Inspector’s Report

Development 10 year permission sought for infrastructural works to include:

• A proposed distributor road (c.430m x 7.3m) with accompanying cycleways, footpaths and landscaping. Two junctions would be provided to afford access to lands on the southern side of this road, and

• Associated flood mitigation works, i.e. the re- profiling of the banks to the Rye Water River and the provision of flood water storage and the re-alignment and re-profiling of the Balfeghan Stream and its partial culverting,

At the townland of Balfeghan, Kilcock, Co. Meath.

Application

Planning authority: Meath County Council

Planning application reg. no. DA101044

Applicant: Dorville Homes

Type of application: Permission

Planning authority decision: Grant, subject to 24 conditions

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of Appeal

Appellants: Charles & Sarah Angel

Type of appeal: Third party -v- Decision

Observers: Kilcock & Districts’ Community Council

Date of site inspection: 22 nd September 2011

Inspector : Hugh D. Morrison

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of Site

The appeal site is located to the north of Kilcock and at the north western extremity of lands which lie within the environs of Kilcock on the northern side of the Rye Water River. To the south of this River and in a position opposite this site is the newly built Ryebridge housing estate, which represents the existing furthest extent of the town. The appeal site comprises an open field, which is presently in agricultural use for grazing. Beyond this site are similar fields, with those to the east accommodating ribbon development, too.

The appeal site is regular in shape and relatively level. It extends over an area of c. 9.98 hectares and it is bounded by the R158, Summerhill Road, to the north west, the southern bank of the Rye Water River, to the south, other lands within Kilcock environs, to the east, and the existing local road, the L6228, between the R158 and the R125, Dunshaughlin Road, to the north east. In addition, the Balfeaghan Stream flows on a roughly north/south axis through the eastern portion of the site. This Stream and the River meet in the south eastern corner of the site.

Proposal

The planning application seeks a 10 year permission.

The proposal is for infrastructural works, which would comprise part of a distributor road and associated services and flood mitigation measures. These works would form an integral part of parallel proposals for the lands in Kilcock’s northern environs, which are the subject of the Kilcock Environs Local Area Plan 2009 – 2015 (KELAP). Thus, the overall distributor road would run between the R148 Maynooth – Kilcock Road to the southeast to the R158 Summerhill Road to the northwest, connecting with the R125 Dunshaughlin Road, en route. Likewise the flood mitigation measures would span these lands.

Within the appeal site, the proposed distributor road works would generally follow the line of the existing local road between the R158 and the R125. However, some realignment would occur in the vicinity of the entrance to Balfeaghan House. The new road would be c.430m long and it would incorporate a 7.3m wide carriageway with accompanying cycleways and footpaths and landscaping on either side. Two junctions would be provided on the southern side of this road to provide access into the body of the appeal site and a third junction, on the northern side, would be provided to allow future access to the currently disused driveway to Balfeaghan House. Services would be installed along the route of the road to facilitate the future development of the appeal site, i.e. surface water drainage, foul water drainage, water supply and utilities infrastructure.

Within the appeal site, the proposed flood mitigation measures would include the re-profiling of existing river banks of the Rye Water River and the provision of areas

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of for flood water storage. The Balfeaghan Stream would be re-aligned and re-profiled and sections would be culverted where they would pass under the new road and future internal estate roads. Excavated fill from the works entailed in these mitigation measures would be used to partially re-profile lands within the site to a level of up to 1m above existing OD.

The application as submitted to the Board was accompanied by the following documents:

From planning consultants:

• Joint Flood Justification Test Report,

• Joint Implementation Strategy,

• EIS Cumulative Impact Assessment – Volume 1 + Non-Technical Summary,

• EIS for this planning application – Volume 2 + Non-Technical Summary, and

• Planning Report to accompany Planning Application and EIS

From engineers:

• Site Specific Flood Risk and Management Assessment,

• Water Services Provision Strategic Framework Plan,

• Traffic and Transportation Assessment for Proposed Spinal Road Corridor,

• Proposed distributor road at Balfeaghan, Kilcock, and

• Feasibility Report on Assessment of Proposed Traffic Management Measures, Meath Bridge, Kilcock

From landscape architects:

• Joint Design Statement

Planning authority’s decision

Permission was granted subject to 24 conditions.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of Technical reports

External consultees

• Inland Fisheries Ireland: commentary provided on fish within the Rye Water River and advice provided on best practice during any construction phase. Proposed development would be premature in advance of the upgrade of the Leixlip WWTP,

• OPW: following receipt of further information, a commentary was submitted, which can be summarised as follows:

o The portion of the Rye Water River in question is maintained by the OPW. Drainage channels should be accompanied by 10m wide maintenance strips, which should be kept free of obstacles to facilitate access to the channels for maintenance purposes,

o The flood study report acknowledges that some of the proposed development would be sited in the 1 in 100 year flood plain. It proposes a technical solution to this scenario, which would not lead to an increase in flooding either upstream or downstream. The works entailed in this solution would, therefore, need to be fully implemented, as partial implementation may increase the risk of flooding, and

o New culverts/bridges or changes to existing structures would require separate section 50 consents from the OPW.

• DoECLG: requested the submission of an archaeological impact assessment, which was submitted pursuant to a request for further information.

• Kildare County Council:

o Surface water/flood risk: The CFRAMS identifies flood protection works for Kilcock town centre. Funds for these works should be made available to the local authority prior to the commencement of development,

o Water supply: At present the watermain infrastructure at the County boundary is inadequate to serve the proposal. The adjoining local authorities need to agree on upgrades/new watermains within Kildare to serve the KELAP lands,

o Foul sewerage: The Leixlip WWTP is due to be upgraded to a capacity of 150,000 PE. The 8000 PE allocated for the KELAP lands could then be met. In the interim, a maximum of 2000 PE only could be made available,

o Transportation: The overall distributor road between the R148 and the R158 is welcomed, provided this road is constructed in its entirely prior to the development of the KELAP lands. While the TTA addresses Shaw

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of and Meath Bridges, it does not address the junction between the R148 and the R158, where there would be capacity and safety issues, and

o Heritage: recommends that an AA be prepared.

• An Taisce: Evaluation of proposal in relation to future development of surrounding area required.

Internal consultees

• Road design: Following receipt of further information, no objection, subject to conditions,

• Water supply: Detailed designs requested of proposed and agreed upgraded/new watermains and connection and metering locations,

• Surface water management: Following receipt of further information, no objection,

• Wastewater: Detailed designs requested of proposed sewers, including gradients, and agreed connection and metering locations, and

• Heritage: Monitoring conditions requested

Grounds of appeal

The appellants’ appeal critiques the current proposal and the parallel proposals for the remainder of the KELAP lands, i.e. the eastern lands, which are the subject of applications reg. nos. DA/100697 and 10/571, and the central lands, which are the subject of applications reg. nos. DA/100697 & 834 and DA/110346 & 457. They also refer to the justification tests under The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (PSFRM)and the Constitution. Accordingly, I will summarise their grounds under corresponding headings.

• The western lands, i.e. the appeal site/area B:

o The KELAP refers to the Balfeaghan Stream and an existing culvert, which is too small, and yet the applicant proposes to replicate this size of culvert,

o The applicant’s estimate that the design flow of the Balfeaghan Stream at the aforementioned culvert is 5.3 m3/s, whereas the appellants estimate that it is either 9.69 m3/s or 11.4 m3/s,

o The inverted siphon in the flood plain underneath the culverted Balfeaghan Stream would be too small to ensure that self cleansing occurs,

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of o The flow control function of the floodplain outlet weir would be inadequate to pass forward the volumes cited in the FRAMS for 10, 25 and 100 year storm events, and

o The flow control function of the floodplain outlet weir is sensitive to increases in floodwater levels. The appellants consider that the applicant has underestimated the volume of floodwater that arises within the Rye Water River’s catchment and so sensitivity is an issue.

