An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Development: Re-development of Pairc Ui Chaoimh, Monahan Road, Ballintemple, Cork.
Planning Authority: Cork City Council
Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 13/35808
Applicant: Cork County GAA Board
Type of Application: Permission
Planning Authority Decision: Grant with Conditions
Appellant(s): (1) Richard Cronin (2) Save Marina Park/Denis O’Regan (3) Cork County GAA Board
Type of Appeal: Third Party Vs Grant/Applicant v Condition
Observers: (1) Dan Boyle (2) An Taisce
Date of Site Inspection: 6/7/2014, 21/72014, 9/9/2014
Inspector: Hugh Mannion
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 77
1. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site has a stated area of 9.38ha and is located in Ballintemple about 5kms east of Cork City centre. The existing stadium covers 3.8ha and additional areas covering parking, access and circulation are part of the larger site. The application states that the stadium is surrounded by lands in the ownership of Cork City Council. To the immediate west of the stadium and within the application site is a disused cattle shed proposed for demolition. To the west and southwest of the existing stadium/proposed site, and outside the site boundary, are the grounds and buildings of the Munster Agricultural Society Show Grounds. These buildings are not open to the public but there is an open area between the eastern façade of the Agricultural Society and the site which is partially hard-cored and is used as informal parking/circulation space associated with the stadium use.
To the immediate south of the site is further open ground with an access south onto Monahan Road. There is a shared vehicular/pedestrian access to/from Monahan Road in this area but it appears to be confined to pedestrian access on major match days. To the southeast are two disused viewing stands overlooking an ovoid grassed area previously used as part of the Munster Agricultural Society Show Grounds and now surrounded by a poorly maintained track. A culverted stream runs under these viewing stands.
To the east (the Blackrock end) there is a circulation space under the terrace and a low wall separates this area and the site of the proposed development from a fairly overgrown green area; further to the east of this green area is the “Atlantic Pond” and surrounding park. The north stand backs onto a stream and a strip of overgrown ground; this area then rises up to the southern edge of the Marina Road. There is an access to the site from the Marina Road.
The road network in the area comprises mainly east/west routes linking Blackrock to the city centre. To the east is a roundabout from which Monahan Road and Centre Park Road lead east towards Pairc Ui Chaoimh. During my first site inspection (the day of the Munster football final) Centre Park Road was the main vehicular/pedestrian access from the west or City side and Monahan Road was restricted to emergency access and closed to match traffic. Blackrock Road approaches the site from the east and Churchyard Lane approaches from the south. Park Avenue links the Blackrock Road to the main/southern access to the site off Monahan Road and Barringtons
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 77 Avenue links Blackrock Road to the Marina. Both these roads were closed to all but local traffic/pedestrian traffic on the day of the Munster football final.
The landuses on Centre Park Road are exclusively industrial/commercial between the roundabout and the site. The uses on Monahan Road are also largely industrial/commercial but there are two concentrations of residential development accessed from Monahan Road close to the site – Birchgrove and Maryville. Birchgrove is the smaller of these two developments with 24 houses and has a single vehicular/pedestrian access onto Monahan Road immediately to the east of the main access into Pairc Ui Chaoimh. Maryville comprises over 70 houses in two culs de sac each of which has a junction with Maryville proper which links the eastern end of Monahan Road to Blackrock Road to the south. Both these developments were subject to parking/access management arrangements on Sunday 6th July 2014.
There is a further small group of houses on Ardfoyle Crescent on the south eastern boundary of the site whose rear gardens back on the rear of the two disused viewing stands overlooking the grassed area within the application site.
2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This is an application for a 10 year permission for the proposed redevelopment of Pairc Uí Chaoimh, Monahan Road, Ballintemple, Cork. The development comprises the refurbishment and expansion of Pairc Uí Chaoimh and for the provision of a new all-weather playing pitch on part of the former showgrounds lands, with ancillary works, as part of the creation of a centre of excellence.
The proposed development includes an increase in capacity from the existing provision of 43,500 persons to 45,000 persons, demolition of the south stand, partial demolition of the north stand and removal of the internal circulation area, part demolition of the Blackrock (east) terrace and City (west) terrace and removal of the internal circulation areas, demolition of the south west viewing Stand, demolition of the south east viewing Stand, demolition of disused sheds and former garage, all within the showgrounds. A temporary construction compound is proposed with construction enabling works, inclusive of a temporary access at Monahan Road, provision of services and works to existing watercourses north and south of Pairc UI Chaoimh.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 77 The construction of a new multi-tier covered south stand and provision of facilities within the stand for players’ and officials’ changing areas, spectator concourses, food and drinks services (including licenced alcohol sales and bars). A gymnasium, toilets, meeting rooms, museum, offices, stores, plant rooms and associated support services and infrastructural works are proposed within the refurbished south stand.
Works to the north stand will include the replacement of the demolished section of the north stand, an extension to and refurbishment of the north stand, provision of a roof over the stand incorporating steelwork removed from the roof of the south stand. Services including spectator concourse, toilets, food and drinks services (including licenced alcohol sales, bars), stores, support services and infrastructural works are proposed.
Works are proposed to the Blackrock and City terraces incorporating the refurbishment of and extension to the terraces and provision of services, including spectator concourses, toilets, food and drinks services, stores, associated support services and infrastructural works.
Floodlighting is proposed to the existing playing pitch. A new all- weather pitch is proposed to the south of the existing stadium, with a 1,000 person seated viewing area cantilevered from the south side of the south stand, floodlighting, services, surface water storage provisions, ball stop netting and fencing; external hard and soft landscaping, level changes, access provisions for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, boundary/fencing provisions, external signage, landscaping provisions to allow for linkage to the future Marina Park, vehicle parking, access alterations to Monahan Road, boundary treatment and all associated works; provision of associated support services and infrastructural works.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
In the early 1970s outline permission (reference 3919/73) and approval (reference 4521/93) were granted for the present stadium and the stadium opened in June 1976 with a capacity of 50,000 people.
Reference 22887/99/PL28.11018 granted permission for car parking/revised Monahan Road entrance.
Reference 24455/00 permitted new toilet blocks at Pairc Ui Chaoimh.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 77 Under 28.HA.0013 the Board granted permission for the construction of the Eastern Gateway Bridge and associated road network and the construction of the Water Street Bridge and associated road network, the raising and upgrading of Centre Park Road, the raising and upgrading of Monahan’s Road and related works in the Cork Docklands, Cork.
4. THE PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION
The planning authority granted permission subject to 30 conditions. Condition 25(f) required the developer to identify and provide for adequate lighting along key pedestrian routes to Pairc Ui Chaoimh, in particular along Monahan Road, Centre Park Road, Old Railway Line and the Marina. The extent of the area to be considered for upgrades and the specification must be agreed in writing with Cork City Council. All associated costs must be borne by the developer and the lighting should be installed prior to the first operation/opening of the development.
The City Architect recommended permission for this “excellent architectural proposal”.
The Parks Department reported that the site is a major element in the South Docks Local Area Plan 2008 which proposes the development of Marina Park as the primary open space and recreational area for the redeveloped/mixed use South Docks area. The Marina Park Masterplan was adopted in July 2013.
The Parks Department recommended permission subject to conditions.
The Transport Department raised issues which were raised by the planning authority by way of a request for further information.
The National Roads Authority (NRA) commented that the application should be assessed in light of the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DoECLG 2012).
The Drainage Division commented that the site is within an area defined in the Flood Risk Management Guidelines Zone A – where the probability of flooding is highest. The report raised issues in relation to flooding and drainage which were raised with the applicant in a request
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 77 for further information. The report also concluded that an appropriate assessment (AA) was not required.
The Chief Fire Officer commented that a fire safety certificate would be required.
The Roads Section noted that seating had a head clearance of 3.65m over access areas and recommended that it be 5.1m for emergency vehicles. Radii at the Monahan Road junction are excessive and should be reduced to 6m. The report also calculated development contributions.
The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht recommended that the views of the City Archaeologist be adhered to.
The City Council’s Environment Department recommended that further information be requested in relation to (a) the possibility of replacing the proposed gas fired boiler with a combined heat and power plant and (b) a BER cert in relation to the heating/cooling requirements for the meeting rooms, cafes and offices being proposed.
This recommendation in report was not incorporated into the request for further information.
The Inland Fisheries Board reported that there is confusion in relation to the treatment of water courses to the north and south of the site. If the channels of these two streams are to be altered Board recommends that its views be sought by way of a request for FI.
This recommendation in report was not incorporated into the request for further information.
The Water Services section reported no objections subject to conditions.
The Environment Waste Management and Control section reported no objection subject to conditions. The section reviewed certain chapters of the EIS. Chapter 2 (waste management), chapter 7 Soils and Geology, chapter 8 Air and Water, chapter 9 Noise and Appendix 10 were reviewed and it was concluded that these were adequate.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 77 Initially the planning authority sought Further Information in relation to;
(1) The provision of a revised flood risk assessment (FRA) in relation to flood risk to the ground floor uses.
(2) The revised FRA should address the risk of flooding from the River Lee and its impacts, safe access/egress, revised design to mitigate flood risk, displaced flood impacts, options for flood storage.
(3) The revised FRA should address the issue of pluvial flooding if the attenuation measures in the re-developed Marina Park are not provided.
(4) The revised FRA should address use of flood storage cells under a raised all-weather pitch and how these cells should empty.
(5) A revised traffic impact assessment (TIA) should;
i. Include revised traffic counts taken at peak times. ii. Model traffic impacts west of the Victoria Road/Albert Road/N27 junction. iii. Remodel pedestrian movements. iv. Model pedestrian movements in the event of delays to redeveloped Marina Park. v. Factor in impacts arising from other permitted development in the area. vi. Assess the impacts of combined match goers, residents and businesses on match days. vii. Assess differing match times on traffic. viii. Discount green areas in accessing parking space availability. ix. Demonstrate parking areas on a map and justify figures for on-street parking availability. x. Compare the parking provision for similar sized stadiums in Ireland/Europe. xi. Set out existing traffic management plans. xii. Revised layout for the park and ride facility at Pairc Ui Rinn and pedestrians crossing roads in the area (especially Boreenmana Road). xiii. Confirm capacity of car parks indicated in the TIA.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 77 xiv. Alternative plans in the event that the Marina Park redevelopment does not go ahead.
The applicant submitted further information on the 3rd March 2014.
Transport Division reported subsequent to the receipt of the FI submission and the stated that it had no objection subject to conditions.
The Drainage Division reported subsequent to the receipt of the FI submission and the stated that it had no objection subject to conditions.
The City Archaeologist reported subsequent to the receipt of the FI submission and the stated that she had no objection subject to conditions.
The Conservation Officer reported on the proposal to demolish the 19th century viewing stands on the south-eastern edge of site and recommended a condition.
5. THIRD PARTY GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The third party grounds of appeal may be summarised as follows;
• The 10 year duration of permission is too long and will give rise to an elongated period of uncertainty and disruption in the area.
• Access, parking and traffic management already give rise to congestion in the area and illegal parking. The additional uses being proposed (additional training events, corporate events, and museum) will give rise to additional traffic, parking and access problems.
• The traffic modelling is focussed on the construction phase and does not address the operational phase. There is no pedestrian modelling.
• The EIS did not consider alternative locations – the Mahon peninsula is effectively a cul de sac. If Monahan Road is widened to 18m this will impact on safety of cyclists and pedestrians.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 77 • The GAA has not consulted the local community in relation to the proposed development. The lacunae in the EIS and in the applicant’s response to the request for further information have undermined the public’s right to participate in the planning process and to access information on the environment.
• The proposal is pre-mature pending a Part 8 Application for works to Marina Park.
• The proposed development will be 42.85m and 28.7m closer to residential uses in Ballintemple. This height will impact negatively on views towards Tivoli/Montenotte and Blackrock Road Bridge. The design quality of the proposal is poor and will be out of place in its residential/parkland setting.
• The synthetic pitch will release contaminates to the highly vulnerable aquifer underlying the site. This pitch will give rise to flooding elsewhere. The pitch will split Marina Park in two with impacts on wildlife in the lower River Lee.
• The proposed development will require the loss of trees on the south and south west of the site.
• The proposed development includes a boundary wall along Monaghan Road where none was proposed in original redevelopment plans for Marina Park. This will create a sense of severance between the park and residential areas.
• The proposed development will exacerbate the problem of floodlighting in Ballintemple which already experiences light pollution from existing GAA, rugby pitches, tennis courts, hockey pitches and the container port at Tivioli.
• The noise assessment in the EIS is based on 700 people attending a rural based venue. No assessment of late night events, public address systems, traffic noise, concert noise, crowd sounds have been carried out.
• The conditions attached to the grant of permission are inadequate to manage the impacts arising from events, traffic and public access.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 77 6. APPLICANT’S GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The applicant has appealed condition has appealed against condition 25(f) which was as follows;
The applicant/developer shall identify an provide for adequate lighting along key pedestrian routes to Pairc Ui Chaoimh in particular along Monahan Road, Centre Park Road, Old Railway Line and the Marina. The extent of the areas to be considered for upgrades and the specification shall be agreed in writing with Cork City Council. All associated costs shall be borne by the applicant/developer. The lighting shall be installed by the applicant developer prior to first operation/opening of the development.
The applicant’s grounds of appeal may be summarised as follows;
• The matter of lighting of approach roads towards Paric Ui Chaoimh should be dealt with by way of a special contribution under section 48(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Such a contribution would amount to €60,000.
7. PLANNING AUTHORITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The planning authority responded to the Third Party appeals as follows;
• The application complies with the provisions of the City Development Plan, the amended South Docks LAP 2008 and the Marina Park Masterplan 2013.
• The planning authority assessed the environmental impacts of the proposed development and carried out an appropriate assessment of the proposed development.
• Section 34 of the Act allows the planning authority to impose conditions requiring points of detail to be agreed between applicants and the planning authority.
• The proposal is not a greenfield site and would give rise to a marginal increase in capacity from 43,000 to 45,000.
The planning authority responded to the Applicant’s appeal against condition 25(f) as follows;
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 77
• Section 34(5) allows for the attachment of conditions providing for agreement on points of detail. Condition 25(f) is such a condition and is related to the need to provide adequate lighting along key pedestrian routes around Pairc Ui Chaoimh.
8. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO APPEALS.
The applicant responded to the appeals as follows.
• The proposal comprises a GAA centre of excellence with a upgraded Páirc uí Chaoimh and a new all-weather flood lit full size pitch immediately south of the stadium. The proposal is part of an overall strategy to develop Gaelic games in Cork.
