submission does draw attention to the number of similar developments for services proximate to the M8 and the need for a forward planning approach to the provision of such facilities. It is set out that the Authority is unaware that such an approach has been undertaken with respect to this location and/or these forms of facilities.

11.2.8 Further the NRA standard for separation distances of 50/60km between services areas is noted, however this applies to on-line MSAs and as such the distances are not applicable to this application. It is considered that whilst motorway service stations are generally permitted on un-zoned lands adjacent to strategic road networks, they should be provided for in a plan-led manner in areas where they would not compete with existing services in towns.

11.3.0 Impact on Urlingford town centre

11.3.1 The appeal site immediately abuts zoned lands in Urlingford. The site whilst located on a regional road directly off the Motorway that forms part of an overall strategic road network i.e. main link road from M8 to Kilkenny is also less than 1 kilometre by road to the settlement of Urlingford. Having regard to the existing facilities and services in Urlingford and more importantly to the policies and objectives provided for the Kilkenny County Development Plan, a proposal of the scale and nature proposed would certainly divert trade from the town to an out of town/out of centre site which does not have the benefit of zoning.

11.3.2 The location of the appeal site is important in that whilst it is off-line and in close proximity to the motorway, the site is also in such close proximity to the settlement boundary of Urlingford that it will divert trade away from the existing garages/service stations in the town in the first instance. The Development Plan sets out two policies that are of relevance to the consideration of the proposed development.

Policy PS 10 “to strengthen the service centre role of smaller towns and villages”

PS 16 “to encourage development within the settlement boundary to support, strengthen and expand the service base of ,…Urlingford, allowing development appropriate to the scale and character of these settlements whilst protecting their natural and built heritage”.

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 30

11.3.4 The first party contends that the MSA is designed and located to serve inter- urban motorists on the M8 and motorists entering onto the motorway via Junction 4. It is further stated that the format and size of retail is limited and ancillary to the main fuel vending service available to these motorists and will not compete directly with the broader convenience retail offer that is available in the town centre for the local population. In response to this, I consider that in principle there is no issue with a proposal that is to serve inter-urban motorists along a strategic network. However regard must be given not only to the existing level of services that exist but the location of such a facility immediately abutting a town boundary. In this instance, the proposal, on un- zoned lands would directly compete with existing services and facilities available in Urlingford. I generally would agree with the first party that state in their grounds of appeal that it is not appropriate to seek to locate such facilities within settlement boundaries however each case must be considered on its merits. In this particular instance it is the proximity of the proposal immediately adjacent to a town that is of concern and would lead ad-hoc and inappropriate siting of such facilities that directly compete with existing services available in settlements. Further it is considered the siting of such a facility will attract short, local trips mainly due to the proximity of the facility to the town and having regard to the convenient nature of the services, mainly restaurant and drive-through and business/meeting type facilities that will be provided.

11.3.3 In conclusion, I consider that having regard to the location of the appeal site outside but immediately abutting the settlement boundary of Urlingford at a key entry point to the town from the M8, the proposal would provide a level of services that is not appropriate and would divert trade from Urlingford and ultimately would compromise the vitality and viability of a small town where there is a policy in the County development plan Policy PS 10 to strengthen such towns and villages.

11.4.0 Visual Impact and layout

11.4.1 The proposed design and layout of the Motorway Service Areas (MSA) is typical of an “Applegreen facility”. Whilst I have no objection to the layout, the scale and level of services provided is such that is inappropriate as discussed heretofore which I do not propose to repeat. I would also comment that the site is quite prominent along the regional road and is clearly visible from the town of Urlingford. There are direct views towards the site, which is located on higher grounds with no screening from St. Mary’s Avenue (see photographs attached as Appendix). The scale of the development in conjunction with the existing and finished ground levels would result in a visually dominant development that is out of character with the existing established pattern of the town. The dwellings in St. Mary’s Avenue are single storey and adjoin the PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 30

recreational lands i.e. GAA grounds. The development should not be considered as a stand along development, which is the usual scenario for such MSA as they tend to be located off motorways in rural areas. However in this instance, the proposal immediately abuts the settlement boundary and as such it is considered the scale of such would be at odds with the existing pattern of development of Urlingford and would therefore be an incongruous form of development at a key entry point along a regional road into Urlingford.

11.5.0 Residential Amenity

11.5.1 A number of concerns were raised by observers in relation to residential amenity including noise and light pollution. The Planning Authority’s reason for refusal cited noise and light pollution and in response the first party have submitted two separate consultants’ reports to deal with these particular issues.

11.5.2 With regard to noise, firstly it is important to note that the motorway M8 is constructed and operational and as such is a current source of noise as is typical of any motorway. The appeal site is located off the motorway on a regional road, which provides direct access to Urlingford and the regional route to Kilkenny. Therefore traffic currently traverses a regional route to the north of the town boundary. The proposal will result in traffic movements to and from the appeal site more or less on a constant basis as the proposal is a 24 hour operation and will introduce an additional noise source.