• The eastern lands, i.e. area G:

o The flow controller would be inadequate to pass forward the volumes of water required by the FRAMS,

o The flow controller has been the subject of repeated design exercises that have yet to yield a satisfactory solution,

o The flow controller would be constructed within earthen embankments that would be the same height as the weir and so could be breached,

o The flow controller would be sited in a position that is prone to ponding, thus negating the opportunity to establish a head for waters being passed forward,

o The volume of water added between flow controllers in areas E, F and G exceeds the greenfield runoff from within these areas,

o There are discrepancies in water levels within the vicinity of the Upper Ditch culvert underneath the R125,

o Mounds above the aforementioned culvert would lead to an over reliance upon this culvert, which would be inadequately dimensioned to pass forward the volumes of water cited in the FRAMS,

o The effect of the aforementioned factors would be that a 10 year flood event would present to the appellants’ lands as between a 22.5 and a 37 year flood event,

o The rates of infiltration within area G would render the roadside storage trenches ineffective as attenuation measures,

o The proposed floodwater storage pond near the proposed new bridge on the R148 would only provide attenuation if lined,

o The applicant assumes that the aforementioned pond and trenches would facilitate percolation downwards. However, in the event that permeable

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of gravels overlay an impermeable layer, water would flow laterally to the nearest watercourse,

o There are discrepancies between storm event levels in the Rye Water River in the vicinity of Meath Bridge,

o The applicant’s use of a 1 variable equation to calculate the flow of the aforementioned River is questioned, due to the presence of soils with different runoff characteristics,

o The flow of the aforementioned River during a 100 year + 20% storm event is under estimated, and

o The FRAMS does not examine a scenario wherein there is “no new water in the Upper Ditch”, i.e. where flooding in the vicinity of the confluence of this Ditch and the Bride Stream occurs.

• The central lands, i.e. area C, D, E and F:

The appellant has also critiqued applications that are currently before the planning authority for these lands. Insofar as these applications remain to be determined, this critique may to a greater or lesser extent be allayed and so I consider that its inclusion under this appeal should be considered in this light.

• The Guidelines:

o The above grounds of appeal allude to the FRAMS, which has been found to be deficient. This Study underlies the KELAP and so this Plan is, accordingly, flawed,

o The appeal site lies within a flood plain wherein there is a moderate to high risk of flooding and so Box 4.1 of PSFRM Guidelines is relevant and, in particular, the third criterion, i.e. “A flood risk assessment to an appropriate level of detail has been carried out as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment as part of the development plan preparation process, which demonstrated that flood risk to the development can be adequately managed and the use or development of the lands will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts elsewhere,”

o “An appropriate level of detail” has not been forthcoming, e.g. the high infiltration rates of the KELAP lands and soil characteristics of the same have not been adequately identified,

o It has not been demonstrated that flood risk would be “adequately managed”, e.g. the siting of a flow controller in a flood pond in area G in the absence of a hydraulic gradient,

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of o It has not been shown that the “development of the lands will not cause adverse impacts elsewhere”, and so the aforementioned criterion has not been met,

o Box 5.1 of PSFRM Guidelines is relevant, too. The first criterion refers to zoning. In view of the foregoing discussion under Box 4.1, there is a question mark over the legitimacy/legality of the zoning of the KELAP’s lands, and

o The second criterion refers to not increasing the flood risk elsewhere, minimising flood risk and the management of residual risks. Aspects of the proposal would, in practise, contravene these criteria and so the Guidelines advise that permission should be refused.

• The Constitution and compensation:

The constitution refers to the right to private property, social justice and the common good. In view of the appellants’ critique of the proposal, it is clear that it would not be in the common good to proceed with the same. Furthermore, the underlying FRAMS is mistaken in its analysis of the flood plain and, in the absence of any publicly funded independent scrutiny of this Study, it has caused the appellants’ significant expense. The Board is therefore requested to exercise its discretion, under section 145 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 – 2011, and direct that they be compensated for this expense.

Responses

The applicant has responded to the above cited grounds as follows:

• Area B

o The appellants’ critique of the culvert is discounted, as it is based on an overestimate of the Balfeaghan Stream’s catchment and there would be a time differential between peak flood flows in this Stream and the Rye Water River, whereby the former would occur before the latter,

o The appellants have grossly overestimated the flow in the Balfeaghan Stream, due to the adoption of too large a catchment and a modifier factor, for use in calculations, which is considered to be technically inappropriate. The applicant’s figure does allow for climate change and design flows drew upon historical gauged data from Leixlip,

o Contrary to the appellant’s critique, the syphon would be designed to self cleanse under most scenarios. Furthermore, it would be subject to a monthly visual inspection,

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of o The appellants critique of the flow controller is overdrawn as the effect of the under-sizing of pipes in the throttle would be to activate the storage area more quickly than would otherwise be the case. In this respect the correct positioning of throttles and weirs is important to ensure the proper utilisation of storage areas during flood events.

The flow controller would be designed not to pass forward volumes in excess of those cited in the FRAMS for 10, 25 and 100 year storm events. The applicant acknowledges that this controller would be a complex hydraulic structure and he/she has submitted a stage 3 report and plans of the same, and

o The FRAMS does track the sensitivity to varying flows of the calculation of flood plain extents for 10, 25 and 100 year storm events.

• Area G

o The appellants’ flow calculations for the Rye Water River catchment are not accepted for the following reasons: the equation used is not appropriate to the size of catchment in question, the modifier factor used is inappropriate, flow hydrographs do not reflect flood plain storage and structures, FRAMS peak flows for the Bride Stream are incorrectly represented and the catchment area of the Balfeaghan Stream is overestimated, along with its flows,

o The appellants’ concerns over flow paths across the R125 omit to take into account existing flow paths across this road,

o The appellants’ description of “head losses” omits topographical considerations,

o The appellants’ flood analysis is incorrect due to the use of inaccurate levels in the vicinity of their lambing sheds and at certain chainage points,

o The appellants’ flow calculations for area G omit in and out-of-channel flooding from the Bride Stream, and

o The appellants’ assessment of the area G flow controller is based on lower flood levels than those used in the FRAMS.

• The Guidelines:

o In relation to the third criterion of Box 4.1, the FRAMS for the Rye Water River catchment informs the KELAP, which includes a policy that requires that proposals for the lands comply with this Study. The appellants critique of the

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 0 of FRAMS is based on the detailed engineering points, which the applicant has addressed above,

o In relation to criterion 1 of Box 5.1, the KELAP was prepared when the Guidelines were in draft form. Nevertheless, this Plan was informed by the FRAMS and the submitted Joint Flood Justification Test Report follows the sequential test and provides a development plan justification test, which is accepted by the planning authority and the OPW, and

o In relation to criterion 2, the proposed flood management scenario is the one recommended by the FRAMS. This scenario would allow the KELAP lands to be developed without increasing the risk of flooding and, indeed, reducing the risk to Kilcock town centre, by means of specified engineering works.

• The constitution and compensation:

o For planning purposes, the common good equates to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. The proposal would accord with this foundational test, insofar as it would:

entail flood relief to lands adjacent to the River Rye Water,

include flood defence works to Kilcock town centre,

facilitate the expansion of Kilcock,

enhance connectivity,

improve drainage and water supply infrastructure, and

contribute to Meath’s fulfilment of its housing targets under the Regional Guidelines, and

o The award of expenses would be improper and unwarranted, as the planning authority has via the FRAMS addressed the question of flood risk and the appellants have had ample opportunity to participate in the plan making process for the lands in question over the years.

The planning authority has responded to the above cited grounds as follows:

o Attention is drawn to the case planner’s reports and other technical reports on the planning file and the assessment process that underwent a further information stage, and

o Attention is also drawn to the FRAMS and KELAP and, in particular, to the OPW’s observations upon the proposal.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of Responses to responses

The appellant has responded to the applicant’s response as follows:

• Area B:

o Estimates of the catchment area of the Balfeaghan Stream: the FRAMS cites 3.74 km2 (although the applicant measures this to be 3.95 km2) and the applicant and appellants’ originally cited 3.74 km2 and 8.25 km2, but have now revised these estimates to 4.8 km2 and 6.04 km2, respectfully. These latter estimates raise questions as to the reliability of the hydraulic model used in the FRAMS and the adequacy of the culverts proposed for the Balfeaghan Stream,

o The appellants defend their use of the multi-variable equation to calculate a modifier for use in conjunction with the one variable equation, as this modifier gives expression to the distinctive soil characteristics of the aforementioned catchment area, which would otherwise be omitted,

o The applicant’s use of the one variable equation to calculate the flow of floodwaters in the Balfeaghan Stream and hence to design culverts for the same, makes no allowance for the uncertainty latent in this equation,

o The appellants state that their methodology does allow for differences in the timing of peak levels within the Balfeaghan Stream and the River Rye Water, and

o As originally submitted, the applicant’s design of flow control device was not compliant with FRAMS. The stage 3 design of this device, which is now before the Board, is not clearly in compliance, as it would ensure that pass forward volumes do not exceed the overland flow rates while the FRAMS requires them to match these rates. Furthermore, the appropriateness of introducing a new design at the appeal stage, which would otherwise have been the subject of a draft condition, is questioned, in the light of the Guidelines emphasis on dealing with these matters at the application stage. The appellants’ critique this latest design, too.