• The appeals received by the Board included submissions which should have been made under separate cover with additional fees.
• The construction phase for the proposed development will be 26 - 30 months. Because of this long construction phase and the possible linkup with the refurbishment of Marina Park a permission lifetime of 10 years is appropriate.
• The traffic management plan has been approved by the Gardaí, local residents and the planning authority and is submitted as part of the EIS. Separate traffic plans are prepared for major match days in consultation with the Gardaí and city council. The plan accommodates attendances between 1,000 and 45,000. The present capacity is 43,500 and the proposed increase is of the order of 3.4%. Some housing estates off Monaghan Road (Maryville and Birchgrove) will have traffic restrictions when attendances exceed 1000. Trucks, team busses and cars will use Marina Park only on match days.
• Pedestrian movement has been assessed and drawings submitted to demonstrate that the local road network is adequate to facilitate safe movement of pedestrians. The analysis was carried out for the proposed capacity of 45,000 persons.
• In relation to alternatives considered it should be noted that grounds have been in existence since 1898 with a major refit in
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 77 1976. The additional facilities (all weather pitch, centre of excellence, medical facilities, meeting rooms) can only be economically provided on this site. The estimated cost of this proposal at €25m would be further added to if the proposed facilitates were to be duplicated elsewhere.
• The GAA has interacted with the local community during the preparation of this application. Local schools are encouraged to use the facilities on site.
• The Board has previously granted permissions where other consents were outstanding for example PL28.210348, PL28.239383 and PL28.238279.
• The development provides for visual and physical permeability through the site.
9. FURTHER SUBMISSIONS
The HSA made a submission to the Board stating that the application is outside the outer zone associated with Gouldings Chemicals Limited site and the LPG facility in Tivoli, the risk category is deemed to be 2, the Authority did not advise against a grant of permission in the light of major accidents hazard, developments on the areas of Seveso site may have their future development potential impacted upon.
10. OBSERVATIONS
Observations have been received from Dan Boyle and An Taisce. The points made may be summarised as follows;
• Lands acquired through the CPO process have been made available to a non-public body in order to make a planning application.
• The plans for a public park in this area have been compromised.
• The project should accord with an earlier draft of the South Docklands LAP. As now proposed the proposal will split a public park in two sections compromising its utility.
• There are event management and environmental questions outstanding.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 77 11. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The site is zoned ‘Sports Ground’ in the amended Cork City Development Plan 2009-2015 with the objective to “protect, retain and enhance the range and quality of sports facilities and grounds”. In relation to this zoning objective the plan states that;
Sports and Recreation outlines the City Council’s position in relation to development of sports pitches. Sports grounds zoning protects the city’s sports grounds and there will be a presumption against the loss of land zoned sports ground to other forms of development. Only development that is ancillary to the principle use of the site for sports and which will only affect lands incapable of forming part of the playing pitches, will be considered in these areas. Ancillary uses include other sport and leisure facilities such as a clubhouse, changing rooms, meeting rooms, a gym, sports training halls, catering facilities, caretaker accommodation and appropriate car parking facilities. Crèches and community uses are open for consideration, provided they are linked to the sports use.
Policy 11.7 Protection of Sports Grounds and Facilities
To protect, retain and enhance the range and quality of sports facilities and grounds in the city and to ensure that lands zoned ‘sports ground’ is not developed for other purposes.
There will be a general presumption against the loss of land zoned as sports grounds for development for other purposes. Limited ancillary* development may be considered if the proposed development:
- Is ancillary* to the principal use of the site as sports grounds and does not affect the quantity or quality of the pitches and provision of adequate training areas and facilities or adversely impact upon their use;
- Only affects land incapable of forming part of the playing surfaces and does not result in the loss of any playing surface or pitch.
*Ancillary uses include other sport and leisure facilities such as a clubhouse, changing rooms, meeting rooms, gym, sports training halls, catering facilities, caretakers accommodation and appropriate car parking facilities. Crèches and community uses are open for consideration provided that they are linked to the sports use.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 77 In relation to flooding the Development Plan provides;
Policy 12.10 – It is the policy of the Council to have regard to the provisions of the Lee Catchment FRAM study when available.
Policy 12.11 – development will not normally be permitted in areas prone to flooding unless appropriate floor protection and mitigation measures can be put in place to ensure that the site can be safely developed and occupied and flood risk as a result of the development is not increased elsewhere.
Policy 12.12 – it is the policy of the Cork City Council to have regard to the recommendations and provisions of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government draft planning Guidelines in the preparation of plans and assessment of planning applications.
Policy 12.13 – all significant developments impacting on flood risk areas will be required to provide a flood impact assessment to accompany the planning application to indemnify potential loss of floodplain storage and proposals for the storage or attenuation of runoff/discharges (including foul drains) to ensure development does not increase flood risk in the relevant catchment.
The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DOEHLG & OPW November 2009) requires local and regional authorities and prospective applicants for planning permission to ensure that flood risk is a key consideration in the planning process.
South Docks Local Area Plan 2008 (SDLAP) was amended by way of Variation Number 7 (adopted 16th April 2012) to expand the zoning of sports ground from the original stadium to the site of the proposed all-weather pitch.
The Marina Park Masterplan 2013 provides a template for the redevelopment of the existing Marina Park and adjoining areas and includes the present site.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 77 12. ASSESSMENT
12.01 There are four elements to this assessment; an oral hearing report, an environmental impact assessment, an appropriate assessment and a planning assessment.
13. ORAL HEARING REPORT
13.01 The Board granted an oral hearing of this appeal. The hearing was held on three consecutive days, the 10th, 11th and 12th September 2014 in the Imperial Hotel, South Mall, Cork.
13.02 Oral Hearing – Day 1
13.03 The oral hearing commenced at 10.am. Those who signed the Attendance Record were;
David Holland SC – GAA Cork County Board
Alan McGee Solicitor - GAA Cork County Board
Bryan Roe (Scott Tallon Walker) - GAA Cork County Board
David Flannery (Scott Tallon Walker) - GAA Cork County Board
John Crean (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds) - GAA Cork County Board
Proinnsias Ó Murchu - GAA Cork County Board
Pearse Sreenan BL – Cork City Council
Kevin O Connor - Cork City Council
Liam Casey - Cork City Council
Edith Roberts - Cork City Council
Richard Cronin – Appellant
Denis O’Regan/Save Marina Park – Appellant
Des O’Donoghue/Save Marina Park – Appellant
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 77 13.04 The applicant (David Hollland) stated that the Ballintemple Residents Association had withdrawn their objection to the proposal (document 1/day 1). The inspector noted the submission of a letter from the Ballintemple Residents Association and stated that while a letter from the Ballintemple Residents Association was appended to one of the appeals that there remained two valid third party appeals and a 1st party appeal before the Board.
13.05 Mr Holland outlined an order of submissions on behalf of the applicant and described the context of the proposed development. The area of the application is 9.38ha while the existing stadium is 3.08ha. An area of 5.84ha around the existing stadium will be sold to the GAA Cork County Board by Cork City Council and the redevelopment proposed in this application will have a budget of €70 million. The redeveloped stadium is part of a larger redevelopment project in the south docklands area which includes the redevelopment of Marina Park as envisaged in the Marina Park Masterplan.
13.06 Seamus Kelly Engineer (document 2 in two volumes and document 3/day1) for the applicant stated that the upgrade was necessary to provide adequate facilities for players, officials and spectators. He summarised the application as comprising the redevelopment of the existing pitch and the provision of an additional all-weather pitch to the south of the existing stand.
13.07 The development was summarised as;
• Alterations to the existing stadium to increase capacity from 43,500 to 45,000 achieved principally through the construction of a new three tier covered stand. 13,000 will be accommodated in the new covered southern stand, 12,000 will be accommodated in each of the Blackrock and City terraces and 8,000 will be accommodated in the northern stand, • Refurbishment and extension to the terraces and uncovered north stand, • Removal of the circulation tunnels under the north stand and terraces, • Construction of a new all-weather pitch to the south of the stadium with a 1,000 capacity seating area cantilevered off the new south stand, • Flood lighting to both playing pitches, soft and hard landscaping, • Access for pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 77 • Demolition of showground viewing stands and associated structures, • Boundary fencing, • Construction compound at Monahan Road. • Works to two water courses on site.
13.08 The Cork Athletic Grounds were established in 1898 and the present stadium was built with planning permission in 1976.The redeveloped stadium/centre of excellence/all-weather pitch are consistent with the status of County Cork as the largest county in Ireland and the city as the principal city in Munster. The redeveloped stadium will form an integral part of the 32ha redeveloped Marina Park. Heretofore access/parking/circulation around the stadium has been with the agreement of the Munster Agricultural Society and Cork City Council. The proposed development along with the transfer of landownership will remedy this situation. The stadium had an original capacity of 50,000 but the requirements of health and safety legislation over the years has reduced that capacity to 43,500 and in particular cases to 40,000. This capacity is inadequate as are spectator and player facilities.
13.09 Cork GAA’s 5 year development plan is included in Appendix 2 A of volume 3 of the EIS. The provision of a venue for hurling, Gaelic football, camogie and ladies’ football on both grassed and all-weather pitches along with the provision of player, medical and food facilities for all year round are integral to the development plan.
13.10 Why not relocate outside the proposed site? The proposed development is supported by landuse provisions in both the Cork City Development Plan and the South Docklands LAP. The site is close to bus and rail transport, minimises environmental impacts by re-using an existing brownfield site, the proposal is more financially economical than starting in a greenfield site and an abandoned Pairc Ui Chaoimh would have no useful function.
13.11 Why is a new all-weather pitch needed? The entire development comprising the re-developed stadium pitch, the changing areas/gym/player facilities, spectator retail/food facilities, officials’ accommodation and all-weather pitch must be seen together as a regional centre of excellence. The all-weather pitch will ensure that training facilities are available to all users when the grassed pitch is un-
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 77 useable due to bad weather. To duplicate these facilities elsewhere would require an additional spend of €5m.
13.12 Is the all-weather pitch too big? The proposed all weather pitch and the surrounding running track surrounded by fencing is 155mx100m. This size is required to facilitate a full sized GAA playing pitch, the highest standards are required for a proper centre of excellence, a smaller pitch would allow sliothars (hurling balls) and footballs to be hit or kicked from one end to the other thereby not replicating ‘real’ playing conditions. The dimensions allow the provision of 5,250m3 of flood water storage underneath the proposed pitch.
13.13 The application is a product of much consultation between the City Council, local residents and the GAA. The planning authority will sell 2.77ha to the GAA to facilitate the proposed development. The Marina Park Masterplan was adopted in July 2013 and supports the proposed development. The proposed development will ensure the physical and visual permeability of the redeveloped Marina Park.
13.14 The road network serving the proposed development is adequate and comprises the Jack Lynch Tunnel, the south ring road and grade separated junctions from the M8 (Dublin/Cork), N25 (Waterford/Cork), N22 (Cork/Killarney-Tralee) and N71 (Cork/West Cork). Two new bridges (the Gateway Bridge is closer to the proposed stadium while the Water Street Bridge is further west towards the city) and an upgraded Cork/Limerick road, while not imminent will eventually serve the city.
13.15 Match-day vehicular parking will largely be provided outside the application site. This is in agreement with the planning authority and provided for in the Marina Park Masterplan (page 16). The stadium will be managed full time by the Cork County Board. A full time mobility manager will coordinate between the Gardaí, the City Council, local residents and local schools. Furthermore a Liaison Officer has been in place for the last 2 years and will continue to work to resolve particular match-day related problems with residents. All these arrangements are set out in the EIS.
13.16 John Crean Town Planner for the applicant stated that the site has been used for sporting activities for 120 years. A 10 year permission is required by the complexity of the proposed development and the City Council has granted longer life permissions in the case of the Marina Commercial Park development, the Alleyquay development on Centre Point Road, the Millfield development at Mallow Road in Blackpool and
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 77 the Board granted a 10 year permission for the redevelopment of Wilton Shopping Centre.
13.17 The planning policy context supports the application. Variation 7 of the Cork City Development Plan 2009 amended the zoning of 6.82 ha south of the stadium from public open space to sports ground to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the stadium and all-weather pitch. The lifetime of the South Docks LAP 2008 was extended by the City Council to February 2018 and the LAP also supports the redevelopment of Pairc Ui Chaoimh. The Marina Park Masterplan envisages the redeveloped stadium and centre of excellence as an integral part of the redeveloped Marina Park.
13.18 In relation to the statement in the grounds of appeal that the allocation of land for a GAA sponsored development is unfair it should be noted that there is a stadium in situ, that the planning policy for the site supports the redevelopment proposal, that the area of the all-weather pitch was historically used as playing field/horse jumping enclosure, cycling track. The other sports grounds in the area referred to by the appellants are club grounds and are not consistently available to the County Board.
13.19 Access and emergency access is as set out in the EIS and the Traffic Management Plan in Volume 3 of the EIS. A new access from Monahan Road and associated internal access road system will allow access for emergency vehicles.
13.20 This application does not include provision for concerts. There is provision in the new southern stand for offices, meeting areas, concourse areas, food, soft drinks and alcohol, services, players’ areas, gym, toilets and other uses. These facilities will be used by the GAA and also by other third parties but will remain ancillary to the stadium/centre of excellence use. The proposed development will provide for larger specifically Gaelic games/match - day activity but will become an integral part of the larger Marina Park at other times. Non- match day activity is considered in section 12.4.4.3 of the EIS.
13.21 Hard and soft landscaping will enhance east to west permeability through the site in accordance with the requirements of the Marina Park Masterplan. Finally the redeveloped stadium has had regard to the protected views identified in the City Development Plan. The views 14, 15 and 16 illustrated in submitted photomontages demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact on protected views LT9, 10 and 11.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 77 13.22 Two specific points were raised in the appeal; that conditions imposed by the planning authority in its decision undermines public participation in the planning process and that the application is premature pending the completion of the Part 8 application for the redevelopment of Marina Park. In response to the first point the applicant provided further information to the planning authority to its satisfaction, the applicant consulted with third parties prior to making the application, the planning process was adhered to and this oral hearing affords a further opportunity for participation. In response to the second point the application complies with the Marina Park Masterplan.
13.23 John Crean (Document 5/day1) then addressed the applicants’ appeal in relation to condition 25(f) which required the developer to identify and provide for adequate lighting along key pedestrian routes to Pairc Ui Chaoimh, in particular along Monahan Road, Centre Park Road, Old Railway Line and Marina. The extent of the area to be considered for upgrades and the specification must be agreed in writing with Cork City Council and the costs must be borne by the developer.