11.5.3 A noise impact assessment report has been submitted with the grounds of appeal in response to the reason for refusal. I have noted the report in full and would comment that whilst the noise levels presented indicate that there would be no significant increase in noise levels arising from the proposal i.e. an increase in range of approximately 2-5 decibels, developments of any kind will inevitably be a source of noise. However, it is the degree of noise and the impact of such on the nearest noise sensitive receptors that are important. Notwithstanding the observers’ concerns and having regard to the noise impact assessment report submitted from the First Party; the existing pattern of development in the area including existing noise sources; and the proximity of the proposal to an existing urban area, I do not consider that noise pollution is such that would warrant a refusal in this instance.

11.5.4 With regard to light pollution, I would comment that the proposal would inevitably create an additional light source on the landscape due to the type and scale of development. The First Party has submitted a lighting assessment in response to the reason for refusal pertaining to this matter. This report notes that the adjacent motorway junction already had off-mainline lighting, which extends along the R-693 for approximately 140 metres but not

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 30

as far as the proposed entrance to the service area. It is noted that the area in question is classified as “Environmental Area E3: Medium District brightness areas due primarily to the presence of public lighting in adjacent residential areas of Urlingford”. This publication is from the Institution of Lighting Engineers in the UK. There are no statutory documents to my knowledge with such standards in Ireland and as such the corresponding publications in the UK including the PPS 23 – Planning and Pollution Control, a statutory document, provide a good reference point.

11.5.5 Pursuant to an assessment of the proposal, it is considered that the primary issue in this case is the unsuitable nature of the lands for this type of development on unzoned lands just outside the settlement boundary which would blur the distinctiveness on the existing landscape as to where the town boundary is. The additional light created by the development is a consequence of such development, however, I am unconvinced that the additional light created by the development would impact to such a degree on the existing residential amenities in its own right to warrant a refusal. Suitable landscaping and suitable lighting such as that proposed would ameliorate any such lighting issues.

11.6.0 Waste water

11.6.1 There is an existing engineering report from the Council on the file, which indicates that there is inadequate capacity in the Urlingford Waste water treatment plant to serve this development. The applicant therefore proposed a waste water treatment plant. Whilst such form of waste water treatment may be acceptable in more remote locations where such infrastructure is not available, in this instance the site is immediately adjacent the town boundary. It is considered that the provision of waste water treatment plants in urban areas should be limited and only provided in exceptional circumstances or on an interim basis pending the imminent upgrade of the public system. Whilst no objection was raised from the Council in this regard, I consider that the proposal for such a large scale development in such close proximity to an urban area in the absence of a connection to the public sewer represents an unsustainable form of development. Furthermore, it is noted that OS maps indicate that these lands are liable to flooding. It was noted at time of inspection that the lands did appear to be poorly drained with evidence of rushes, indicative of poor drainage.

11.6.2 I note that the details on file of trial holes dug pertain to surveys carried out in 2008 some six years ago. No site characterisation form was submitted. The manual for waste water treatment systems for Small Communities, Businesses, Leisure Centre and Hotels, specifies that where water is to be discharged to the ground after treatment that a site characterisation form as PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 30

provided for in the Manual for one off housing should be completed. A particular concern in this instance would be the separation distances of the treatment system from existing dwellings and the need to ensure adequate distance to avoid odour and noise issues. Further, discharge to the ground is an important consideration particularly in light of the available data that the lands in the immediate vicinity are liable to flooding. The documentation submitted indicates that the proposed development is estimated to produce waste equivalent to 320 p.e. which is considered substantial.

11.6.3 Third parties raised concerns in relation to the waste water and lack of capacity in the Urlingford waste water treatment plant to cater for the proposed development in submissions to the Planning Authority. The environment section indicated that a package treatment plant would be required to deal with the proposal. Having regard to the existing drainage characteristics in the immediate vicinity of the site and in the absence of full site characterisation details for the site and a layout plan indicating the location of a treatment plant I would have concerns regarding the suitability of the site to deal with the discharge of treated waste water and the potential risk to public health.

11.7.0 Appropriate Assessment

11.7.1 Appropriate assessment (AA) considers whether the plan or project alone or in combination with other projects or plans will adversely affect the integrity of a European site in view of the site’s conservation objectives and includes consideration of any mitigation measures necessary to avoid, reduce or offset negative effects. The requirements for AA, stems directly from Articles 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

11.7.2 There are two Special areas of conservation noted within a 15 kilometre radius of the appeal site: The Loughans SAC (Site Code 000407) and The Spahill and Clomartagh Hill SAC (Site Code 000849). The former is approximately three kilometres east of Urlingford below the Slieve Ardagh Hills and consists of a shallow basin surrounded by pasture land with low banks of calcareous drift extending out from the northern side. The conservation objective for this SAC is “to maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitats (s) and/or the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected.”