• Area G

o The appellants have undertaken a comprehensive survey of the R125 in the vicinity of the bridge across the Upper Ditch and they have been unable to identify the flow paths referred to by the applicant,

o The appellants did take topography into account in their assessment of head losses,

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of o The appellants disagree with the applicant’s response to their depiction of levels and the implications of the same for the Bride Stream, when in flood, and the ability of the flow controller to pass waters forward. A model is needed that would show the inter-relationship of the three waterways, i.e. the Upper Ditch, the Bride Stream and the Rye Water River, under different conditions.

In summary, the applicant has not addressed the appellants’ critique of his/her proposal in a sufficiently comprehensive and appropriate manner to allay the concern that it would, in practise, pose an unacceptable level of flood risk.

Observers

Kilcock and Districts Community Council: Objection is raised on the following grounds:

• The Rye Water River is prone to flooding, especially at the Meath Bridge near Kilcock town centre. The proposal would serve the development of the appeal site and it would lead to increased volumes of water passing underneath this Bridge,

• The proposal would lead to an increase in traffic using the Meath Bridge, which it would not be capable of accommodating. This Bridge needs to be upgraded, and

• The proposal would, also, lead to an increase in traffic using the Balfeaghan Bridge and so it, too, should be upgraded.

Planning history

Appeal site

• DA/70041 and PL17.225275 for the construction of new and realigned roadway and all associated and ancillary works, made by M & M Construction Ltd, Blackhall Green Homes Ltd and Gerard & Dermot Haughey, was refused permission on the grounds that, in the absence of detailed proposals for the overall development, the applicant had not demonstrated that it would not exacerbate the risk of flooding of his/her lands and adjoining lands and this application and concurrent ones for infrastructural works in lands zoned for development in the Kilcock Environs LAP 2003 (KELAP) should be the subject of an EIA, and

• Pre-application consultation on 15 th December 2009.

Adjoining lands to the east

The lands, which are the subject of the KELAP, have been the subject of a considerable number of applications in recent years and they are currently the

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of subject of a series of inter-related applications for infrastructure works across the breadth of these lands. These applications are summarised below:

In Kildare:

• 10/571 (PL09.238818) made by McGarrell Reilly Homes for a 0.6 hectare site to the south of the River Rye Water is currently before the Board.

In Meath:

• DA/60558 (PL17.238370) made by McGarrell Reilly Homes for a 36.7 hectare site composed of the eastern lands is currently before the Board,

• DA/100697 (PL17.239375) made by Czar Construction Ltd for a 11.4 hectare site composed of centrally placed lands has been received by the Board,

• DA/100834 made by Blackhall Green Homes Ltd for a site composed of centrally placed lands was permitted by Meath County Council on 12 th August 2011,

• DA/110346 made by The Adroit Company for a 1.92 hectare site composed of western lands is currently before Meath County Council, and

• DA/110457 made by McGarrell Reilly Homes for a 10.996 hectare site (formerly owned by M & M Construction Ltd, which is now in receivership) composed of centrally placed lands is currently before Meath County Council.

Development Plan

• Meath County Development Plan 2007 – 2013

An objective of the CDP was to seek the joint preparation of a local area plan for Kilcock and its environs. Subsequently, plans for the town and its environs were prepared in parallel with each plan acknowledging the others’ proposals. The CDP states that the residential development in the environs must be “matched by the delivery of key physical and social infrastructure and a strong economic base.”

The CDP is currently the subject of a proposed variation no. 12 entitled “core strategy”. This variation would entail the following revisions to the Plan’s approach to the Kilcock environs:

o The Plan envisaged that a lack of water services capacity within County Kildare for the development of Kilcock environs would be rectified by 2008 – 2009. The variation states “subject to Kildare County Council planned upgrade works”, and

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of o The Plan envisaged that over its life, i.e. 2006 – 2013, 1150 dwellings would be constructed within Kilcock environs. The variation cites 100 in this respect.

The variation is accompanied by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for County Meath (SFRA). This Assessment recommends that where flood risk significantly interacts with zoned future development, more detailed SFRAs should be prepared. Thus, when the KELAP is reviewed, a detailed SFRA should be prepared, with the existing CFRAMS being considered in this context.

• Kilcock Environs Local Area Plan 2009 – 2015 (KELAP) (adopted 22 nd September 2009)

This Plan shows the appeal site as lying within the western portion of the lands within its ambit. The land use zoning map shows a strip of land along the southern and eastern boundaries to this site as being subject to an objective F1 “To provide for and improve open spaces for active and passive recreational amenities” and the remainder of the site as being subject to the objective A2 “To provide for new residential communities and community facilities and to protect existing residential areas.” This map also shows the route of a major distributor road along the northern boundary of the site.

The urban concept map shows the appeal site as lying within character area 2. This map shows indicatively where frontage development and architectural priority areas would be sited. It also bears a commentary to the effect that the area 2 should have a density within the range of 50 – 55 dwellings per hectare, with building heights of 2 – 3 storeys.

The LAP cites a series of objectives on a topical basis. Of these the following are most pertinent to the current appeal:

o KSO 2 re. the provision of a “micro order of priority” for the release of residentially zoned lands on a phased basis to ensure the delivery of key infrastructure in tandem with residential development,

o KT 1 re. the provision of a spinal road corridor extending from the R148 to the R158, with the possibility of a further extension to the County boundary and onwards to connect with the Kilcock junction on the M4,

o KI 1 re. provision of a Water Services Provision Strategic Framework Plan for the entire LAP area, and

o KFR 1 re. proposed development to comply with the guidance and recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment Management Study (FRAMS) prepared by Meath and Kildare County Councils and the OPW.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of

• Kildare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017

This CDP reflects the RPG’s identification of Kilcock as a moderate sustainable growth town within the metropolitan area.

• Kilcock Local Area Plan 2009 – 2015 (adopted 27 th April 2009)

This LAP undertakes to co-operate with Meath County Council in both the co- ordination of water supply and the provision of a sewerage network and sewage treatment for Kilcock.

National planning guidelines

• Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010 – 2022

Kilcock is shown as lying within the metropolitan area and it is identified as a moderate sustainable growth town. The accompanying commentary on such towns envisages that they will continue to have a strong role as commuter locations. Growth needs to be based on the capacities of public transport and social infrastructure and, generally, connectivity with other urban centres in the metropolitan area is emphasised.

• The Planning System and Flood Risk Management issued in November 2009

Preliminaries

EIA

This application is the subject of an overarching EIS for all of the lands, which are the subject of the KELAP 2009 – 2015, and of an EIS for the appeal site itself. These EISs’ address all the factors that they should address, under article 3 of the EIA Directive, to facilitate EIA. They are, therefore, satisfactory under articles 94 and 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 – 2011.

Significant effects

Arising from a review of the submitted application, I have identified and described the likely significant effects that need to be considered under EIA, in advance of any mitigation. These effects are listed below, and they are assessed under the assessment section of my report.

• Fauna:

The River Rye Water is a salmonid river that provides a habitat for species, such as otters and kingfishers, which are protected under Annex II of the Habitats Directive and Annex I of the Birds Directive, respectively. The EIS

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of states, with respect to the flood storage works, that “There is a significant risk of sediment loss to the river during construction leading to potential pollution by solids and enrichment. This will continue until it is re-vegetated.” It also states that insofar as the proposal would facilitate future development it would have a moderate negative/permanent impact on existing habitats, which would be mitigated in time by landscaping.