13.24 The applicant has offered to make a fair proportionate payment towards maintenance/renewal of lighting on Centre Park Road but the extent of the works required and the requirements on the applicant to bear the whole cost is unjustified. There is an existing sporting use on site which requires players and patrons use these roads and the additional dark-time use arising from the proposed development does not justify the condition. Since the lands are zoned for the development it is incumbent on the planning authority to provide the services under the general contribution scheme provided for in section 48 of the Planning Act. The City Council’s General Contribution Scheme includes works to parks, amenity walks, City Centre Road/Street Upgrade/Refurbishment, docklands roads infrastructure and urban street upgrade/refurbishment as part of standard contribution scheme. It is unreasonable to separate public lighting from the provisions of the general contribution scheme. The Marina Park Masterplan refers specifically to the requirement to upgrade lighting in the park and surrounding areas.
13.25 The planning authority has accepted that the GAA is a voluntary body within the meaning of Article 157 of the Planning and Development Regulations. The Cork City Development Contribution Scheme and the Supplementary Contribution Scheme states that such bodies are entitled to 100% reduction in planning contributions. Pairc Ui Chaoimh is only one of a number of uses which benefit from lighting on the approach roads referred to in condition 25(F). Notwithstanding that no
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 77 contribution is properly payable the GAA is willing to pay a contribution of €60,000. The written submission provides detailed calculations for this figure.
13.26 Condition 3 states that all uses shall be ancillary to the principal use of the site as a sports facility. While this condition has not been appealed it is submitted that condition 1 which refers to compliance with the application is sufficient to regulate the development. This condition has the capacity to inhibit the use of some of the externally accessible kiosks/cafés which if open would enhance the amenity value of the walks/linkages through the park.
13.27 When the hearing resumed after lunch Bryan Roe Architect for the applicant (Document 6/day 1) stated that the design brief required a redesigned south stand to modern standards, up-graded east/west/north stands, links between stadium and all-weather pitch, and a development which complements the new Marina Park. The problems with the existing stadium are;
• Deterioration of the overall structure since 1976, • Poor player changing/gym/medical facilities, • Fears for crowd safety, • Inadequate spectator legroom between seats. • Inadequate toilets, welfare facilities, food, retail outlets, • No sports lighting to facilitate post dusk activity,
13.28 Current thinking supports the provision of stadiums in urban areas where they can add to an area’s sense of identity and contribute to the local economy. In this case the redeveloped stadium will connect to existing services, retain much of the existing structure and continue the traditional use in an historic area 2kms from Patrick Street and integrated into a redeveloped Marina Park.
13.29 The existing bowl is slightly south of west/slightly north of east making it ideal for midday/early afternoon events. In the new arrangement the existing pitch will be retained and all players’ facilities – changing rooms, medical facilities, welfare facilities - will be provided in the redeveloped southern stand thereby giving them access to the grass pitch in the main stadium and the all-weather pitch to the south. Duplication of such facilities is thereby avoided. Some of the players’ facilities - kitchen, dining areas and meeting rooms - can also be made available to spectators. The TV studio/Garda control room is also located in the south stand and the premier seats are in this stand also.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 77
13.30 There are four levels within the south stand. Generally the ground floor level is given over to players’ facilities areas, service areas and a vehicular circulation area. Team busses, waste, delivery service vehicles, and broadcasting vehicles will also use this concourse – thereby minimising their impacts on other users of the park. The first floor level accommodates a spectator concourse, turnstiles, an open podium which will be open to walkers on non-match days, and access to the seating overlooking the all-weather pitch. The second level includes the meeting rooms, dining areas and kitchen, Garda/press rooms. The third floor level is generally circulation space. The forth level is generally plant.
13.31 The redeveloped south stand is 28.8m further south than the original stadium (see document 12 submitted on day 2). This area also has the museum, retail outlets and coffee shop – thus relating these uses to the park generally and available to the public on non-match days. The appeal has raised the issue of the new south stand/all-weather pitch severing the walking routes through the park. Mr Cronin (appellant) stated that his understanding having read the EIS was that the walkway between the redeveloped south stadium all-weather pitch would not be open permanently. The south stand has two separate functions; it creates a covered viewing stand for the grass pitch in the bowl and it provides a 1,000 spectator viewing stand for the all-weather pitch. There is an unobstructed path between the new all-weather and the south side of the new south stand thus ensuring that walkers through the redeveloped Marina Park will not be prevented from traversing this area. There would be no physical barriers on this pathway but access would be restricted during major sporting events such as Munster championship finals.
13.32 There will be 3m high fencing around the all-weather pitch to protect it from damage and ball netting 15m high behind the goals but this will be almost invisible. The proposal has been designed to complement the Marina Masterplan. The visual impacts have been assessed bearing in mind the protected views set out in the City Development Plan. While the redeveloped stadium will be visible in some of these views the overall impacts does not dominate in views of the Montenotti/Tivoli escarpment.
13.33 Mr Cronin (Appellant) made his submission. The appellant is a local resident. It is important that the planning process allow for public participation. Any permission granted should specify limits which are clear to the applicant, the planning authority, and residents. Along with
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 77 the original grounds of appeal the main concerns of the appellant are; the duration of the permission and disruption to the local area, the visual/architectural impacts of the proposed development, traffic impacts, the impacts arising from the all-weather pitch and impacts on Atlantic Pond.
13.34 The construction period is stated in the application to be 24/30 months and therefore a standard duration 5 year permission is sufficient. A 10 year permission will unreasonably elongate the period of disruption to local residents. Government funding for the project may breach state aid rules.
13.35 The proposed structure will be 42.85m above existing features and will be 28.7m closer to residential uses. The proposal will detract from the visual amenity/urban forested nature of the area. The size, bulk and scale of the project should be reduced to better reflect the landscape setting. The architectural quality of the proposed stadium is low and does not have regard to its parkland/residential setting. The redevelopment stadium is unbalanced by the dominance of the southern stand.
13.36 The proposal is a major intensification of the uses on site which will give raise to additional traffic on the local road network. The traffic modelling is based on solely the construction phase. The proposal envisages Monahan Road as the major access – traffic should be directed along the northern access route to avoid the residential areas in Ballintemple. The operational phase is un-addressed and the proposal is unacceptable since it has not had regard to the “Smarter Travel” policy of the Government. There is no additional capacity in the routes (M40/South Link Road, Jack Lynch Tunnel and other motorways) mentioned by the applicant as serving the proposed development. The applicant did not consider alternative locations. Consultation with the local community was insufficient.
13.37 The all-weather pitch is to be located in an area which currently floods. The proposal will exacerbate this. The pitch is too large and will sever connections within the park, the proposal will give rise to loss of trees along the southern boundary. The all-weather pitch will give rise to noise impacts and light pollution for neighbouring residential properties.
13.38 The proposal will result in swift changes in the water levels in the Atlantic pond which may disrupt nests of a duck – the Little Grebe.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 77 13.39 Because Mr Cronin was not available for the remainder of the hearing the Inspector allowed a limited number of comments by the applicant in relation to his submission. Mr Holland pointed out that since the proposed development provides for no increase in capacity there will not be additional traffic impacts. Mr Cronin responded that there will be additional uses and therefore additional traffic impacts.
13.40 Ms Catriona Fox (applicant) circulated a submission (document8/day1) in relation to the EIS which it was agreed it was not necessary to read through.
13.41 Mr Kelly (applicant) made a submission (document 9/day 1) in relation to pedestrian circulation and construction phase impacts. In relation to pedestrian circulation it should be noted that the increase in capacity brought about by the re-development of the stadium is 3.5%. This represents an additional 345 people for every 10,000 spectators. The spectator dispersal patterns are set out in the EIS and accompanying drawings.
13.42 The main construction compound will be on the southern element of the site principally where the all-weather pitch will be located. Construction traffic will use Monahan Road and Centre Park Road. 110 construction worker parking spaces will be provided in compounds to the northwest and southwest of the site (document 9C/day 1). There will be a tower crane south of the south stand to facilitate its re- construction. There are two surface water streams on site these will be protected from silt and oil. A revised landscaping drawing 14494-SK- 159 (document 9B/day1) was submitted reducing the number of trees to be removed on the southern/Monahan Road boundary. Mr Holland (applicant) presented a draft schedule of conditions.
13.43 Day 1 of the hearing closed.
13.44 Day 2 - Oral Hearing reopened at 9.30am.
Those who signed the Attendance Record were;
David Holland SC – GAA Cork County Board
Alan McGee Solicitor - GAA Cork County Board
Declan Grogan - St Anthony’s Boys National School
Eoin Kennedy – Scoil Bhride National School
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 77
Colm Lucey – Ballintemple National School
Proinnsias ó Murchu - GAA Cork County Board
Pearse Sreenan BL – Cork City Council
Valerie Morrison – Cork City Council
Brian Hallisey – Cork City Council
Tony Duggan - Cork City Council
Liam Casey - Cork City Council
Edith Roberts - Cork City Council
Peter Sweetman/Save Marina Park – Appellant
Denis O’Regan/Save Marina Park – Appellant
Des O’Donoghue/Save Marina Park – Appellant
13.45 Mr Flor O’Sullivan (applicant) the principal of a local school spoke in support of the proposed development.
13.46 Declan Grogan (applicant) gave evidence in relation to floodlighting for the stadium pitch, the all-weather pitch, impact on surrounding property, external stadium lighting and CCTV.
13.47 For purposes of comparison it may be noted that a well light office will have 500 lux, 300 lux is the minimum required for reading. There will be floodlighting of the stadium pitch at 1,500 lux for televised night games, 1,000 lux for non-televised games and 500 lux for training. The all-weather pitch will have 500 lux for games and 300 lux for training sessions. Light reaching outside the site boundary when both pitches are at maximum illumination is shown on Drawing PL14494-9-0300. The green line shows less that 10 lux while the blue line shows the extent of 5 lux.
13.48 Mr Sweetman (appellant) stated that the rights of third party appellants to participate in the assessment of the application had been undermined by lack of access to the EIS when he attended the Board’s
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 77 offices and that Cork City Council’s web site did not function properly. A copy of the EIS was made available to the appellant.
13.49 Jon Kearney (Applicant) gave evidence on ecology. The site itself is of low ecological value. There are no European sites within the development boundary. The site is 10kms from the Cork Harbour SPA. The main potential impact arises from pollution of on-site drains which will not occur following the mitigation measures (silt traps/hydrocarbon interceptors) included in the application. There are no significant residual ecological impacts.
13.50 The appeal raised the issue of the impact on the grey heron in Atlantic Pond. This species is known to forage and breed in the pond but none were observed during the preparatory surveys. The construction phase would give rise to a temporary slight negative impact. The proposed development will not give rise to loss of habitat in the Atlantic Pond or in any European site. In relation to birds generally there are no important flight paths across the site. The ball-catching nets are retractable and will only be deployed during games and training.
13.51 Peter Barry (applicant) presented evidence in relation to noise impacts. The redeveloped stadium will not alter the noise environment of the area. The additional element is the noise arising from the use/audience associated with the all-weather pitch – the EIS concluded that this change will not be significant. Construction phase noise will not exceed the limit values set out in BS5228 Noise from Open and Construction sites. The restaurant/ bars on the southern facade of the redeveloped south stand will be 160m from the nearest dwelling. The noise level experienced at the nearest house will be 44dB(A). This is within the WHO standard. Construction noise levels are predicted to be about 59 dB(A) – this can be controlled by way of planning condition.
13.52 Ciaran O’Callaghan (applicant document 18/day 2) gave evidence in relation to traffic and transport. Construction phase traffic will be restricted to Monahan Road/Centre Park Road. The material set out in the EIS concludes that traffic on these roads will be within capacity and the impact will be temporary.
13.53 During larger games (scenario 5 – with attendance of 15,000 to 45,000) there will be a cordon around the stadium managed by the Gardaí/GAA security. Access will be restricted on Monahan Road, Maryville, Blackrock Road West to Lindville and Janeville, Blackrock Road east to Church Avenue, Marina and Church Yard Lane. Vehicular access will be restricted within the cordon to spectators/players,
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 77 residents, GAA officials/media. A mobility manager will be appointed and a new Traffic Management Plan is being developed as is required by the conditions of the grant of permission.
13.54 In relation to the appellant’s point that the traffic modelling concentrated on the construction phase this is because the peak capacity of the re-developed stadium is increased by 3.4%. No additional heavy traffic will impact on Maryville as busses will set down spectators at the City Bus Station, Blackrock camogie grounds, Ringmahon and Pairc Ui Rinn. In relation to poor event management raised by the appellants it may be noted that this matter is being addressed by the Traffic Management Plan required by condition 25(a).
13.55 When the hearing resumed after lunch Tony Duggan City Council Architect (documents 20 and 20A/day 2) gave evidence. The proposal is a modification and upgrading of an existing stadium largely within the original footprint. The roof structure is an elegantly designed truss suspended by slender caballing and provides a landmark form in this part of the city. The materials – steel, aluminium and precast concrete are well considered and the active frontage along the interface with the all-weather pitch is welcome. The proposed development will not impact negatively on views listed for protection in the City Development Plan nor on other views within the area.
13.56 Michael O’Sullivan Engineer (applicant, document 21/day2) gave evidence in relation to water infrastructure and hydrology. Marina Park is a polder which is an area of low laying land which has been enclosed by an embankment. It is below high tide level and was once part of the river channel mud flats. It is not part of the flood plain because water cannot flow out when the tide is in. The other distinguishing feature of a polder and Marina Park is that it is underlain by an impervious layer 3m deep below the surface. If this were not the case water would rise and fall on the site with the tides. The ‘north stream’ running at the back of the north stand is not a stream but a drain which collects water seeping through the Lee embankment – this drain must be maintained to ensure the stability of that embankment. The Atlantic Pond is open to the River Lee via a sluice which allows water to drain out during periods of low tide. The significance of the Atlantic Pond therefore is that it accommodates surface water from the Marina Park area during the period of high tide and discharges it at low tide.
13.57 Flooding has occurred on Monahan Road as evidenced by the appellants’ photographs. This is pluvial flooding (rain water) but does not arise because there is a lack of capacity in the Atlantic Pond but
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 77 rather because there is a lack of capacity in the storm water drainage system on adjoining roads including Monahan Road. The storm water system is inadequate to carry away surface water to the Atlantic pond in severe storm events. What happens is that the surface water surcharges the network which creates head in the surface water sewers downstream; thus water floods out of unsecured manhole covers and must reach the pond overland. Because of the impermeable layer under the show grounds infiltration of storm water is very slow which results the appearance of regular flooding in this area.
