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 Kilkenny
Planning Application Planning Authority: Kilkenny County Council
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 .2428 6 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 County Kilkenny. 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 Cork-Dublin 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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 .2428 6 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