• Water and hydrogeology:

During the construction phase, there would be a potential risk of pollution to watercourses that could have a moderate negative/short term impact. Mitigation measures have been agreed with Inland Fisheries Ireland.

The appeal site lies in the flood plain of the River Rye Water. During the operational phase, the efficacy or otherwise of the flood mitigation measures for this plain would be experienced. In the event of under-performance, significant flooding would arise.

• Noise and vibration:

Noise monitoring conducted within the vicinity of the appeal site for daytime hours ranges between 54.7 and 60.5 L Aeq dB(A). Construction phase plant and machinery would generate noise levels of between 61 – 92 L Aeq dB(A) at a distance of 10m. The EIS undertakes not to exceed 65dB(A). However, insofar as a new Ryebridge housing estate by the riverside to the south of the appeal site was not monitored, this undertaking may be unrealistic. (Normally, if noise levels exceed the 70 LAeq 1hr dB(A) at the façades of dwellings during weekdays, then this would be deemed to be unacceptable).

With respect to the operational phase, the EIS refers to the noise attenuation that would be afforded by the envisaged future dwelling houses, which would be built between the distributor road and the aforementioned housing estate. Elsewhere, the EIS acknowledges that there may be an interval in time between these items, in which case such attenuation would not be insitu. The EIS does not address this scenario.

• Landscape and visual impact: The CDP’s landscape character assessment shows this site as lying within the type referred to as “River Corridors and Estuaries”. This type is deemed to have a high value and a medium sensitivity, to be of regional importance and to have a low capacity for, amongst other things, roads and multi-house developments. The EIS states that “In a local context the change in landscape character will be significant and moderately negative in the short term.” However, it goes on to comment that, in the context of the wider landscape,

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of the appeal site would read as being on the fringe of Kilcock and so it would be influenced by the town’s existing urban character; hence the effect would be neutral. As intimated above, the EIS refers to a scenario wherein there is a lapse in time between the distributor road being built and the proposed dwelling houses. The EIS undertakes to mitigate the landscape effect of such a scenario by reinstating the entire site in low maintenance grassland.

The EIS states that the visual effect of the proposal during the construction phase, when viewed from either the new Ryebridge housing estate to the south or the Balfeaghan Bridge (R158) to the southwest, would be variously highly negative and moderately/highly negative, but with the advent of landscaping during the operational phase, this impact would be reduced to slightly negative.

• Material assets:

The proposed distributor road would, in conjunction with parallel proposals, provide a through road, which would serve, in the first instance, traffic generated by associated residential development and, in the second instance, traffic by-passing Kilcock town centre. Significant positive effects for traffic distribution and management in Kilcock would ensue.

• Archaeology and cultural heritage:

The EIS identified four geophysical anomalies within the appeal site, which were considered to have moderate to high archaeological potential and so any ground disturbance in their vicinity was judged to be a significant effect. These anomalies were the subject of a subsequent archaeological assessment, which discounted them.

• Interactions:

The pollution risks cited under the headings of fauna and water and hydrogeology could augment one another.

The appeal site lies within a flood plain and the proposal would entail the construction of flood mitigation measures. Thus, under the headings of water and hydrogeology and material assets there would be a relationship. In the event of under-performance of these measures, significant flooding would arise.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of AA

The Rye Water Valley/Carton cSAC lies c.5km downstream of the appeal site. The submitted EIS screened for AA and concluded that one was not needed.

Under parallel applications reg. nos. DA/60558 and 10/571, the planning authority requested an AA. The applicant responded by submitting a Natura Impact Statement. (The Board should note that this term is used by the applicant in advance of the commencement of the relevant provision within the Planning and Development Act 2010). This Statement considers that the only potential impacts on the conservation value of the aforementioned cSAC would be ones that can be transmitted by water, e.g. pollution arising from solids or chemicals arising from works on site to provide the proposed infrastructure. Consequently, water based fauna listed under Annex II of the Habitats Directive would be open to these impacts, i.e. otter, white-clawed crayfish and lamprey.

To minimise the aforementioned pollution risk, the applicant has agreed a series of safeguards with Inland Fisheries Ireland. Based on these safeguards, he/she concludes that, “there will be no changes in the Rye Water River which could lead to significant impacts on the designated area downstream or its conservation objectives.”

I have reviewed the NPWS’s site synopsis for the Rye Water Valley/Carton cSAC and the applicant’s Natura Impact Statement. I recognise that the appeal site and this cSAC are physically separated by a distance of c.5km and that the pathway between them is the River Rye Water. Accordingly, I concur with the Statement’s findings and conclusion and so I consider that the development proposed for the site would not adversely affect the integrity of the Rye Water Valley/Carton cSAC.

Assessment

I have reviewed the proposed development in the light of national and regional planning guidelines, county and local development plans, relevant planning history and the submissions of the appellants, observers, applicant and planning authority. Accordingly, I consider that this appeal should be assessed under the following headings:

(i) The planning status of Kilcock,

(ii) The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines,

(iii) Landscape, amenity and visual considerations,

(iv) Water and sewerage arrangements,

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of

(v) Traffic and access,

(vi) Construction phase, and

(vii) Integration.

As the proposed development is an integral part of a more extensive proposal to develop the environs lands on the northern and opposite side of the Rye Water River from the existing town of Kilcock, I have cause in my assessment to comment upon this proposal, too.

(i) The planning status of Kilcock

1.1 The National Spatial Strategy 2002 – 2020 does not refer to Kilcock specifically. However, as a town with a population of 4,100 in the 2006 Census, it lies within the category of smaller town, where local growth in residential, employment and service functions is anticipated, i.e. it is not one of the primary development centres which are the main focus for future growth.

1.2 The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2004 – 2016 distinguish between large, moderate and small growth towns within the metropolitan area. Kilcock is referred to as a moderate growth town. Normally such towns have a population in excess of 5,000. However, this town is envisaged as having an interacting and supporting role to Maynooth, an adjacent large town, and it forms part of the Primary Dynamic Cluster of Leixlip, Kilcock and Celbridge and Maynooth within which each of the first three towns is envisaged as having an interacting and supporting role to Maynooth.

1.3 The aforementioned Regional Planning Guidelines have been replaced by ones for the period 2010 – 2022. While these Guidelines refer to Maynooth, Leixlip, Celbridge and Kilcock as “vibrant towns” within the metropolitan area, they classify the former two as Large Growth Towns II and the latter two as Moderate Sustainable Growth Towns. The accompanying description of these classifications is as follows:

• Large Growth Towns II are smaller in scale than Large Growth Towns I, but they are strong active growth towns, economically vibrant with high quality transport links to larger towns/city, and

• Moderate Sustainable Growth Towns, in the metropolitan area, are strong edge of metropolitan area district service centres with high quality linkages and increased densities at nodes on public transport corridors.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 0 of

1.4 The commentary on these towns states that, as towns within the metropolitan area, they should see continued strengthening of this area strongly associated with upgrades to train services and lines in corridors associated with the proposed rail interconnector. It, thereby, links the strengthening, i.e. growth, of these towns with improvements to rail services and infrastructure.

1.5 Kilcock is the next station to the west, after Maynooth. It is served by a single railway track, as distinct from a double railway track. Whereas there are proposals under Transport 21 to electrify the railway line to Maynooth, in conjunction with the proposed interconnector, these proposals would not extend to Kilcock. Nor does Transport 21 propose the provision of a second track between Maynooth and Kilcock.

1.6 At present the main commuter train service terminates at Maynooth, and so it does not proceed to Kilcock, which, instead, is served by less frequent trains for Longford and Sligo. Under the aforementioned electrification scenario, this difference in service frequency between the two towns would only be heightened. Furthermore, the faster speeds associated with electrification would exaggerate the difference in travel times between Maynooth and Dublin and Kilcock and Dublin.

1.7 In view of these considerations, any application of the latest Regional Planning Guidelines to Kilcock suggests that its classification as a moderate sustainable growth town should be understood as entailing only a modest level of future growth, i.e. greater than modest growth, in the absence of improvements to rail services and infrastructure, would not be justified in terms of sustainability.