13.58 The planning authority as part of its preparation of the South Docklands LAP provided for the routing of excess surface water to the Atlantic pond and from there to the Lee. This design allowed for a 1/100 year storm with an additional 20% cushion for climate change. The planning authority calculated that the area of the show grounds would provide attenuation of 3,810m3 in the event of a 1/20 storm event. The attenuation tank underneath the new all-weather pitch provides 3,810m3 plus an additional 10%.
13.59 Fluvial flooding (river flooding) cannot occur in the vicinity of the site because the Navigation wall protects Marina Park from Lee. Flooding could only arise if water overtopped/broke through at Kennedy Quay in the city centre and effectively came towards Marina Park from the west. This would happen in combination with the inundation of Cork City Centre and the policy of the planning authority under the South Docks LAP is to provide necessary protection works.
13.60 Mr Holland (applicant/document 22/day 2) addressed the issue of Condition 25(f) which requires the provision by the applicant of lighting on Monahan Road/Centre Park Road/Old Railway Line and the Marina. This condition is ultra vires the planning authority as it has been established that permissions may be granted subject to conditions requiring works but such works must be within the application site. It is unreasonable to require the applicant to bear the full costs of extensive works outside the site which will benefit many other persons. The scope of the works being sought is unclear.
13.61 The GAA is a voluntary body to which section 157 of the Planning Act applies and in relation to which the Cork City Council Development Contribution scheme applies a 100% reduction in ordinary contributions. There are no specific exceptional costs arising from the proposed development and therefore no special contribution under section 48(2)(c) is payable.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 77 13.62 Condition 3 although not appealed severely restricts the use of the proposed development by preventing, for example, non-sporting local organisations from using the permitted meetings rooms. Heretofore the existing development has been used for non-sporting uses such as private functions and events. The condition is unreasonably restrictive and is not required for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
13.63 Mr Sweetman (appellant/no written statement) made the point that the redevelopment of Pairc Ui Chaoimh and the redevelopment of Marina Park overlap with each other and that works carried out outside the application site would facilitate the development and therefore that both proposals should be subject to a joint EIA. Since this was not the case the present application was a form of project splitting which contravened the EIA directive. Furthermore concerts/events are not irrelevant to this application and must form part of any EIA of the application.
13.64 Des O’Donoghue (Appellant/Document 23/day 2) asked why the existing stadium had been allowed to fall into disrepair over the last 10 years. The stadium is a source of litter, urination, drunkenness, car parking on footpaths. There has been a consistent lack of management by the applicant of events. The planning authority conditions do not sufficiently control the development. The 10 year duration of the permission will be 10 years of disruption to the local community. The second pitch should be omitted and a strong stadium management plan be required by way of condition. This is not a vexations appeal.
13.65 Mr Sweetman (appellant/no written statement) raised the issue of access to copies of the planner’s report and was provided with a copy.
13.66 Chris Cullen Planning Authority’s Ecologist (document 24/day 2) reported that a bat survey identified activity on site. A bird survey recorded a low level of diversity on site commensurate with the low ecological value of the site. These findings were incorporated into the EIS. No species of rare or protected flora were recorded on site. The EIS included mitigation measures in relation to escape of fuel, oil and concrete.
13.67 No impacts were identified on European sites. Conditions 8, 13, 27 and 29 related to ecology. The EIS was adequate. The planning authority’s assessment was adequate. There is no foreseeable impact on the Grey Heron in Atlantic Pond. The proposal is unlikely to constitute a barrier to local or migrating birds. The additional lighting is not
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 77 expected to increase collision risk for birds. Tree loss has been described in the application and is controlled by conditions 13 and 29. There should be no encroachment on riverbanks, wetlands or woodlands.
13.68 In response to a question in relation to the potential for disturbance of the Little Grebe by large or frequent changes in the levels in Atlantic Pond Mr Cullen stated that the breeding patterns of this bird were adapted to such changes in water levels and that no specific impacts would arise from changing water levels in Atlantic Pond.
13.69 Mr Sweetman (appellant/no written statement) made the point that the planning authority’s reports (especially at page 39 of the City Council’s Planner’s report) are ambiguous as to the impacts on the European sites. The submission by Mr Cullen was an attempt to fill in lacunae in the planning authority’s assessment and that this undermined the validity of the AA carried out by the planning authority.
13.70 Hearing closed for day 2.
13.71 Oral Hearing – Day 3
13.72 Those who signed the Attendance Record were;
David Holland SC – GAA Cork County Board
Alan McGee Solicitor - GAA Cork County Board
Proinnsias Ó Murchu - GAA Cork County Board
Seamus Kelly (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds) - GAA Cork County Board
John Crean (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds) - GAA Cork County Board
Pearse Sreenan BL – Cork City Council
Kevin O’ Connor – Cork City Council
Liam Casey - Cork City Council
David King - Cork City Council
Sharon Parker – Cork City Council
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 77 Peter Sweetman/Save Marina Park – Appellant
Ruadhan MacEoin/Save Marina Park – Appellant
Denis O’Regan/Save Marina Park – Appellant
Des O’Donoghue/Save Marina Park – Appellant
13.73 Hearing opened.
13.74 David King Fire Prevention Officer for the planning authority made a submission (document 25/day 3) and stated that egress route from the stadium were adequate for fire safety purposes.
13.75 James Goulding Engineer for the planning authority made a submission (document 25/day 3) and stated that the EIS has examined construction phase and operational phase noise impacts of the proposed development. The conclusions that the noise limit values would remain within recommended limits are reasonable. Condition 28(a) addresses this matter. The potential for light spill was considered in the EIS. The application demonstrates that there will be zero lux light spill to all neighbouring houses. This section of the EIS was concise and clear. The planning authority considered waste management, asbestos control and requires a Construction Environmental Waste Management Plan.
13.76 Kevin Gallagher Engineer Drainage Section for the planning authority (document 27/day 3) stated that the site is located in flood zone A where the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is highest – 1:100 for river flooding and 1:200 for coastal flooding. The redeveloped stadium is designed to be water compatible and flood resilient. The issue of tidal/river flooding was raised with the applicant by way of a request for further information. The applicants reply was satisfactory. In relation to rainwater flooding the applicant proposes an attenuation area under the all-weather pitch of 4,200m3; the planning authority by way of condition number 20 has increased this to 5,250m3.
13.77 Liam Casey of Parks Department for the planning authority (document 28/day 3) stated that the proposed development would be satisfactorily integrated into Marina Park. The proposed development is not premature pending the making of a Part 8 for the park and has been incorporated into the masterplan for the park. Some limited tree felling is necessary for the proposed development but proposed tree planting for the park makes provision for 150 semi-mature trees.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 77
13.78 Edith Roberts Engineer for the planning authority (document 29/day 3) commented that the traffic impacts arising from the proposed development will vary in accordance with the size of events and a traffic management plan detailing a number of event sizes accompanied the application. Access is restricted and managed by the Gardaí in accordance with their judgement. If all persons wanting to drive to the stadium were to be accommodated and assuming 4 persons per car that would require the provision of 11,000 spaces – this would increase congestion and would be contrary to national policy. An amount of parking for larger events is required. 100 spaces are provided within the development and there are additional 35 spaces at the Atlantic Pond. Construction traffic will access the site over Monahan Road a construction management plan will be required to manage this traffic.
13.79 Within the red line of the site there are 100 spaces exclusively for the use of the GAA; there are 35 between the stadium and Atlantic Pond which are available to the public and 20 spaces on Park Avenue for a total of 155 within the application site. The applicant sought provision of 300 spaces on match days (there are about 86 on Monahan Road and a further 265 on Marina Park). If the planning authority’s condition 3 is omitted and all day conferences are allowed the 100 on-site car spaces would not be sufficient and the additional public parking, intended to serve the needs of the entire area, would be exhausted by conference goers.
13.80 The applicant (Mr Holland) made the point that official/VIP guest numbers were within the control of the applicant on large match days and the numbers could be varied according to the agreed/available parking. The planning authority gave guarded agreement to this point.
13.81 The inspector raised the issue of construction traffic access to the site. Previously the applicant had been asked if any advantage in terms of limiting impacts on the amenity of residential areas to the south of Monahan Road would result from requiring a circular route for construction traffic say in via Monahan Road and out via Centre Park Road. The planning authority agreed with the applicant that no advantage would accrue from such a route as it would exacerbate congestion at the Victoria Road junction.
13.82 Ian Winning Engineer Planning Authority (document 30/day 3) stated that the public lighting on Monahan Road, Blackrock Road, Centre Park Road and elsewhere in the vicinity of the site in inadequate. In
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 77 order to improve this situation the planning authority has imposed condition 25(f) which required the applicant to carry out the necessary improvement works. The overall cost will be €750,000 and applicant has offered €60,000 which is inadequate to ensure public lighting to the standard required to protect public safety. The Board should impose condition 25(f).
13.83 Patrick Ledwidge DOS Cork City Council (document 31/day3) made the point that the South Docks LAP and the City Development Plan support the proposed development. If condition 25(f) is not implemented events out of daylight hours should not take place for reasons related to public safety.
13.84 Kevin O’Connor Town Planner Cork City Council (document 32/day 3) stated that the EIS was adequate, the height and scale of the stadium was acceptable and that the stadium responds well to its context. There will be no significant impacts on adjoining properties. A 10 year permission is not equivalent to a 10 year construction phase. The issues raised in the grounds of appeal have been considered in the planners’ reports on file and issues of detail have been covered by condition.
13.85 In relation to Condition 3 the EIS is makes mention of a number of uses – some unrelated to the GAA – but at 2.8.1 describes activities on site as being ancillary to the principal use. The purpose of condition 3 is to limit the uses of the proposed development to those uses that have been applied for.
13.86 The Hearing resumed after lunch.
13.87 Mr Holland (applicant document 34/day 3) ) raised the issue of a drawing submitted by Mr Cronin on day 1 showing sports ground in the area and made the point that not all of these were under the control of the applicant.
13.88 Mr Sweetman (Save Marina Park) made the point that there are three separate processes being carried out in relation to this application, an EIA, an AA and a planning assessment. The EIA carried out by the planning authority was inadequate. The question for the planning authority was if the EIS was adequate why the necessity to impose conditions 4, 5b, 6, 7 (a) and (g), 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22(f) and (g), 25(a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (h), 26, 27, 28(b) and 29(g) all of which relate to the requirement for further information?
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 77 13.89 The planning authority stated that conditions related to matters of detail and do not affect third party rights.
13.90 The applicant posed questions to the planning authority. Did the planning authority agree that although 37 parking spaces originally proposed as part of the Part 8 for the Marina Park have now been withdrawn that in the region of 300 spaces outside the application site are made up of 260 on the Marina near Shandon Boat Club and 86 on Monahan Road. The planning authority confirmed that this is the case.
13.91 In relation to condition 25(F) the applicant asked the planning authority to agree that the planning authority’s section 48 contribution scheme included a figure for infrastructure including lighting. Mr Winning stated that the Masterplan proposed extensive public lighting works. The applicant listed a number of recent planning applications on Centre Park Road were not required to providing lighting for the road.
13.92 The planning authority asked the applicant what kind and how many non-GAA meetings would typically occur on the stadium? The applicant (Mr Kelly) stated that these were usually held in the bar, were usually celebration/retirement functions with about 150 persons attending and occurred 2 or 3 times per month. The planning authority asked why the larger proposed facilities now. The applicant replied that the existing facilities are inadequate.
13.93 The City Council (Mr Sreenan document 33/day3) made a closing statement dealing largely with condition 3 and condition 25(f). If the Board does not impose condition 25(F) it should impose a special contribution under section 48(2) (c) of the Act. The use of Monahan Road/Centre Park Road to Victoria Cross would not be safe for after dark events in the absence of improved lighting.
13.94 The applicant (Mr Holland Document 37/day 3) stated that there are no different planning impacts as between 450 people using the conference facility for GAA related events and 450 local residents discussing non- sports related topics. Therefore condition 3 should be removed. Condition 25(5) should also be removed.
13.95 The development of a new stadium by the GAA is distinct from the redevelopment of Marina Park by the planning authority and therefore the application does not constitute project splitting as claimed by the third party appellant. The redeveloped stadium will create a synergy with the Marina Park.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 77 13.96 The hearing closed.
14. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
14.01 Environmental Impact Statement
14.02 An EIS was submitted with the application. Article 94 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended provides that the information provided for in Schedule 6 of the regulations must be contained in an EIS. Chapter 2 described the proposed development, chapter 3 considered alternatives, chapter 4 considered human beings, chapter 5 considered ecology, chapter 6 considered hydrology and hydrogeology, chapter 7 considered soils and geology, chapter 8 dealt with air and climate, chapter 9 dealt with noise and vibration, chapter 10 with archaeology, architectural and cultural heritage, chapter 11 with landscape, chapter 12 with traffic and transportation, chapter 13 with material assets and chapter 14 with interactions between the foregoing. A non-technical summary was also provided. The original EIS was supplemented by further information submitted by the applicant to the planning authority on 29th May 2014.
14.03 Chapter 2 described the development and the planning policy context. The South Docklands LAP (as amended) provides for the upgrading of Pairc Ui Chaoimh and the provision of a centre of excellence. The Cork City Development Plan 2009-2015 states that an up-graded stadium and centre of excellence will be supported. The Marina Masterplan (adopted in July 2013) supports the proposed development.
14.04 Table 2.1 sets out the attendances at games and numbers of games between 2008 and 2012. The average number of games with attendance between 15,000 and 43,000 in those years was 2. Figure 2.4 shows the red-line of the planning application, the existing stadium, the now disused showgrounds where, generally, the new all-weather pitch will be located and the disused stands that will be removed.
14.05 Greatest change will occur in the south stand where player facilities, restaurant, kitchen, bars, shops, lavatories, meeting rooms, stores, a museum will be provided. The north covered stand will provide shops, a bar, hot food kiosks and service areas. The terraces at east and west ends provide shops, a first aid room, hot food takeaway kiosks and service areas. Figures 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18 give an overview of the construction phases. This chapter also synopsises the impacts which are dealt with in greater detail in the following chapters.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 77 14.06 Chapter 3 considered alternatives to the proposed development. The first major decision was location of the entire development. The proposed location was chosen because the existing stadium and landuse zoning provisions supported it. Relocation elsewhere would mean a loss of identity with the city and a loss of revenue to the city.
14.07 The second major decision was the location for the all-weather pitch. Various options were considered at various locations to the east of the site along Centre Park road and at a number of locations generally where it is now proposed – south of the reconfigured South Stand of the stadium. The third major decision was the configuration of the re- developed South Stand. The final decision on its location was to provide a dual aspect stand facing north into the main stadium and a cantilevered element facing south and overlooking the new all-weather pitch. This arrangement allows visitors to the park to make use of the amenity value of the raised walkway with cafés and views over the all- weather pitch.