11.7.3 The Spahill and Clomantagh Hill SAC form part of an escarpment which links the Slieve Ardagh Hills with the Plateau. The hills are of limestone overlain by shales and/or sandstones. The site contains a variety of natural grassland communities that is rare in Ireland because of agricultural intensification. The objective of this SAC is to “to maintain or restore the

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 30

favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitat(s) and/or the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected which is semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates”. There is an existing water course, River Goull to the western boundary of the site. This water course is a tributary of the Erika River which in turn flows in the River Nore, an SAC.

11.7.4 There does not appear to be any reference to any screening for appropriate assessment by the applicants. Notwithstanding this, the Habitats Directive provides that the competent authorities, in this instance, An Bord Pleanála, are required to carry out appropriate assessment. Having regard to the source- pathway-receptor model, the River Goull is a pathway for potential surface water or discharges from the waste water treatment plant that can be carried to a receptor site. However, having regard to the conservation objectives of each of the Natura 2000 sites mentioned, topography of the landscape and also the distance particularly to the River Nore SAC, it is considered that AA is not required in this instance.

11.8.0 Other

11.8.1 Road Safety

It is noted that submissions during the course of the file raised concerns about a number of agricultural entrances along the regional road where the site is located and the use of entrances for cattle crossings. It was noted at time of inspection that there a number of field entrances along this regional road. Having regard to the substantive reasons for refusal, primarily principle of a MSS at this location, it is not proposed to comment on this matter in any great detail. Should the Board be mindful to granting this proposed development, consideration should be given to the location of the proposed entrance and the right hand turning lane relative to existing field entrances. The proposed entrance is directly adjacent to the existing crossing cow crossing path. A possible solution is the siting of the entrance before the cow crossing thus limiting the level of traffic that traverses the crossing in the interests of public safety. The full extent of works including set back detail and levels are required

11.8.2 Environmental Impact Assessment

It is noted that submissions by third parties to the Planning Authority suggested that an EIS was required in respect of the proposed development. Section 172 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended by Section 54 of the Planning and Development Act, 2010, now specifically requires planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála to carry out an environmental impact assessment in relevant cases. Having regard to PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 30

Schedule 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001-2010 as amended it is not considered that the proposal falls within the threshold requiring an EIA. It is also not considered to be a sub-threshold development. I would comment that there is a requirement under the amending Section 9 (1) (d) of the 2007 Road Act which amends Section 50 (1) (a) of the principal act to include service areas in the list of developments requiring an EIS. This provision sets out that

“A road authority or the Authority (refers to NRA) shall prepare a statement of the likely effects on the environment (EIS) of any proposed road development it proposes consisting of –

(i) The construction of a motorway

(ii) The construction of a busway

(iii) The construction of a service area, or

(iv) Any prescribed type of proposed road development consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road”.

The proposal in question is for an off-line service area as distinct from an on- line service area that can generally only be brought forward by local authorities for the NRA. Off-line service areas are subject to normal planning considerations and in this instance is not a type of development that requires EIA.

11.8.3 Flooding

A Flood Risk Assessment report was submitted with the application. I would draw the Board’s attention to the modelling results of this report which indicate that the extent of the 1% Annual Exceedence Probability does not extend to the boundary of the proposed site. The flood water reaches a point 6 metres from the north west corner of the site. It is proposed to raise the finished floor level of the site by 1 metre and it is submitted that there is a free board of 1.18 metre provided above the 1 in 100 year flood level. Whilst the site itself may not fall within the flood plain for the 1 in the 100 year flood level, regard must be given to the proposal for a waste water treatment plant and discharge of water at this location.

12.0 CONCLUSION The proposal for the development of an off-line motorway services station in such close proximity to the town of Urlingford is such that would be contrary to the policy PS 10 in the Kilkenny County Development Plan seeking to strengthen towns and villages. The proposal would attract local trips due to PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 30

the level of services provided in particular the drive through and business centre element. There are also concerns regarding waste water disposal which in turn also means that having regard to the precautionary principle applied in relation to Appropriate Assessment, that there are concerns in this regard also. The proposal is considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

13.0 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that permission for the proposed development be refused for the following reasons and considerations:

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. The proposed Type 2 off line Motor Service Area, on a site located outside the settlement boundary of Urlingford would represent an inappropriate and incongruous form of development and would directly compete and divert trade away from the town due to the scale and level of services proposed on the site. The proposal would be contrary to Policy PS 10 of the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008-2014 that seeks to “strengthen the service centre role of smaller towns and villages”. The proposal is also contrary to the Spatial Planning and National Roads, Guidelines for Planning Authority, January 2012 that advocate a coordinated approach to the provision of off-line motorway service areas and to corresponding Policy IE 10 of the Kilkenny County Development Plan in this regard. Therefore considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. Having regard to the lack of adequate capacity in the existing waste water treatment plant in Urlingford to deal with the disposal of effluent arising from the proposed development, the lack of site characterization details pertaining to the site in conjunction with the liability of the lands in the immediate vicinity of the site to flooding, the Board are not satisfied that the proposed development would not be prejudicial to public health.

______

Joanna Kelly

31 st March 2014

PL.24286 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 30