1.8 The existing town of Kilcock lies within County Kildare. The Kildare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017 was adopted on 4 th April 2011. This Plan replicates the classification of Kilcock as a moderate sustainable growth town in the metropolitan area, which is set out in the latest Regional Planning Guidelines. Its commentary on towns within this classification envisages that they will “continue to have a strong role as commuter locations within the fabric of continued consolidation of the metropolitan area. Future growth is related to the capacity of high quality public transport connections and the capacity of social and economic infrastructure. Connectivity to adjoining suburbs/towns and employment locations within the metropolitan area is also a key requirement particularly focused on local bus/cycle/pedestrian routes.”

1.9 Table 3.4 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017 indicates that in 2009 Kilcock, exclusive of its environs in County Meath, had 36.2 hectares of

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of undeveloped residential land, which represents a potential 2,042 dwellings or a population of 5,432. Table 3.5 of this Plan indicates that for the period 2006 – 2017 there is a growth target of 850 dwellings. There is thus a surplus of 1,192 dwellings. By comparison with Maynooth, Leixlip and Celbridge, Kilcock is the only one of these towns where a surplus in this respect has been recorded.

1.10 The Meath County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 was prepared under the former, rather than the latter, Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG). This Plan regards the environs of Kilcock as forming part of Kilcock, which is identified as a moderate growth town within the metropolitan area. It expresses the view that, under a sequential approach to development, the environs lands, which adjoin the Square in the town centre of Kilcock, would not have remained undeveloped. It further states that these lands must be developed on a balanced and sustainable basis whereby residential development is matched by the delivery of key physical and social infrastructure and a strong economic base.

1.11 An objective of the Meath County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 was the preparation of a joint local area plan for Kilcock and its environs. While this objective was not achieved, the Kilcock LAP 2009 – 2015 and the Kilcock Environs LAP 2009 – 2015 were prepared in tandem and they acknowledge one another’s provisions. These Plans were prepared under the former RPG and the former Kildare County Development Plan 2005 – 2011 and the current Meath County Development Plan. The latter Plan is the subject of a proposed variation, which revises downwards the number of dwellings envisaged for construction over the remainder of its life from 1150 to 100. The review of this Plan has also commenced with the pre-draft submissions phase. A publicly available commentary prepared for this phase sets out the key elements for the Plan’s core strategy, one of which states that the hierarchy of towns and villages will be largely as set out in the RPG.

1.12 In summary, the planning status of Kilcock in the latest RPG is that of a moderate sustainable growth town, within which future levels of growth are linked to improvements in rail services and infrastructure. Transport 21 does not list any such improvements that would benefit Kilcock and so its future growth should be limited, accordingly, to a modest level, in the interests of sustainability. The recently adopted Kildare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017 reflects this RPG, while the older Meath County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 does not, as it pre-dates the same.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of (ii) The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (PSFRM)

2.1 The application refers to a Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study for the Rye Water River, Kilcock (FRAMS), a copy of which accompanies the parallel application that is the subject of appeal ref. PL09.238370. This document shows the historic pattern of flooding on the Kilcock environs lands, including the appeal site, and the likely flood route of a 1 in 100 year flood event (cf. figures 2- 3 and 4-5, respectfully). It responds to the risk of flooding by outlining three key flood management objectives and four possible scenarios for these lands. The objectives seek to:

• Remove the risk posed by 1 in 100 year flood events from the town centre and the Ryebridge housing estate beside Balfeaghan Bridge,

• Retain the level of flood risk to lands upstream and downstream of Kilcock, and

• Produce a flood mitigation proposal for the development planned for the environs lands which addresses the requirements of Part 2 of the Justification Test described in the consultation edition of the draft PSFRM Guidelines. (This Part refers to flood risk minimisation and it assumes that Part 1 has been satisfied, i.e. a range of location, land use and SEA criteria).

Of the four scenarios, the fourth one, which is for flood water storage, was selected (cf. figure 5-2). This scenario has influenced the review of the original Kilcock Environs LAP 2003 – 2009. Consequently, the zoning regime in the current Kilcock Environs LAP 2009 – 2015 was refined to reflect its provisions.

2.2 Since the current LAP was adopted the PSFRM Guidelines have come into force. Under these Guidelines, the appeal site contains lands which lie within flood zones A and B, where there is variously a high or moderate risk of flooding (cf. figure 3 in the Joint Flood Justification Test Report). Consequently, the current application must be assessed under them.

2.3 Under the PSFRM Guidelines that are now in force, the previous Justification Test that comprised the aforementioned two Parts has been reworked as two separate tests, i.e. Box 4.1: Justification Test for development plans and Box 5.1: Justification Test for development management.

2.4 Paragraphs 4.26 and 4.27 of the aforementioned Guidelines address situations, such as that of the environs lands and the appeal site, where there are existing undeveloped zoned areas at risk of flooding. In such situations, planning authorities should reconsider the zoning objectives of the plan under review.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of Possible outcomes from such reviews are specified. These include the preparation of a LAP, which is informed by a FRAMS, and/or the specification, in exceptional circumstances and where the criteria of the Justification Test have been met, of the design of structural or non-structural flood risk management measures as prerequisites to development in specific areas. These measures must ensure that flood hazard and risk to other locations will not be increased or, if practicable, will be reduced.

2.5 In the case of the environs lands, the current LAP was informed by a FRAMS and, under the selected flood storage scenario, the design of structural or non- structural flood risk management measures has been outlined. In these circumstances, the Justification Test under Box 4.1 must be met. As indicated above, this Box encapsulates what was previously referred to as Part 1 of the Justification Test. The applicant has only indicated that Part 2 of this Test was run under the FRAMS/LAP review. Thus, it appears that the provisions of Part 1/Box 4.1 were not engaged with.

2.6 I have already summarised the exchanges between the appellants and the applicant over the third criterion set out in Box 4.1. I will now revisit this criterion and, while interacting with these exchanges, provide my own commentary on this one and the other criterion in chronological order. It should be remembered that all of these criteria must be satisfied.

Box 4.1

• Item 1: the urban settlement is targeted for growth under national, regional and local planning policies:

I have discussed the planning status of Kilcock under my first heading. As a smaller town, under the National Spatial Strategy, it is identified for local growth, and as a moderate sustainable growth town, under the RPG, I have discussed why I consider that this means that it is effectively identified for modest growth. This discussion is borne out by the commentary of the Kildare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017. (The Meath County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and the LAPs for Kilcock and its environs pre- date the current RPG). The town is thus identified for limited growth only.

• Item 2: the zoning/designation of the lands is required:

(i) To facilitate regeneration/expansion of the town centre:

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of The applicant draws attention to the Square within Kilcock, which he/she considers to be the town centre. The environ lands lie in a position adjacent to the Square on the northern side of the Rye Water River and so they are well placed to facilitate the sequential development of the town. The proximity of such development would foster support for the town centre.

The Kilcock LAP 2009 – 2015 shows the Square as lying within the area zoned town centre. However, this space with its associated buildings extends over only a small portion of the area that is the subject of this zone. The town centre zone thus depicted lies effectively between the River Rye Water, to the north, and to points immediately south of the Royal Canal, to the south, and it extends along an east/west axis to form an elongated shape. The functioning town centre is dispersed throughout this area, as retail, commercial and communal uses mingle with residential uses. Thus, the town centre is conveniently located for existing and proposed residential areas to the west and to the south, via Shaw’s Bridge. (To the east, the River and Canal converge to closely parallel one another). It also includes vacant and underutilised buildings and sites, which would provide opportunities for further retail and commercial uses within the existing town centre zoning, e.g. there is an extant permission granted to application reg. no. 07/1632 (appeal ref. PL09.227800) for a mixed commercial/retail/residential development to the east of The Square.

The overall scale and layout of Kilcock is such that existing and proposed residential areas to the west and south of the town centre lie within no more than 15 minutes walking time of the same. The environs lands would replicate this time. Thus, while it may be unusually to have a town centre that is located in the north eastern corner of a town, rather than more centrally, given the scale and layout of Kilcock, this location need not militate against a properly functioning town centre, which is supported by residential development to the west and south.

Accordingly, I do not consider that the zoning of the environs lands is required to facilitate the regeneration/expansion of the town centre.

(ii) As they were previously developed and/or are under-utilised:

The environs lands are presently in agricultural use, apart from the isolated example of one-off dwelling houses. Nevertheless, given these lands predominant agricultural use, they have not been previously

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of developed and, to date, they have not been serviced for the large scale development now envisaged.