14.08 Chapter 4 considered human beings. This chapter identified economic activity, social considerations, landuse and health and safety as issues relevant to the human environment. In the construction phase traffic, noise and dust are identified as significant impacts. Chapter 12 deals with construction traffic impacts. Noise is assessed in chapter 9 and will comply with BS528-1:2009 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction sites. Dust control measures will be set out in the construction environmental management plan (CEMP).
14.09 In the operational phase 5 new full time jobs will be created. The redeveloped stadium will comply with land use plans for the area and is within a brownfield site. The premises will be maintained and managed in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work and the Fire Safety Legislation. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposal to ensure that there are no significant negative implications for human beings. A lighting control plan and a litter control plan should be developed.
14.10 Chapter 5 addressed ecology. This chapter considers the ecological impacts on the site and nearby sites designated for their ecological importance. The site contains (table 5-2) buildings and artificial surfaces, drainage ditches, recolonizing/bare ground, amenity grassland and grassy verges/wet grassland. Of these the drainage ditches, recolonizing/bare ground and grassy verges/wet grassland are identified as potentially significant ecological receptors. No species of rare/protected flora were recorded within the site boundary. The
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 77 nearby River Lee may be a foraging habitat but the two drainage ditches (to the north and the south of the site) are highly modified and of very limited use to otters. Bat droppings were noted in the disused showground stands on the southeast of the site but no other structures had evidence of such use. The trees on site are mainly immature/multi- stemmed species and are not suitable for bat roosts. Table 5-5 lists birds observed within the site and at Atlantic Pond. No Atlantic salmon, brown trout or Lamprey are recorded in the streams on site or in Atlantic pond.
14.11 The potential impacts are stated (5.3.1) to be loss/alteration of habitat due to structural modifications, impairment of water quality due to in- stream works, disturbance of birds and bats during construction phase. There is potential for impacts during operational phase; for instance lighting on bats. Along with the AA (see below) the EIS (see 5.3.2) examines impacts on European sites and Natural Heritage Areas. The potential impacts are identified as loss of habitat, displacement of fauna and impairment of water quality. Mitigation measures include measures to prevent escape of hydrocarbons, provision of wheel washes, and preparation of a construction methodology in relation to the water courses on site in consultation with the Inland Fisheries Ireland.
14.12 Chapter 6 addresses hydrology and hydrogeology. The site is at about 0.00OD Malin Head and the two drains on site flow into Atlantic Pond. The South Docklands LAP envisages improved storm water drainage for other sections of the south dock area but the agricultural show grounds, Pairc Uí Chaoimh and Atlantic pond will continue to drain by gravity at low tide into the Lee. There is an impervious layer 3m deep which prevents infiltration of surface water.
14.13 The impacts on surface water will be managed in the construction phase by bunding to prevent runoff and silt traps for residual runoff. The storm water regime will remain unchanged and surface water drains will discharge to Atlantic Pond. There are no significant impacts arising for the hydrology and hydrogeology within the site because the water disposal regime remains unchanged.
14.14 Chapter 7 addresses soils and geology. The main construction impacts will arise from site clearance and preparation, demolition and excavation works, piling activity on site, importation of materials to the site and waste management during construction. Site clearance will comprise stripping off existing concrete and hard surfaces and will have no significant impact on the soil and geology. The excavation will
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 77 be minimal and have no significant impact on soil and geology. Bored concrete piles supporting the new build will be ‘sleeved’ to prevent water rising through the pierced impermeable layer underlying the site. No significant impact on soil and geology will arise from piling. The operational phase will likewise not give rise to significant impacts.
14.15 Chapter 8 deals with air and climate. The likely significant impacts during the construction phase are identified as dust emissions, and
emissions of SO2, NOx, CO2 and particulate matter (PM10) from working machinery. A visual inspection for asbestos has been carried out and none has been confirmed but a specialist survey will be carried out during demolition works. The operational phase will have stationary source emissions (gas fired boilers) and mobile source emissions (traffic movements).
14.16 A dust control plan for the construction phase is recommended to be developed and impacts will be mitigated through the placing of hoarding around the site, provision of a temporary wheel wash, dampening exposed surfaces during dry spells, and location of crusher plant within a hoarding protected construction compound. The operational phase impacts will be mitigated by, inter alia, a change from oil to natural gas for all heating systems and a traffic management system to improve dispersion of traffic emissions.
14.17 Chapter 9 deals with noise/vibration. A baseline noise survey was conducted with three reference points as per Figure 9-1 with N1 at Maryville immediately south of the main entrance to the proposed
development at Monahan Road. The LAeq dB for this location (Maryville) for weekdays daytime and at 7.00 to 13.00 Saturdays was measured at 61dB. Table 9-12 sets out how this ambient noise levels will be impacted on during demolition works and gives a figure of
67LAeq dB. The EIS concludes that during demolition phase noise levels could be significantly elevated above existing noise levels and that the threshold value established in BS5228 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites could be breached. Mitigation measures for the construction phase will include limiting noise from reverse alarms on machinery, sequential starting of plant and machinery rather than all together, prevent steep gradients on internal haulage route and a number of other measures. Noise will be monitored to ensure compliance with planning conditions. Given the fractional increase in capacity no materially different noise impacts should arise in the operational phase.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 77 14.18 Chapter 10 dealt with archaeology, architectural and cultural heritage. There are no archaeological monuments within the site. The sites within 2kms are set out in table 10.1. Where ground works will take place within the site these will be monitored by a suitably qualified archaeologist. There are no significant anticipated archaeological, architectural or cultural heritage impacts.
14.19 Chapter 11 with the A3 photomontages reproduced in volume 4 of the EIS considers landscape and visual impacts. The criteria for assessment are the sensitivity of the landscape and scale of landscape effect. The visual impacts on 16 chosen views are summarised in table 11.1. Most of the impacts are judged to be either neutral or beneficial with the exception of the view from Church Yard Lane to the south of the site – see view 14 in the EIS/photomontages. This view is considered to be impacted upon because the scale and mass of the new south stand will be seen to greatest effect and interposes itself in the view across the site from Church Yard Lane towards Montenotte ridge.
14.20 Chapter 12 deals with traffic and transportation. This chapter should be read in conjunction with the traffic management plan (appendix 12 in volume 3) and with the additional information submitted in response to a request from the planning authority. Construction phase access for materials delivery and workers will be via Centre Park Road and Monahan Road. Construction phase traffic will not access Maryville, Park Avenue or the Marina. Construction staff parking on site will be 228 for a peak work force of 450 – the assumption is that there will be some shared trips. There will be a peak construction period of 68 days when a maximum of 7 HGV per hour trips- i.e. 14 passes along the road network. Construction phase mitigation measures will include protocols for drivers detailing haulage routes/timing, published details for expected high volumes of HGVs on the Monahan Road/Centre Park Road route, a planned delivery schedule avoiding high traffic times e.g. school opening/closing hours, road sweeping and monitoring of the surface condition of the road.
14.21 For the operational phase the measures set out in the traffic management plan will be supplemented by an events website (12.5.2.1.1) which will detail, inter alia, all transport modes serving the site, car parking locations/availability, traffic restrictions, routes from key public transport hubs.
14.22 Chapter 13 deals with impacts on material assets. Material assets are defined as economic assets - natural origin, economic assets - human
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 77 origin, cultural assets – physical type and cultural assets – social type. The chapter refers to the mitigation measures set out elsewhere in the EIS and states that no additional mitigation is required.
14.23 In Chapter 14 the interaction of the predicted impacts are set out in table 14.1, moderate impacts are predicted for ecology during the construction phase and archaeology and cultural heritage in the construction phase1.
14.24 Environmental Impact Assessment.
14.25 The Board is required to consider if an EIS submitted with an application complies with article 94 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, that is; does it contain the information set out in Schedule 6 of the Regulations ? Having regard to the material submitted in the EIS and supplemented by the response by the applicant to the further information request made by the planning authority I recommend that the EIS contains the information set out in Schedule 6 and complies with article 94 of the Regulations.
14.26 I would identify the most likely significant environmental impacts as visual impacts, noise impacts arising from construction traffic and activity, impacts on hydrology within the site and outside the site, impacts on ecology within the site.
14.27 In order to assess visual impacts I carried out a number of site inspections and compared these with the material and photomontages submitted with the EIS and the protected views and prospects set out the written statement of the Cork City Development Plan and illustrated on maps numbered 16 and 18 in the Plan. The application did not consider the views designated for protection in Map 16 (LT34 and LT35) nevertheless I consider that the application provided adequate material on which to base an assessment. There will be a significant visual impact from south of the site (especially Churchyard Lane) towards the Tivoli escarpment. I consider that this impact is acceptable in the context of the overall advantages of the proposed development. I agree that in some instances the visual environment (especially from close up around Atlantic Pond) will be improved by the proposed development as the existing stadium makes a relatively poor visual impression. I do not consider that in so far as the proposed development will be visible from residential areas that its appearance
1 This appears to be a mistake and that the moderate impact is predicted for landscape/visual amenity.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 77 will be unreasonably dominant. I conclude that overall all the visual impacts are acceptable.
14.28 In relation to operational noise impacts I consider that the point made in relation to the negligible increase in noise arising from the negligible increase in capacity in the stadium is reasonable. I would have more concern in relation to construction noise impacts (see especially table 9-14 and following discussion at page 17/Chapter 9). This appears to be a reasonable assessment both of the background noise levels and the potential for impact particularly on housing in Maryville. Nevertheless the EIS sets out mitigation measures which will manage noise emissions. I conclude overall that the noise emissions managed in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the application and by appropriate conditions set out in the draft order below would render the noise environment acceptable.
14.29 For the purpose of assessing the impacts on hydrology within the site, the impact on Atlantic pond and flooding within the area I have particular regard to the EIS as submitted, the applicant’s response to the request for further information and the evidence made available at the oral hearing by both the applicant and the planning authority. Of particular interest here is the nature of the two streams within the site. At least the stream along the northern boundary of the site is entirely manmade and functions to carry away water which drains through the Navigation wall/Marina Walk to the Atlantic Pond. This stream/drain is of low ecological value and no flora or fauna of conservation value have been identified therein and this stream/drain will be impacted upon by the building works. The southern stream/drain is culverted at present as it passes along Monahan Road under the disused spectator stands associated with the former agricultural showgrounds. This, more southerly, waterway will be improved by being opened up in a manner which will contribute to biodiversity. Both these streams/drains will continue to drain surface water off the site into Atlantic Pond.
14.30 The single most important mitigation measure in relation to the potential for flooding arising from the proposed development are the flood attenuation tanks located underneath the all-weather pitch which are sized according to flooding calculations set out in the application. In relation to the impacts on the Atlantic pond I consider that it should continue to function more or less as heretofore with the exception of the permitted improved storm water attenuation provided for in the application that may actually slow the entry of storm water into the pond. It is my assessment therefore that no unacceptable significant
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 77 impacts for the hydrology/flooding/the Atlantic pond will arise from the proposed development.
14.31 Chapter 5 of the EIS details the likely significant ecological impacts within the site and especially on the nearby Atlantic pond. Impacts on European sites are considered below. Of particular note here is the relatively low ecological value of the open areas, the buildings and water courses within the site. Much of the site is made ground, there are no trees of significance for birds or bats. The impacts on bird life within the Atlantic pond was discussed at the oral hearing and I am satisfied that no bird species will be unacceptably impacted upon by the construction works or operation of the proposed development. The nesting regime of the Little Grebe was raised by the appellants but I am satisfied that its nesting regime is compatible with changes in water levels in the Atlantic Pond. Evidence given at the oral hearing in relation to limited noise impacts on the Grey Heron in Atlantic pond allows for the conclusion that such an impact is not significant enough to require refusal of permission or specific conditions. I conclude that the proposed development will have no unacceptably significant impact on ecology.
14.32 Finally on the point of EIA the third party appellant in the course of the oral hearing that the Marina Park Masterplan provides what are in effect enabling works which facilitate this application and therefore that the Masterplan and this application should be subject to a common EIA and that their separation comprises project splitting.
14.33 Having regard to the following;
• The South Docks LAP includes the area of the Marina Park Masterplan and the LAP was subject to SEA,
• Variation No 7 which rezoned the area within the site largely comprising the all-weather pitch was subject to a separate SEA screening which concluded that the variation will be neutral from an environmental perspective (copy of this Screening Report is attached in the pouch).
• The Marina Park Masterplan is a plan whereas this application is a project; plans are properly subject to SEA, projects are properly subject to EIA,
• The sponsor of the Masterplan is the planning authority while the applicant in this application is the GAA Cork County Board,
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 77
• The adequacy of the EIS and additional information to facilitate the Board in carrying out an EIA,
I conclude that the proposed development does not comprise project splitting for the purposes of avoiding the carrying out of EIA.
15. APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT
15.01 A Natura Impact Statement was submitted as appendix 4 of the EIS. The Natura 2000 sites within 15kms of the site are identified as
• Cork Harbour SPA, • Great Island Channel cSAC, • Blackwater River cSAC • and the Cork Harbour Ramsar site.
Table 5 in the NIS sets out the conservation interests for which these sites have been designated. The NPWS have published generic conservation objectives for these sites and these are generally to maintain or restore the favourable conservation status habitats and/or species for which the sites have been designated.
15.02 The Screening Report identified the potential significant effects as impairment of water quality due to construction works, loss of habitats, alteration of habitats, disturbance of species during construction, displacement of species during operation. The screening report concluded that no likely significant effects on the Blackwater River cSAC because it is 14.7kns distance or on the Great Island Channel cSAC having regard to its conservation interests because of its distance from the development site (6.2kms) and the dilution factor available in Cork Harbour. The screening report concludes that there are sufficient potential significant effects from the possible entry of pollutants and sediment into the Cork Harbour SPA to warrant a stage 2 AA in relation to the SPA.
15.03 Having regard to;
• the material submitted with the application including the EIS and NIS, • the material published by the NPWS,
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 77 • my site inspections and the evidence set out in the course of the oral hearing,
• the Marina Park Masterplan 2013, having particular regard to the Part 8 Report (oral hearing document 6B/day 1),
• the source-pathway-receptor model whereby the development site would be a source of emissions (silt/fuel oils/noise/fumes/light), the pathway would be either the waterways or air and the receptor would be the conservation interests within the designated sites,
I agree with the screening conclusion that the proposed development will not have a significant effect on the Blackwater River cSAC and the Great Island Channel cSAC.