The applicant states that the environs lands are under-utilised in the sense that their development potential has not been realised. However, under- utilised in this context refers to lands that are in use but to a low intensity for that use. The agricultural use of the environs lands does not/need not fit this description.

Accordingly, I do not consider that the environs lands were previously developed and/or are under-utilised.

(iii) As they are within/adjoining the town’s core:

I understand “adjoining” to mean “continuous with” and the town’s core to coincide with the aforementioned town centre zone. The environs lands do not lie within the core of Kilcock and a small portion of them would be continuous, in a qualified sense, with the same, i.e. for an appreciable distance to the southeast of County Meath Bridge and for a short distance to the northwest. The qualification is that the River Rye Water separates the town centre from the environs lands and, at present, the only link between the two is that provided by the aforementioned Bridge. Thus, the connectivity normally associated with “adjoining” is limited to this Bridge. Furthermore, the connectivity provided by the Bridge is limited by its narrow carriageway width, which militates against vehicles travelling in opposite directions passing one another, and the absence of any footpaths or cycleways. (This absence would be mitigated by the applicant’s proposals for this Bridge and, in time, by a proposed foot/cycle bridge, which is shown indicatively in the Kilcock Environs LAP 2009 – 2015).

(iv) To achieve compact and sustainable growth:

During my site visits, I noted that there are three housing estates in Kilcock where work has ceased, i.e. the Ryebridge Estate to the northwest of the town centre and two Estates to the southeast. Additionally, the Kilcock LAP 2009 – 2015 zones appreciable areas of land to the west and southeast of existing development for residential development. The former land would be serviced by a new road and it appears to be readily developable. Given my comments concerning the scale and layout of Kilcock, I consider that the unfinished Estates and zoned lands would be sufficient to facilitate the compact and sustainable growth of the town. This view is borne out by the recently adopted

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of Kildare County Development Plan, which I have discussed under the first heading.

Accordingly, I do not consider that the environ lands are needed to achieve compact and sustainable growth.

(v) As there are no suitable alternative lands less at risk of flooding within/adjoining the town’s core:

As noted above under (iii), the environs lands adjoin the town core in a qualified sense. The alternative lands identified under (iv) would be less at risk of flooding, apart from the Ryebridge Estate. However, they would be neither within or adjoining the town’s core.

• Item 3: Does any SEA, which accompanies the preparation of a development plan, include a flood risk assessment, which demonstrates that flood risk to the development can be adequately managed without causing unacceptable adverse impacts elsewhere:

If “development plan” is understood as referring to the Meath County Development Plan 2007 – 2013, then the accompanying SEA does not include a flood risk assessment of the Rye Water River in the vicinity of Kilcock. Alternatively, if “development plan” is understood as referring to the Kilcock Environs LAP 2009 – 2015, then this Plan was not the subject of SEA, beyond a screening exercise that concluded it was not required. However, it is informed by a FRAMS. Whether this FRAMS demonstrates that flood risk to the development can be adequately managed without causing unacceptable adverse impacts elsewhere is the subject of contention between the applicant and the appellants and observers. I will consider this matter further below.

2.7 Paragraph 5.27 of the PSFRM Guidelines addresses the assessment of major proposals for development in areas of flood risk pending implementation of these Guidelines. This paragraph begins by stating that such proposals “should be considered as though the land was not zoned for development”. It continues by advising that the applicant should prepare a strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA) and meet the Box 4.1 Justification Test. The planning authority must assess the proposal under the Box 5.1 Justification Test.

2.8 The Guidelines define SFRA as “The assessment of flood risk on a wide geographical area against which to assess development proposed in an area (region, county, town)”. The applicant’s FRAMS considers that portion of the

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of River Rye Water between a point just upstream of Balfeaghan Bridge and Anne’s Bridge to the north of Maynooth, i.e. a partial CFRAMS.

Box 5.1

2.9 The criteria set out in Box 5.1 are applicable when the proposed uses would be vulnerable to flooding and so inappropriate. The proposed development of the environs lands would entail the provision of mainly dwelling houses, which are classified in Table 3.1 of the PSFRM Guidelines as being highly vulnerable and so, when proposed for flood zones A and B (under Table 3.2), they must be subject to the Justification Test. The infrastructure works proposed under the current application would include the provision of part of a local distributor road, which would connect with 3 regional roads. Under Table 3.1 of the PSFRM Guidelines, this road could be classified as either for primary or local transport. While the proposed local distributor road would fulfil a secondary role as a northern by- pass of Kilcock, given that its primary role is local, I consider that the latter alternative is the more appropriate. Local transport is classified under Table 3.1 as being less vulnerable and so in flood zones A and B it is subject to the Justification test and considered appropriate, respectfully.

• Item 1: the lands have been zoned under a plan, which takes account of the PSFRM:

As outlined above, the Kilcock LAP 2009 – 2015 was the subject of the equivalent of the Justification Test under this Box, as distinct from that under Box 4.1. Accordingly, the zoning of these lands cannot be said to have taken account of the PSFRM Guidelines in their entirety, i.e. one of the two Tests was not undertaken.

The Box 4.1 Justification Test is undertaken for the environs lands above. The zoning of these lands fails this Test with respect to item 2(i), (ii) and (iv) and it passes items 1 and 2(iii) and (v) in a qualified manner only. (The position with respect to item 3 is the subject of on-going consideration under the current Box 5.1 Justification Test).

• Item 2: the proposal has been subject to a flood risk assessment that demonstrates:

(i) There will be no increase in flood risk elsewhere:

Figures 2-3 and 4-5 of the FRAMS show the historic flooding locations and the estimated route of a 1 in 100 year flood event, respectfully. The

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of former figure shows small areas of flooding on the southern side of the River on either side of the Balfeaghan Bridge and a short, narrow strip of flooding on the downstream side of the County Meath Bridge. Under the latter figure, these areas are shown as being more extensive and additional areas of flooding are shown between the Ryebridge housing estate and the town centre. Figure 5-2 of the aforementioned Study shows the applicant’s flood storage scenario. This figure indicates that proposed walls/embankments would be constructed in positions to counteract the flood risk areas denoted in figure 4-5. Thus, these measures would reduce the risk of flooding to these affected areas.

Figure 5-2 also depicts the overflow channel that would be constructed between a point on the River between the two aforementioned Bridges and the Upper Ditch. This channel/Upper Ditch would be designed to act as an overflow to the River during flood events and it would be constructed to allow flood water to be stored within each development area within the environs lands on a pro rata basis, i.e. storage sufficient to cope with a 1 in 100 year flood event + a 20% allowance for climate change + compensatory volume for that which is already no longer available on the southern side of the River due to the Ryebridge housing estate. Water levels within the channel/Upper Ditch would be controlled by a series of throttles and more extensive flood storage would be sited at the eastern end of the Upper Ditch, adjacent to where it joins the Bride Stream.

The applicant has stated that the flood storage scenario has been designed to mimic the existing flood risk conditions faced by people living and working downstream of the environs lands. The appellants’ express the view that this is unsatisfactory as existing conditions have deteriorated over those pertaining historically, due to residential development that has already occurred within the flood plain. They also express scepticism over the applicant’s “no change” position, based on a detailed and technical critique of the flood storage scenario.

The applicant has responded to the appellants’ former view by referring to his/her utilisation of historic data in the FRAMS and the coincidence of identified flood areas between this Study and the appellants’ anecdotal evidence. As to the appellants’ latter scepticism, notwithstanding the submission of further information at the appeal stage, this has grown and so there is at present an irreconcilable gap between the applicant’s assessment of the flood storage scenario and the appellants’. The Board

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of may wish to obtain the advice of a hydrologist, to elucidate/arbitrate upon these respective positions.

(ii) The risk to people and property is minimised:

As outlined above, the overall development proposals for the environs lands would secure a reduction in the flood risk to people and property in the existing town of Kilcock by means of flood protection walls/embankments. These structures would be funded by means of a special development levy, which would be imposed upon each of the developers, as they apply and obtain planning permission for the environs lands. The necessary works would be undertaken by the authority.