15.04 Having regard to the proximity of the development site to the Cork Harbour SPA, to the qualifying interests for the site published by the NPWS, the potential for the aquatic environment to operate as a pathway between the source (the development site) and the receptor (the SPA) I agree with the NIS that a stage 2 AA is required. The potential significant effects on the SPA are identified as loss of habitats, alteration of habitats, impairment of water quality due to construction works, disturbance of species during construction, displacement of species during operation.
15.05 The NIS concluded that there will be no loss of habitat within the SPA. There is a potential significant effect arising from water borne pollutants altering habitats and/or impairing water quality but this is discounted having regard to the surface water management measures proposed as part of the application. In relation to displacement or disturbance of birds during the construction phase the NIS concludes that there may be a slight negative impacts but that there will be no impacts during the operation phase.
15.06 Having regard to;
(a) the conservation objectives for the Cork Harbour SPA set out by the NPWS,
(b) South Docks LAP and the SEA carried out for that plan, the Marina Park Masterplan, the SEA screening assessment in Variation No 7 rezoning the lands within the application site but outside the original stadium, and to the Part 8 Report for the Masterppan, (oral hearing document 6B/day 1),
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 77
(c) the existing buildings on site, the large areas of made ground, the generally low ecological value of the development site including the trees and two streams/drains on site in terms of foraging/breeding sites for birds and bats,
(d) the separation distance (about 2kms) of the development site from the designated site, and the dilution/assimilative capacity of the Lee river intervening between the outfall at Atlantic Pond and the designated site,
(e) the mitigation measures incorporated into the application (especially in the EIS and in the NIS) which will protect the on-site water channels from silt-laden run-off during construction, the bunding of fuel oil compounds and the provision of hydrocarbon interceptors which will limit runoff during construction phase, the washing of concrete lorries off-site and the flood attenuation tanks under the all-weather pitch and the basically unchanged surface water disposal system through Atlantic pond,
I conclude on the basis of the information available that the proposed development, individually and in combination with other plans and projects would not adversely affect the integrity of Cork Harbour SPA/Ramsar site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.
16. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
16.01 The issues to be considered in this case are;
(1) Development Plan Policy (2) Condition 25(f) Providing Public Lighting (3) Condition 3 – the proposed uses (4) Residential Impacts (5) Operational Traffic (6) Construction Traffic (7) Visual Impacts and Urban Design (8) Archaeological/Architectural Impacts. (9) Flooding (10) Landscaping (11) Ecological Impacts (12) Remaining Issues (13) Recommendation
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 77 16.02 Development Plan Policy
16.03 The site originally had two zonings in the Cork City Development Plan 2009-2015. The stadium itself was zoned sports grounds –objective ZO 14 “to protect, retain and enhance the range and quality of sports facilities and grounds”. The area outside the stadium and within the site is zoned public open space – objective ZO 15 “to protect, retain and provide for recreational uses, open space and amenity facilities with a presumption against developing land zoned public open space for alternative purposes, including public open space within housing estates”.
16.04 Originally these zoning provisions were effectively carried over from the South Docks Local Area Plan 2008 (SDLAP). However by way of Variation Number 7 (adopted 16th April 2012) the planning authority amended City Development Plan and the South Docks Local Area Plan 2008 (copy attached) to extend the ‘Sports Grounds’ zoning objective south to include the location of the all-weather pitch proposed in the present application.
16.05 Accordingly I conclude that that the proposed development generally complies with zoning provisions of the City Development Plan and the LAP.
16.06 The Plan (Chapter 11) proposes upgrades of a number of public parks under the control of the City Council; these include Kinsale Road Amenity Park, Banks of the Lee Project, Glen Amenity Park, North West District Park, North East District park and Marina Park. In relation to Marina Park the Plan states;
“As part of the South Docks Local Area Plan 2008 it is proposed to develop the Marina Park. It will extend east from the Showgrounds including the Atlantic Pond, lands to the east of the pumping station at Atlantic Pond and the underutilized parklands north of the old rail line and south of the Marina. It is proposed to accommodate the upgrading of Pairc Uí Chaoimh to a modern stadium by working with the GAA and to facilitate the development of a Centre of Excellence. The Showgrounds will be developed as an area of public open space. It is proposed to promote an international design procurement competition for the design of Marina Park and to provide public art and an outdoor performance space. It is proposed that Marina Park be developed between 2010 and 2013”.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 77 Having regard to the amended zoning provisions set out in the City Development Plan and the overall policy in relation to Marina Park I conclude that that the proposed development is generally in compliance with the parks’ development policy set out in the City Plan.
16.07 Condition 25(f) Providing Public Lighting
16.08 The applicant appealed against condition 25(f) which required that;
The applicant/developer shall identify and provide for adequate lighting along key pedestrian routes to Pairc Ui Chaoimh, in particular along Monahan Road, Centre Park Road, Old Railway Line and the Marina. The extent of the area to be considered for upgrades and the specification shall be agreed in writing with Cork City Council. All associated costs shall be borne by the applicant/developer. The lighting shall be installed by the applicant/developer prior to the first operation/opening of the development.
Reason: in the interest of traffic and pedestrian safety and to avoid traffic congestion.
16.09 The applicant has appealed this condition on the grounds that it is unfair to require the applicant to carry the burden/costs of these works since they are envisioned in the South Docks LAP/Marina Park Masterplan, will benefit a far wider group of businesses/public/road users than just the GAA, that the GAA is a voluntary body for the purposes of article 157 of the Regulations and is therefore exempt from the charge altogether by virtue of the Cork City Development Contribution Scheme, and that other applications on Monahan Road/Centre Park were not required to carry out such works.
16.10 The planning authority argues that the standard of lighting on these roads is significantly below that required for public safety, that the permission granted will, of itself, give rise to significant additional motor and pedestrian traffic on these roads after dark and that, therefore, the applicant should provide the lighting in the interest of public safety.
16.11 In relation requiring the carrying out of works outside the site the planning authority is constrained by section 34(4) whereby conditions may regulate the development or use of land adjacent or abutting the development site which is under the control of the applicant. Previously in somewhat similar circumstances (a new supermarket close to a town centre PL13.242896) a planning authority required the
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 77 applicant to carry out works outside the site which would benefit traffic management in a town centre. In that case the Board replaced a condition requiring the carrying out of works with a special contribution condition under section 48(2)(c). A difference in that case was that the works required were detailed on a drawing submitted with the application.
16.12 I agree with the point made by the applicant in the course of the oral hearing that it is not appropriate to require the applicant to bear sole responsibility for works outside the application site and I conclude therefore that the condition as imposed by the planning authority should be removed.
16.13 Before considering the substantive issue it is necessary to address a further point raised by the applicant. The applicant states that Article 157 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, makes provision for exemption from the payment of planning fees by voluntary organisations where planning applications relate to, inter alia, social or recreational uses. Furthermore the applicant points out that the Cork City Development Contribution Scheme at Table 5 provides for a reduction of 100% in development contributions payable by such bodies; that a letter was received by the applicant from the planning authority (see copy on file) exempting the applicant from the payment of application fees and that, accordingly, the applicant is exempt from any contribution under the development contribution scheme.
16.14 Section 48(2) (c) provides that a planning authority may, in addition to the terms of the scheme, require the payment of a special contribution where specific exceptional costs not covered by the general contribution scheme are incurred by the planning authority in respect of public infrastructure and facilities which benefit the proposed development. The Development Management Guidelines (DOEHLG 2007) make the point (7.12) that where exceptional costs not covered by the general contribution scheme it is “essential that the basis of the calculation should be explained in the planning decision”, that the nature and scope of the works and the apportionment to the specific development must be transparent. The further advice in relation to special contributions is set out in the Development Contributions Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DOECLG 2013) which states that
‘A special development contribution may be imposed under section 48(2)(c) where specific exceptional costs, which are not covered by the general contribution scheme, are incurred by a local authority in the provision of public infrastructure or facilities
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 77 which benefit very specific requirements for the proposed development, such as a new road junction or the relocation of piped services. The particular works should be specified in the condition. Only developments that will benefit from the public infrastructure or facility in question should be liable to pay the development contribution.
16.15 I conclude therefore that the planning authority, and by extension the Board, is not constrained to apply only the published development contribution scheme but is, in certain circumstances, entitled to impose a special contribution in relation to public lighting in the vicinity of the site.
16.16 A number of questions remain; will the proposed development lead to significantly different pedestrian/vehicular demand on surrounding streets which require new or improved lighting? Is a contribution attributable to specific works? Is such expenditure already covered by the Development Contribution Scheme? Would the payment of such a contribution be compatible with the requirements of section 48(12)?
16.17 There is agreement between the parties that street lighting in the area of the stadium is inadequate and the applicant has gone as far as offering €60,000 as a contribution towards its improvement. Having regard to the additional all-weather pitch and the flood lighting for both that and the stadium pitch which will significantly lengthen the hours of operation, particularly in winter, of these facilities, the additional public bar/restaurant/meeting facilities which will provide an attraction for visitors and the gym/running track proposed I consider that significant additional numbers of patrons will make use of the facilities and therefore of the surrounding roads. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that upgrading of public lighting is required by the development.
16.18 The applicant made a fair point that the public/businesses/residents will also benefit from upgrading of the lighting on Monahan Road, Centre Park Road, Old Railway Line and the Marina. However it may be noted that this circumstance is specifically provided for in section 48(2)(c) and this consideration may be factored into calculations for an amount attributable to the needs of the proposed development in this case.
16.19 The applicant made the point that the cost of the lighting up-grade works is already covered the ordinary development contribution scheme? I have had regard to the submissions (applicant’s grounds of appeal, oral hearing submissions and the planning authority’s oral
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 77 hearing submission and especially submission 30/day 3 of the oral hearing) and I consider that the planning authority’s case that the additional uses/longer hours of use especially after dark make the up- grading of the lighting on the surrounding roads an immediate necessity following on the completion of the proposed development is reasonable. I conclude that the cost of such an upgrade is not included in the estimate costs for public infrastructure development set out in Table 1 of the City Council’s development contribution scheme. Furthermore the applicant’s offer of €60,000 implicitly accepts this.
16.20 Finally the point was made that the condition is too imprecise in that the exact lengths of roadway to be covered and the standard of lighting is not specified. In order to impose a condition under section 48(2)(c) ‘specific exceptional costs’ must be identified. I consider that the requirement to detail ‘specific exceptional costs’ is met by identifying the roads to be improved and the works (lighting) to be carried out. Therefore I recommend a special contribution condition under 48(2)(c) which leaves the details to be agreed between the applicant and the planning authority but failing agreement the details may referred to the Board for determination. I also note that such a condition is compatible with the requirements of section 48(12) whereby if the works are not carried out within specified periods the payment is refundable to the applicant.
16.21 Condition 3 – Permitted Uses
16.22 Condition 3 provided that ‘all uses hereby permitted shall be ancillary to the principal use site as a sports facility’. The reason is given as ‘to define the scope of the permission and in order to comply with the land-use zoning objective in the Cork City Development Plan’. This condition was not the subject to an appeal but was the subject of submissions at the oral hearing and its significance is central to the traffic management arrangements for the proposed development. Accordingly I set out an assessment of the issue.
16.23 The applicant made the case that the condition unreasonably restricts the use of the proposed development by preventing, for example, local non-sporting organisations from using the permitted meeting rooms. Heretofore the existing development has been used for non-sporting uses such as private functions and events. The condition is unreasonably restrictive and is not required for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. The condition leads to ambiguity as it appears to apply the very restrictive meaning of ‘sports facility’ as used in policy 11.7 in the Plan.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 77 16.24 This condition is significant because (a) it relates to the uses permitted on site and (b) it has traffic implications (see here especially documents 29 and 33 presented on day 3 of the hearing).
16.25 The application (EIS paragraph 2.5.4) states that the proposed development will accommodate GAA related meetings, conferences and seminars and elsewhere refers to functions which are ancillary to the principal use. In evidence (oral hearing record 16.22pm and following day 3) the applicant stated that at present functions un- related specifically to the GAA (retirement parties and birthday parties) would be about 150 persons two or three times per week. In evidence to the hearing the applicant stated that the capacity of the new area on the second floor (see drawing PL5603 Rev A) which would be available for meetings/conferences/seminars and celebrations is 450.
16.26 It may be noted that this area includes two bar/kiosks, kitchens, restaurants and two south facing terraces accessible from this area with floor areas of about 100m2 each. I do not consider that the uses which the applicant outlined was sufficiently clear from the application documentation and thereby notified to the public to allow for a transparent assessment of their impacts. The applicant had an opportunity to appeal this condition, did not do so and raised it in the course of the oral hearing where its ventilation was necessarily limited.
16.27 The issue of car-parking arises in this context. The planning authority’s position is that there are 155 spaces within the application made up of 100 in an arc along the south-western and north-western edges of the site, 35 immediately east of the eastern/Blackrock Stand and 20 accessed from Park Avenue in the southeast corner of the site. This is 55 more than is set out in the EIS (paragraph 2.8.3) but reflects the provision on submitted drawing PL5503 A – Proposed Site Layout Plan and was not disputed at the hearing by the applicant. Taken together with the staff car parking requirements (administrators/catering/grounds staff) and those related to the other uses on site especially the gymnasium and all-weather pitch I do not consider that the application has demonstrated that parking requirements generated by a use with a capacity for 450 persons either during the day at conferences/seminars or at evening/night time social functions can be met.
16.28 The other possibility is that public car parking outside site may be used to meet any deficit arising from the uses proposed within the site. This is considered in the submitted traffic management plan - see especially paragraph 7.5 appendix 12, volume 3 of the EIS under the heading ‘Typical Non-Match day Scenarios’. This refers to a county Board
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 77 meeting from 7.30pm to 10.pm and the availability of parking outside the stadium complex. I do not consider that this is a reasonable assessment of the potential traffic and car parking which would be drawn to conferences/seminars or social functions. The Marina Masterplan (see especially page 38) envisages 265 car spaces along the Marina and a further 86 on Monahan Road. Notwithstanding that there are other forms of transport discussed in the Masterplan (for example public transport and cycling) the Masterplan makes clear these spaces outside the application site are intended to serve the parking needs of persons who wish to visit the larger re-developed Marina Park, Atlantic pond, businesses and residential uses in the area. A distinction should also be made between the use of public parking outside the site managed by the City Council/Gardaí on match day Sundays and this same parking on un-supervised ordinary weekdays.