The development of the environs lands is being approached on an incremental rather than comprehensive basis, i.e. multiple applications rather than a single one. This approach runs the risk that, even if all the applications are permitted, some may not be implemented and so the opportunity to condition a special development levy would not arise consistently, resulting in a deficit in the funds required to secure the necessary works.

Beyond the aforementioned works, the overall flood mitigation works comprised in the overflow channel/Upper Ditch and associated throttles and flood water storage areas have been designed as an integrated response to flood risk. Again, the question arises as to what would happen to these works in the event that one or more of the developments does not proceed or if they do not proceed in a sequence that would facilitate the undertaking of the works. The applicant insists in the FRAMS that they have been designed to be capable of being undertaken independently of one another and representatives of the Meath and Kildare County Councils and the OPW have signed off on this Study. By contrast, the OPW, as consultee to the current application, comments that these works would need to be undertaken in their entirety, as partial implementation would increase the risk of flooding. In the absence of clarity on this matter, I consider that there is an onus upon the applicant to demonstrate convincingly the validity of his/her position. Such demonstration remains outstanding.

In the event that the aforementioned flood mitigation works would need to be provided in advance of the individual developments proceeding, the question arises as to whether such provision could be reasonably conditioned under each of the anticipated planning permissions. Turning

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 0 of to the current application, the red edge of the appeal site encapsulates only lands within the applicant’s ownership and so this site only includes the footprint of the flood mitigation works within this site. To condition the entire footprint of these works within the environs lands would thus be ultra vires .

In summary, whereas the overall development presents the prospect of a reduction in the risk of flooding to Kilcock, the delivery of flood mitigation works and the timing of such delivery is not assured. Furthermore, the effectiveness of certain of these works is disputed, as is the minimisation of flood risk elsewhere.

(iii) Residual risks can be managed to an acceptable level:

As there is no agreement between the parties on the question of flood risk under the overall proposed development, and notwithstanding the applicant’s commentary on residual risks, any consideration of the same is premature.

(iv) The above points are addressed in a manner that is compatible with good urban design:

The current application is for infrastructure works only and so there are no detailed proposals against which to assess urban design. That said, the Kilcock Environs LAP 2009 – 2015 provides some design guidance and the applicant has submitted a Joint Design Statement prepared by landscape architects on behalf of all of the developers, which would contribute to future design work.

The applicant has stated that surface water would be dealt with by means of SuDS. Any detailed design exercise would have to engage with the requirements of this drainage methodology. The appellants acknowledge the appropriateness of this methodology, but draw attention to the practical difficulties of realising its full potential in practise. The applicant’s FRAMS assumes the effectiveness of SuDS, an assumption which cannot be assessed in the absence of a detailed design exercise for the appeal site. Clearly, any shortfall in this respect would have implications for the FRAMS.

2.10 In conclusion, notwithstanding the zoning of the environs lands in the Kilcock Environs LAP 2009 – 2015, item 1 of Box 5.1, Justification Test for development management, would not be satisfied by the Kilcock Environs LAP 2009 – 2015

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of and item 2 of this Box would not be satisfied by the FRAMS insofar as the flood risk posed by the overall development of these lands, including the proposed infrastructure works under the current application, would not be self-evidently satisfactory. The Board may wish to obtain the advice of a hydrologist to enable a technical review of the FRAMS and the appellants’ critique of it to be undertaken.

(iii) Landscape, amenity and visual considerations

3.1 The CDP’s landscape character assessment shows the appeal site as lying within the type referred to as “River Corridors and Estuaries”. This type is deemed to have a high value and a medium sensitivity, to be of regional importance and to have a low capacity for, amongst other things, roads and multi-house developments. The EIS states that “In a local context the change in landscape character will be significant and moderately negative in the short term.” However, it goes on to comment that, in the context of the wider landscape, the appeal site would read as being on the fringe of Kilcock and so it would be influenced by the town’s existing urban character; hence the effect would be neutral.

3.2 The appeal site comprises a largely open field, which lies within a wider context of similar fields beyond the existing outskirts of Kilcock. This field is bound to the south by the Rye Water River. Riverside vegetation accompanies this River on either side and further to the south there is the new Ryebridge housing estate, which has an open grassed area adjacent to the River. Elsewhere, along the north eastern and eastern boundaries, the field is enclosed by hedgerows and trees.

3.3 The proposal would entail works to the riverside to form a flood plain with an overflow channel through it. These works would entail the removal of the existing riverside vegetation. The proposal is also accompanied by an indicative drawing entitled “Green linkages and public open space hierarchy”. This drawing shows a linear park along the riverside, through which would pass a walkway and cycleway. It is unclear whether the aforementioned flood mitigation measures and these amenity provisions would be compatible with one another.

3.4 The proposal would entail the provision of a new distributor road along the northern boundary of the appeal site. This road would be constructed to a higher specification than the existing one, which follows this boundary, and so the existing hedgerows that accompany it would be removed, although not the trees in the vicinity of the entrance to Balfeaghan House. The applicant’s EIS states that, while these hedgerows are of low ecological value, their removal

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of could be mitigated by the planting of replacement hedgerows on either side of the new road.

3.5 The applicant’s EIS draws attention to short range views of the appeal site that are available from the R158, the L6228 and the Ryebridge housing estate and to medium range views that are available from the Royal Canal and the Dublin – Sligo railway to the west. It states that, during the construction phase, the visual impact would be appreciable but that with landscaping this would reduce to slightly negative during the operational phase.

3.6 I consider that any assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal needs to begin by engaging with the CDP’s commentary on the River Corridors and Estuaries landscape character type. This commentary flags up the challenge that locating roads and multi-house developments pose, given the low capacity that this landscape type has to absorb such development.

3.7 One of the difficulties presented by the current proposal is that it provides detailed infrastructural designs for the distributor road and flood mitigation measures in the light of only indicative layout plans for the future housing development that would be facilitated thereby. Thus, for example, the mitigation that landscaping may be capable of affording to the visual impact of this proposal and future housing upon views across the southern and western boundaries can be asserted but not demonstrated. I anticipate that the proposed flood mitigation measures along the riverside would effectively require that any hedgerows/tree planting be located deeper into the appeal site than suggested by the indicative “Green linkages and public open space hierarchy” drawing. Similarly, such planting along the western and north eastern boundaries of the site would have implications for the layout and density of future housing.

3.8 I, therefore, conclude that, during its construction phase, the proposal would have landscape and visual impacts, which would be capable of only limited mitigation. However, during its operational phase, it would have landscape and visual impacts, which would be capable of being satisfactorily mitigated.

(iv) Water and sewerage arrangements

4.1 The proposal would be dependent on water supply and foul drainage arrangements provided by Kildare County Council (KCC) and routed through the KELAP lands alongside the distributor road. Thus, the applicant reports that a connection point to the existing water mains within Kilcock town centre has been agreed with KCC. A new water main would run between this point and the

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of south eastern corner of the aforementioned lands, where a roundabout would be constructed between the R148 and the distributor road (cf. application reg. no. 10/571/appeal ref. PL09.238818). The applicant’s submitted plan entitled “Road development works site services layout” (drawing no. 082040-3201 revision B) shows the proposed water main in the appeal site extending as far as the County boundary by the Balfeaghan Bridge on the R158. Subject to the continuation of this water main into County Kildare, this extension would provide the opportunity for a looped water supply network in the future.

4.2 The foul drainage arrangements for the appeal site would, likewise, entail connecting ultimately to a foul sewer which serves the Kilcock pumping station adjacent to the south eastern corner of the KELAP lands. The on-site foul drainage arrangements would include a pumping station necessitated by KCC’s insistence on a steeper fall within the proposed sewer than originally proposed (cf. to the discussion of this matter in my report on application reg. no. 10/571/appeal ref. PL09.238818).

4.3 I conclude that the proposed water and sewerage arrangements would be satisfactory, subject to their provision in conjunction with all the other parallel arrangements for the KELAP lands.

(v) Traffic and access

5.1 The applicant has submitted a Traffic and Transport Assessment for the proposed distributor road (TTA). This Assessment examines the capacity of two junctions, i.e. the roundabout between the R158 and the distributor road and the priority junction between the R125 and the R158. It concludes that the former junction would perform well under each of the scenarios adopted for 2030. However, in the absence of the completion of the distributor road, the latter junction would operate at over capacity in this year, although this could be remedied if it was re-specified as a roundabout. This finding has a bearing on the subject of the timing of the implementation of the current proposals for the KELAP lands, which I discuss further under the heading of “Integration”, below.

5.2 The applicant has also submitted an engineering report on the distributor road proposed for the appeal site. This report outlines how the design of this road would meet with relevant modern specifications for the same.

5.3 The Balfeaghan Bridge on the R158 is a protected structure. This Bridge is of sufficient width to accommodate two lanes of traffic. However, it makes no provision for footpaths/cycleways, nor could it do so and retain its two way traffic flow. The indicative movement strategy map for the KELAP lands shows

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of footpaths and cycleways on either side of the Rye Water River downstream of the Bridge. It also shows a dedicated foot/cycle bridge, which would connect the same to one another. The construction of this bridge should be prioritised as a safe alternative to that of the Balfeaghan Bridge and as a means of promoting connectivity between the western KELAP lands and amenities on the north western side of the town centre. (These amenities include schools, sports facilities and the parish church).

5.4 I conclude that the proposed traffic and access arrangements would be satisfactory, subject to the construction of the distributor road in its entirety.

(vi) Construction phase

6.1 Of the possible significant effects identified above under my EIA, three pertain to the construction phase, i.e. fauna, water and hydrogeology and noise and vibration. The former two effects relate to the risk of pollution and the latter effect relates to the noise generated by construction activities. I will discuss these effects in turn.

6.2 In relation to the risk of pollution, the applicant undertakes to adhere to the requirements of Inland Fisheries Ireland and in the EIS for the KELAP lands as a whole a series of 12 further precautionary measures are outlined. An acceptable level of mitigation would ensue.

6.3 In relation to noise, the EIS does not provide as full an assessment of this effect as it could do, i.e. noise monitoring from the nearest residences on the Ryebridge housing estate was not carried out. Nevertheless, on the basis that any construction phase for the proposed infrastructure works would be of limited duration and contained within the normal days and hours for construction activities and provided the applicant adheres to his/her proposed mitigation measures, the residual noise profile would be likely to be compatible with residential amenity.

6.3 I conclude that, notwithstanding some omissions from the EIS, the proposed mitigation measures outlined therein for the construction phase would be likely to be satisfactory.

(vii) Integration

7.1 The planning history of the environs lands indicates that there has previously been concern over the absence of an overarching EIS and a common approach to flood risk. The current applications for these lands are now founded upon

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of such an EIS and a commonality of approach to such risk. Thus, if each application is finally permitted, then they would provide the basis for the provision of an integrated infrastructure for the environs lands over the next 10 years.

7.2 The current application is accompanied by a Joint Implementation Strategy, which addresses the implementation of each of the anticipated permissions. A legal agreement between the 6 landowners concerned is proposed. This agreement would provide a mechanism whereby, in a situation of default by one landowner, other landowners could fund and undertake outstanding works.

7.3 With respect to the current application, the planning authority’s draft permission is subject to condition 22, which requires that a section 47 agreement be made between the applicant and the authority to ensure the full delivery of infrastructure works. If this condition is replicated in permissions granted to the other current applications, then, provided development commences in each case, the planning authority would be in a position to pursue their full implementation. In the event that development does not commence in any particular case, the onus for the pursuit of implementation would pass to the other landowners. In such circumstances, the planning authority would not be in a position to pursue implementation.

7.4 Under the second heading, I have discussed two outstanding issues that relate to the question of integrated implementation, i.e. in the event of default, the aforementioned emerging legal agreement does not refer to the payment of the special development levy towards off-site flood mitigation works, and the scope for on-site flood mitigation works to be implemented on a partial, as distinct from comprehensive basis, remains unclear and in dispute.

7.5 Under the fourth heading, I have noted that the proposed water supply and foul drainage arrangements, which would accompany the proposed distributor road, would need to be provided in conjunction with parallel proposals for the other KELAP lands, if each site is to be serviced. Likewise, under the fifth heading, I have discussed the importance of the distributor road being constructed in its entirety, if off-site traffic congestion at the junction between the R125 and the R158, identified by the applicant’s TTA, is to be averted.

7.6 I conclude that the proposed measures to ensure that the infrastructure works for the environs lands would be provided on an integrated basis are such that pursuit of the implementation of these works would be shared between the planning authority and the landowners themselves. In circumstances where one landowner does not begin to proceed at all with permitted works, the planning authority would be reliant upon the other landowners to step in. This scenario is a corollary of the fact that the infrastructure works are the subject of multiple applications rather than a single, comprehensive one.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of Conclusion

Under the current Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010 – 2022 and the recently adopted Kildare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017, the planning and public transport status of Kilcock is such that the town is in a position to accommodate modest growth only, if such growth is to represent sustainable development.

The appeal site lies within the Kilcock environs lands. These lands lie within the flood plain for the Rye Water River. This plain is zoned A and B under the Government’s Guidelines entitled “The Planning System and Flood Risk Management” (PSFRM Guidelines).

The proposed infrastructure works for the appeal site form an integral element of a major development proposal for the Kilcock environs lands within County Meath. These works combine highly vulnerable and less vulnerable elements for location within this flood plain, as does the associated major development proposal, and so the Justification Test under the Guidelines is obligatory.

Notwithstanding the zoning for predominantly residential development, under paragraph 5.27 of the PSFRM Guidelines, the proposed infrastructure works are subject to the Justification Test for development management.

Under the first item of this Test, the zoning of these lands must have occurred under the Guidelines. The zoning in question is in the Kilcock Environs LAP 2009 – 2015, which was adopted before the statutory Guidelines came into force. During the preparation of this LAP, regard was had to the consultation edition of these Guidelines, i.e. with respect to flood risk mitigation rather than the question of land use zoning, in principle. Thus, the zoning of these lands shown in the original Kilcock Environs LAP 2003 – 2009 was revised to take account of flood risk mitigation measures only.

The question of land use zoning, in principle, could have been addressed under the consultation edition, too. This appears not to have occurred. Under the equivalent provisions in the current Guidelines, i.e. items 1 and 2 in the Justification Test for development plans, I consider that this question should be clearly answered in the negative.

Accordingly, the zoning of the environs lands did not take sufficient account of the emerging Guidelines for me to conclude that they were taken into account. The proposed infrastructure works therefore fail item 1 of the Justification Test for development management.

Under the second item of the Justification Test for development management, the proposed infrastructure works must be subject to an appropriate flood risk

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of assessment, which is capable of passing a series of requirements. The applicant has submitted such an assessment, which has been critiqued by the appellants. From these submissions, it is not self-evident to me that the assessment would meet these requirements. The Board may wish to obtain the advice of a hydro geologist in this respect.

I have assessed the other aspects of the proposed development and, whereas there are certain matters that have yet to be resolved, none lie outside the ambit of conditions that could be imposed.

Recommendation

In the light of my conclusion, I recommend that the proposed infrastructural works, including a proposed distributor road (c.430m x 7.3m) with accompanying cycleways, footpaths and landscaping, and associated flood mitigation works, i.e. the re- profiling of the banks to the Rye Water River and the provision of flood water storage and the re-alignment and re-profiling of the Balfeaghan Stream and its partial culverting, at the townland of Balfeaghan, Kilcock, Co. Meath, be refused permission.

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of Reasons and considerations

The application site lies within the Kilcock environs lands. This site and these lands lie within the flood plain for the Rye Water River. This plain is zoned A and B under The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines.

The proposed infrastructure works for the application site form an integral element of a major development proposal for the Kilcock environs lands within County Meath. These works include highly vulnerable elements for location within this flood plain and so the Justification Test under the Guidelines is obligatory.

Notwithstanding the zoning of the environs lands for predominantly residential development in the Kilcock Environs Local Area Plan 2009 – 2015, under paragraph 5.27 of the Guidelines, the proposed infrastructure works are subject to the Justification Test for development management. As the zoning does not take account of these Guidelines, the proposed infrastructure works, which would serve the eventual, predominantly, residential use of the environs lands, would fail the Justification Test.

Accordingly, to permit the proposed infrastructural works would contravene The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines and so be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Hugh D Morrison Inspector 27 th September 2011

______PL An Bord Pleanála Page of