16.29 The question therefore is how much of the public car parking capacity in the area of the re-developed stadium should be allocated to overflow parking from the stadium/all-weather pitch/centre of excellence uses? I conclude that there would be is no spare parking capacity within development site on days/evenings/nights when, as envisaged in the application, there are a multiplicity of uses/events taking place simultaneously and that the application has not established that a wider use of the conference/seminar/social facilities would not absorb all the public parking capacity in the area to the detriment of ‘ordinary’ users of the redeveloped Marina Park and business/residential related visitors to the wider area.
16.30 This is not to say that a permission to widen the proposed uses along the lines sought by the applicant may not be appropriate where the applicant can demonstrate that day-time/evening traffic/parking congestion would not arise. I recommend attaching the Condition 3.
16.31 Residential Impacts
16.32 I would identify the major potential impacts on residential amenity as noise impacts during construction, glare from flood lights, overlooking/visual intrusion.
16.33 The finished stadium will have two shared vehicular/pedestrian accesses one to the north from Centre Park Road/the Marina and one to the southwest off Monahan Road. Residential uses are concentrated to the south off Monahan Road in Birchgrove and Maryville and a group of 9 houses on Ardfoyle Crescent whose gardens back onto the
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 77 south eastern boundary – the area where the disused viewing stands which were part of the show grounds are located.
16.34 The proposed construction working hours are 8.00am to 7.00pm and Monday to Friday and 8.30 to 4.pm Sunday. There will be an average of 370 workers on site during construction rising to maximum of 450. There will be a maximum of 14 HGVs per hour (7 in/7out) at peak construction period (a 68 day period) and construction related traffic will be routed via Monahan Road and Centre Park road to avoid going through Maryville, Park Avenue and the Marina.
16.35 A major area of concern for the third party appellants is that noise and disturbance over a long construction period (26 to 30 months – EIS 2.7.1) would unreasonably impact on residential amenity. The planning authority imposed condition number 28(a) requiring that noise control measures set out in the EIS (see Chapter 9) are adhered to. The Board in the Landsowne Road stadium (PL29S.218917) did not impose a condition in relation to noise from construction activity. Having regard to the information set out in the EIS as augmented by that presented at the oral hearing (see especially document 16/day2) I conclude that construction traffic noise will acceptable.
16.36 It is argued in the EIS (9.3.1.2) that the piling will be bored rather than driven and that this method will reduce impulsive noise. I agree with this. Nevertheless the EIS also accepts that noise during construction could be as high as 67dB(A). The EIS also makes the point that there are no mandatory noise limits for construction noise in Ireland and references NRA Guidelines and two British Standards. Previously the Board has had regard to ISO 1996 Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response. This document estimates community response to noise increases over the ambient level on a scale of ‘no observed reaction’ to ‘vigorous community action’ for a range of noise occurrences of 0dB(A) to 20dB(A) above the ambient noise level. In the present case the EIS (Table 9-14) predicts that ambient noise (47dB(A)) on Monahan Road will reach 67dB(A) for a difference of 20dB(A) during the demolition works phase. Therefore I consider it is reasonable to require the applicant to manage the demolition phase noise a manner which minimises noise impacts.
16.37 In relation to the operational phase noise impacts it is the case that the proposal provides for a more intensive use regime than heretofore; added to the existing stadium pitch will be the all-weather pitch, café/bars, and the 1,000 seat cantilevered viewing stand for the all- weather pitch/running track. Nevertheless having particular regard to
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 77 the assessment for noise impact set out in the EIS, the separation distance (about 150m) between the outside seating area and the nearest housing, the marginal increase of spectator capacity (43,500 up to 45,000) of the main stadium and the parkland setting of the development which has a greater capacity to absorb sound than would be the case in a primarily hard surfaced/built up area I do not consider that the operational phase noise environment will unreasonably differ from the that of the present.
16.38 Turning to the matter of glare from flood lights which was the subject of comment from the third party appellant appendix 10/Volume 3 of the EIS and the submission presented at the hearing are relevant (see especially document 10/day 2). ‘Lux’ is a standard light measurement whereby 50,000 Lux is summer sunshine and 500 Lux is a well-lit office. There are two methods of limiting the spill of the flood lighting proposed for the stadium pitch and the all-weather pitch; lighting fixture design and lighting fixture aiming angle. The light poles at 38.3m are the optimum height to allow the flood lights to be angled in a manner which limits the spill of light outside the application site.
16.39 The most vulnerable houses from the perspective of light spill are those south of the proposed all-weather pitch. The houses predicted to be affected are on Ardfoyle Crescent where the increase in light spill in their rear gardens will be less than 10 Lux. I do not consider this impact to constitute serious injury to residential amenity.
16.40 In relation to overlooking/visual intrusion again I consider that given the proposed development’s parkland location that this potential impact is limited to the houses on Monahan Road/Birchgrove and Ardfoyle Crescent. The potential arises from the cantilevered viewing/supporters’ area overlooking the all-weather pitch and the open terraces on the southern elevation of the redeveloped southern stand. Given the distance in the region of 150m between these areas as the rear gardens of Ardfoyle Crescent, the intervening wall (new 2.5m wall shown on drawing Pl5503 Revision A) and the trees to be retained and replaced I do not consider that overlooking will give rise to serious injury to residential amenity. I do not consider that there is any potential for overlooking of houses in Birchgrove.
16.41 Operational Traffic
16.42 Cork city centre and the area of the site are served by M8, N20, N22, N25, N27, N28 and the south ring (N40). There are two city centre bus stations at Parnell Place and Merchants Quay. Two Bus Eireann
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 77 services to Victoria Road stopping 1.5m south west of the stadium and a further stop about 430m away at Blackrock Road. Main line intercity rail serves Kent Station connecting with Limerick, Galway, Tralee, Mallow, Charleville and Dublin. Kent Station also connects by suburban rail to Mallow, Little Island, Glounthaune, Carrigtwohill, Middleton, Fota, Carrigaloe, Rushbrooke and Cobh. Table 12.2 in the EIS sets out parking provision in public car parks of 4,734 spaces.
16.43 The EIS (12.2.7.4 and Table 12-4) considered the capacity of Monahan Road and Centre Park Road on weekdays and established that less that 20% capacity was being used on weekdays. The foreseeable changes to the roads’ regime in the area include the construction of the Eastern Gateway bridge, Water Street Bridge, raising/upgrading of Centre Park Road and Monahan Road, the provision of cycle routes/traffic calming along Monahan Road and improved public bus transport. Adopting the NRA traffic forecast model the predicted weekday peak hour vehicular traffic will remain in the region of 20% of capacity for Monahan Road and Centre Park Road in 2018. The EIS distinguishes (12.4.4.3) between non-match day scenarios and match day scenarios. Non-match day will include GAA County Board meetings in the evenings and meetings/conferences with approximately 450 attendees during the day. 135 on-site parking spaces (during the hearing this figure was amended to 155) will be provided. No substantial increase in deliveries is anticipated arising from the proposed development. The capacity for match days will increase from 43,500 to 45,000. There is limited capacity for increases in the frequency of larger capacity games due to the ‘home and away’ arrangements with other counties. Delays arising from big-match day traffic are managed by the Gardaí and are generally confined to Sundays during off peak times. The traffic management plan provided as an appendix to the EIS provides for a Liaison Officer who will deal both with the local residents and the Gardaí on traffic matters. To aid traffic management an events website (12.5.2.1.1) will provide information on, amongst others, all modes of travel to the stadium including public transport serving the site, traffic restrictions, car parking locations and availability.
16.44 Initially the planning authority raised 14 queries in relation to traffic management with the applicant; of these I consider the key questions to be (a) how will the traffic from the redeveloped stadium impact on the city network with particular regard to Victoria Road/Albert Road and the N27 South city Link, (b) how will the proposal integrate with previously approved developments in the area and, (c) the impact of match day traffic on residents and businesses in the area.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 77
16.45 The applicant (see page 13 and following of FI Response received by the PA 3rd March 2014) identified 10 signal controlled junctions in the area of the development site which are set to ‘flashing red’ or ‘flashing amber’ on days of high attendance games and that these are controlled by Gardaí on these days. The applicant makes the point that the traffic system outside the site is controlled by the local authority in conjunction with the police. In relation to interaction with other permitted developments the applicant states that the infrastructural schemes identified (the Marina Park Master plan and the East Gateway Bridge/Water Street Bridge/Cork Dockland Spine network) will have a positive impact on the operational activities associated with the proposed development.
16.46 In relation to the interactions with businesses and residents in the area the applicant explained (see page 19 of FI Response received by the PA 3rd March 2014) that traffic management is predicated on 5 traffic scenarios. These scenarios are up to 1,000 spectators, 1,000 to 2,000, 2,000 to 3,000, 3,000 to 6,000, 6,000 to 15,000 and 15,000 to 45,000. The current spectator arrival/traffic management arrangements are set out in the EIS (section 5). For the first four of these a liaison officer and localised restrictions in residential areas are put in place whereas in scenario 5 (in excess of 15,000) a bottle/ticket cordon is put in place (see the cordon map provided for in appendix 6/TMP/Volume 3 of the EIS). This cordon is managed by the Gardaí and controls, inter alia, access for players coaches, media, persons with disabilities, residents and their visitors.
16.47 The planning authority reviewed the response to the further information and was satisfied with the submitted information. The appeals make the point that there is already traffic congestion in the area and illegal parking during match days and that the proposed uses/expanded stadium development will exacerbate these problems.
16.48 The existing traffic management plan is set out in 5.1 of the EIS which refers to matches with in excess of 25,000 spectators. This includes a ticket/bottle cordon, 50 to 60 security personnel under the direction of the Gardaí managing traffic on the approach roads and preventing illegal parking in residential areas, keeping Monahan Road free of all but local traffic and emergency vehicles, signage to a ‘park and ride’ facility at Mahon and a double decker bus service from South Mall. The application envisages that an improved version of this management plan will now be in place for games with an attendance of 15,000 to 45,000 (see TMP Chapter 12 Volume 3 of the EIS).
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 77
16.49 The planning authority raised the issue of car parking capacity in the request for further information and made the point that some of the parking listed in the EIS may not be available. Contrariwise in the course of the oral heading the planning authority made the point that to provide parking for a capacity game (45,000) something in the region of 11,000 spaces would have to be provided. While this may be a slight exaggeration I am satisfied that the car parking provision set out in the EIS and the predicted modal split are reasonably sound. The really important issue from the point of view of the local residents and businesses is that the disruption to normal residential/business traffic movements is minimised. From the point of view of businesses the disruption arising from larger capacity games will be mitigated because they will take place on Sundays. For residents it is a matter of managing the traffic impacts to minimise them. I carried out a site inspection on the 6th July 2014 which was the Sunday of the Munster football final. While I understand that a larger crowd could be expected for the Munster hurling final I can confirm that there was a Garda cordon, that Monahan Road was maintained as emergency access only and that stewards prevented spectators gaining access to the residential estates at Birchgrove, Maryville, Park Lane, Ardfoyle Crescent and Barrington’s Avenue. I did note that there was some unregulated parking especially on Centre Park Road.
16.50 Having regard to;
• the traffic management plan set out in the application (including especially the predicted modal split, public transport provision, car parking provision, control cordon),
• to the modest increase in maximum capacity proposed in the application (about 3.5%),
• to the detailed pedestrian dispersion models presented in the application and discussed at the oral hearing,
• to the permitted use of the site for Gaelic games and the former use of part of the site as an agricultural show grounds,
• to the traffic management arrangements observed during a major sports event, and
• subject to the conditions set out in the draft order below
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 77 I consider that the proposed development would not unreasonably negatively impact on traffic management within the area or on other businesses or residential uses in the area.
16.51 Construction Traffic
16.52 The EIS (figure 12-6) shows the construction access to the site as being off Monahan Road and workers and construction materials will access the site over Centre Park Road and Monahan Road. There will be no access through Park Avenue/Maryville or the Marina. There will be an average of 370 construction staff on site and 228 spaces will be provided. Construction materials delivery will take 5,100 HGV trips with a peak period of 68 days when there will be 75 trips in and 75 out over a working day of 11 hours. Construction impact mitigation measures (EIS 12.5.1 Volume 2) will prescribe, inter alia, a haulage route, advance warning of expected large volumes of HGV activity, a planned delivery schedule avoiding, for example, school opening/closing times.
16.53 The question was asked at the oral hearing if any improvement in the construction delivery arrangements would be effected by requiring, for example, access over Monahan Road and exit over Centre Park Road or vice versa. The planning authority and applicant agreed that such an arrangement would cause other difficulties at the western end of both these roads at the Victoria Road roundabout.
16.54 While the concerns of local residents in relation to the length of the construction period are understandable however short of moving the stadium elsewhere there will be construction phase impacts. Having regard to the mitigation measures set out in the application and the draft conditions set out below I consider that the construction phase impacts would not seriously injure the amenity of nearby uses.
16.55 Visual Impacts and Urban Design.
16.56 It is an objective (Policy 10.8) of the planning authority as set out in the City Development Plan that “proposals that would cause unacceptable harm to the visual impact of landmark buildings, historic buildings, key views and prospects will not be permitted…(there) will be a presumption against development that threatens to obstruct or compromise the quality or setting of views and prospects of special amenity value including strategic linear views, panoramic vires, river prospects, townscape and landscape views and approach road views”. Part 4 of volume 3 of the plan lists these protected views and prospects
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 77 and they are illustrated, for this part of the city, on maps 16 and 18 attached to the City Plan (copies attached).
16.57 I would identify protected views most likely to be impacted upon as follows;
• On map 16 the view LT34 west from Cathedral Road and view LT35 west from Harbour View Road,
• On map 18 view LT9, north toward Montenotte/Tivoli ridge from Beaumont Drive,
• On map 18 view LT10 north toward Montenotte/Tivoli ridge from Ballinlough Park/Beaumont Quarry,
• On map 18 view LT11 north toward Montenotte/Tivoli ridge from Church Yard Lane.
16.58 The EIS (Chapter 11) assessed the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development. Photomontages 14, 15 and 16 of the EIS generally coincide with views LT9, LT10, LT11 listed for protection in the City Plan. The origin points for all these views are elevated over the proposed site and the river valley and the view is northwards to the Montenotte/Tivoli ridge on the north side of the River Lee. The stadium has a maximum height of 38m above its adjoining ground levels and will be visible in these views. I consider that the photomontages submitted reasonably anticipate the impact on the protected views and note that the assessment set out in the EIS estimates that the impact on these protected views will be medium neutral to medium adverse.
16.59 I consider this is a balanced conclusion but the test to be applied is set out in the City Development Plan as “unacceptable harm”. While the new structure will be visible it will not break the skyline or project above the Montenotte/Tivoli ridge and will not be out of place in its immediate context of a large public park or within its larger urban context.
16.60 The application did not address view LT34 west from Cathedral Road/Gurranabraher Church and view LT35 west from Harbour View Road listed for protection in the City Development Plan. Notwithstanding this I have conducted an inspection from these streets which are close to the western edge of the city and are substantially elevated over the city/river valley. Designated view LT34 is west from Cathedral Road/Gurranabraher Church but when viewed from the grounds of Gurranabraher Church is, in fact, obscured by nearby
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 77 buildings and topography and the only view available is in a more southerly direction towards the Elysium building closer to the city centre. I conclude that the proposed development will not impact on view LT34. The site is not visible in designated view LT35 west from Harbour View and I conclude, therefore that the proposed development will not impact on this view.
16.61 The City Council’s policy in relation to urban design as set out in the Development Plan (policy 16.1) to ensure that development is designed to a high qualitative standard and promotes the creation of good places. The planning authority will apply the guidance set out in the Urban Design Manual (2008), and seeks to ensure that applications consider context, connectivity, inclusivity, variety, efficiency, distinctiveness, layout, public realm, adaptability, privacy and amenity, parking, and detailed design. The South Docks LAP comments in relation to urban design (Objective SD 37) that the provision of clear legible links should be achieved through a network of streets, open spaces, pedestrian routes and cycle routes. The Marina Masterplan gives expression to these aspirations through, inter alia, a network of cycle and pedestrian paths through the overall area of the masterplan.
16.62 The context of the proposed development and its immediate area is the commercial/industrial uses on Monahan Road and Centre Park Road, the docklands at Tivoli and Odlum flower mills and associated buildings at Albert Quay. In relation to views generally in the area, particularly residential districts such as Birchgrove, Maryville, Park Lane, Ardfoyle Crescent and amenity area such as the Marina walk and the Atlantic Pond it is the case that the redeveloped stadium will be visible from within these areas. However it must be borne in mind that the existing stadium is visible in many of these views and that, because of its age and relatively unsympathetic appearance and external signage, the existing stadium makes a very limited contribution to the quality of the public realm in the area. The City Council’s architect commented during the oral hearing that the new façade and roof structure of the redeveloped southern stand will provide an elegant building of high architectural quality which will have a positive effect on the architectural quality of the area. I agree with this assessment and conclude that the proposed development will have a positive impact on the quality of public realm in the area.
16.63 The appeal was specifically concerned that the proposed development would sever pedestrian linkages within the overall Marina Park by blocking access from the Monahan Road entrance in the west to the Atlantic pond in the east. It was feared that area between the new
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 77 southern stand and the all-weather pitch would be closed thereby severing that link. Both the LAP and the Masterplan support the provision/maintenance of such pedestrian links. It was stated at the hearing that the proposal does not include barriers to this link but that for public safety purposes it may be managed or closed during major games.
16.64 Relaying on the application drawings (see especially PL5507 Rev A) this path between the redeveloped southern stand and the edge of the all-weather pitch is 13m wide and there are no physical barriers on the path. It is envisaged that team coaches/service vehicles will access the site from Monahan Road and enter the southern stand at grade/ground level to unload. It is reasonable in that circumstance to allow, in the interests of public safety, the applicant to manage pedestrian movement. In the absence of physical barriers such interruptions to west/east pedestrian traffic through the park will only be for short periods and infrequent.
16.65 On the basis of the foregoing I conclude that the proposed development will not interfere with the protection of views and prospects of special amenity value that are necessary to preserve, with the visual amenity of the area generally, and will contribute to the quality of the public realm and support the planning authority’s objectives in relation to permeability and legibility in the area.
16.66 Archaeological/Architectural Impacts
16.67 It is an objective of the planning authority set out in the City Development (policy 9.3) “to protect the rich archaeological heritage of the city”. Figure 9 of the Development Plan establishes the ‘Medieval Historic Core’ which runs in a band north to south from just above the north channel of the Lee, through the city centre to just below south channel. There is a wider area designated ‘zone of archaeological potential’. The site is outside both these designations. The viewing stands on site, are included in the NIAH for Cork and are described as ‘an interesting survivor from the early years of the Munster Agricultural Society Showgrounds’ and were constructed ‘in late Victorian Pavilion style’ in 1895. The planning authority, following on a recommendation from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht decided not to add the viewing stands to the RPS and the Conservation Officer (see report dated 17th December 2013 - copy in pouch) reported that the most useful way to ensure survival of its special character is to record it in drawn and photographic form. The planning authority imposed condition 7(b) in relation to this matter. Having regard to the condition
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 77 of the stands, the necessity to remove them to accommodate the all- weather pitch and the opening up of the culverted southern drain I recommend that the matter be addressed by way draft condition 7 below.
16.68 The EIS (Chapter 10) makes the point that the site is located on formerly estuarine land which was reclaimed in the 18th and 19th centuries and there is no above ground archaeology. There are thirty recorded archaeological monuments within 2kms of the site but no recorded archaeological monuments within the site. The closest monument is a souterrain in Ballintemple about 600m southwest of the site boundary. The EIS concludes that there is potential for archaeological remains within the site and recommends mitigation in the form of archaeological monitoring of excavations related to the application.
16.69 The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht made a submission to the planning authority in relation to the application and recommended that the views of the City Archaeologist be adhered to. The City Archaeologist reported the archaeological assessment set out in the EIS was detailed and satisfactory and recommended a grant of permission subject to conditions relating to archaeological monitoring and monitoring of realignment works in the on-site streams.
16.70 Having regard to;
• a site inspection where no over-ground archaeology was identifiable,
• the location of the site outside the medieval city and zone of archaeological interest designated in the City Plan,
• the material submitted with the application, particularly the EIS,
• the report of the city archaeologist,
I conclude that the proposed development, subject to the conditions set out in the attached draft order, will not negatively impact on archaeological remains or materially contravene an objective set out in the City Development Plan.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 77 16.71 Flooding
16.72 The appeals are concerned that there is a history of flooding in the area and that the proposed development will exacerbate this problem.
16.73 While the City Development Plan predates the publication of Lee Catchment FRAM study and the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities Flood Guidelines (Flood Guidelines) it anticipates both these documents. It is the planning authority’s policy that the advice set out in these documents is incorporated by the City Council into its plan making and development management responsibilities and by applicants for planning permission in their applications where sites are at risk of flooding.
16.74 The site is located in an area designated Flood Zone A in the Flood Guidelines. Such areas are defined as areas where the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is highest; greater than 1% or 1 in 100 for river flooding or 0.5% or 1 in 200 for coastal flooding. In relation to proposed development in such areas the Flood Guidelines comment that most types of development are inappropriate in this zone while water-compatible development, such as docks and marinas, dockside activities that require a waterside location, amenity open space, outdoor sports and recreation would be considered appropriate in this zone. Table 3.1 of the Guidelines lists the land uses compatible with Zone A and includes outdoor sports and recreational uses with essential facilities such as changing rooms.
16.75 In recognition of the vulnerability of the site to flooding and notwithstanding that the uses are compatible with flood zone a further mitigation is provided by bunding of the stadium pitch at +0.70mOD which compares favourably to the predicted extreme long term flood level of +0.50mOD for Marina Park. The all-weather pitch will also be above +0.50mOD and the public amenities within the stadium will be at of +5.95mOD
16.76 The planning authority’s Drainage Division identified inadequacies in the FRA as follows;
i. The proposal includes ground floor uses (gym, retail/bar, and meeting rooms) that are not flood compatible. Measures, including bunding, should be proposed to mitigate impacts on these uses. ii. The FRA does not adequately address the rate of flow, speed of flow, order of parts of the site which would flood, duration of
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 77 flood events or economic/social/environmental consequences of flooding. iii. Assessment of safe access/egress in frequent and extreme flood events is deficient, iv. The FRA does not demonstrate how layout/form will reduce flood risk, v. Effects of off-site flooding from the proposed works are not examined, vi. The FRA does not deal with rain fall related flooding if the attenuation proposed in the new Marina Park is not available if the new park is not developed. vii. Originally the proposed all-weather pitch was to have provided flood attenuation – the application should specify why the all- weather pitch is raised, how will the flood storage cells be maintained and were alternative flood storage methods considered?
16.77 The applicant responded to (i) that the ground floor uses including kiosks, bar, press room and merchandising shop, are on the ground floor to animate the space between the main stadium and the all- weather pitch. These uses are flood resilient and the merchandising shop will have additional flood barriers at the external doors to give protection. In relation to point (ii) the planning authority’s own documents – especially the South Docks Lap and the Marina Masterplan – addresses flooding in the Ballintemple/Marina Park area. Essentially the danger of flooding arises from a breach in the quay walls Kennedy Quay; this has happened once before (2004) and the progress of water was relatively slow. In relation to point (iii) there will be no matches in the event of extreme weather events – therefore there will be no-one to evacuate. In relation to point (iv) the proposed development will be flood impact neutral as it will be a receptor for flood waters. In relation to point (v) there will be no off-site flood impact because the site does not occupy a floodplain and therefore there is no loss of flood attenuation. In relation to points (vi) and (vii) storage will be provided for pluvial (rain water) flooding underneath the raised all- weather pitch in cells with a capacity of 3,810m3 with an extra 10% provision climate change for a total of 4,200m3. These calculations follow on the methodologies used by the planning authority in the South Docks LAP and the Marina Park Masterplan.
16.78 The further information submitted was reviewed by the planning authority’s Drainage Division (see report dated 21st April 2014) and the planning authority accepted that the design of the proposed
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 77 development was water compatible and flood resilient. The Drainage Division recommended a grant of permission with conditions. From the material submitted with the application, the planning authority’s reports on file and the discussions at the oral hearing (see especially paragraphs 13.56 to 13.59 in the oral hearing report above) I conclude the following;
• Short of a catastrophic failure of the Navigation wall immediately north of the site and protecting it from the River Lee the only source of fluvial (river/tidal) flooding would be a breach on Kennedy Quay whereby river/tidal water would approach the site from the west. This has happened before (2004) but flooding was limited and slow moving.
• The site does not facilitate rainwater infiltration. Pluvial flooding will be mitigated by replacing the area lost as flood storage by the underground flood attenuation cells under the all-weather pitch which provides more storage space than is lost. The planning authority further increased the capacity of these cells to 5,250m3 by way of condition; since the applicant did not appeal this requirement I have repeated in draft condition 17 below.
• The flooding witnessed on Monahan Road by local residents is a result of inadequate surface water drains outside the site which become surcharged during extreme rainfall events. This flooding will not be impacted upon by the proposed development. The inadequacy in the surface water drains outside the site should be remedied as part of the Part 8 works to Monahan Road/Centre Park Road permitted under 28.HA.0013 and by the other works envisioned in the Marina Park Masterplan.
• The proposed development will adequately mitigate pluvial flooding within the site and not give rise to flooding outside the site.
16.79 Landscaping
16.80 The matter of landscaping is addressed in the EIS (see 2.7.5) and was addressed at the oral hearing. Drawing number 14494-SK-159 Revision A (submitted at the oral hearing) reduces the planned tree removal (originally set out in PL5511 Revision A) along the boundary with Monahan Road. Generally I consider that the proposal will not negatively impact on any important trees within the site. I attach a condition requiring submission of a landscape plan for the entire development for the agreement of the planning authority.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 77 16.81 Ecological Impacts
16.82 I have set out an assessment of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed development and potential for effects on European sites above. The mitigation measures set out in the EIS (see especially 2.713 and following) to prevent silt or hydrocarbon laden runoff during construction works are satisfactory. The hydrology within the site whereby water is directed off site in two streams into Atlantic pond will be altered only in so far as the flood attenuation tanks will slow discharge into Atlantic Pond. This arrangement and the natural assimilative capacity of the River Lee allow for the conclusion that there will be no adverse effects on the Cork Harbour SPA.
16.83 Having regard to;
• the hard standing/made ground nature of much of the site,
• the nature of the buildings on site which do provide significant habitats for either flora or fauna,
• the absence of significant trees on site,
• the constructed nature of the north and south drains on site and the culverted nature of the southern drain,
I conclude that the site is of low ecological value and there are no planning reasons which give rise to a recommendation for refusal.
16.84 There is a possible exception to the general conclusion in relation to the low ecological value of the site in that bat droppings were observed on the floor of the old showground stands proposed for demolition. The EIS (paragraph 5.2.6.1 and following) makes the point that while bats may use the site as feeding grounds there are no suitable roost sites; it may be noted that loss of bat roosts can only occur with the agreement of the NPWS and I recommend attaching a compliance condition as set out below in relation to this issue.
16.85 Remaining Issues
16.86 The third party appeals make the point that a 10 year permission will elongate the period wherein construction impacts will unreasonably impact on the residential amenity of property in the area. Consequently, the appellants argue, a standard five year permission is sufficient. The applicant states that in similar cases of large scale and
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 77 complex developments that 10 year permission has been granted. Furthermore a 10 year permission does not mean a 10 year construction phase and that construction period of 26-30 months is adequate. I consider that a condition can be imposed to require the submission of a detailed construction management plan which ensures that the construction period is limited to 30 months.
16.87 The issue of the relationship of this application to non-sporting events was raised at the oral hearing. This application is concerned with an application for permission under Section 32 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, whereas ‘public performances’ as provided for under Section 229 do not form part of this application and therefore have not been assessed here.
17. RECOMMENDATION
Having regard to the foregoing I recommend a grant of planning permission for the reasons and considerations and in accordance with the conditions set out below.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to;
(a) The zoning provisions for the site set out in the Cork City Development Plan 2009 – 2015 and in the South Docks Local Area Plan 2008, (b) To the provisions of the Marina Park Masterplan 2013, (c) The permitted recreational use of the existing stadium and the established agricultural showground use of the remainder of the site, (d) The character of the general area as recreational and parkland, and (e) The separation distances between the proposed development and residential uses,
The Board considered that the proposed development, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, would be acceptable in
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 77 terms of traffic safety and convenience, would not injure the amenity of residential property in the area, would not interfere with views or prospects of special amenity value, would not give rise to flooding within or outside the application site and would otherwise be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
The Board had regard to the Screening Report for Appropriate Assessment and the Natura Impact Statement submitted with the application. The Board agreed with the conclusion of the Screening Report that the Cork Harbour Special Protection Area was the only Natura 2000 site for which there is the potential for significant effects thereon.
The Board had regard to the Natura Impact Statement submitted with the application, the additional information submitted to the planning authority, the material submitted in relation to the appeal and to the evidence adduced at the oral hearing held by the Board on the 10th, 11th and 12th or September 2014 in relation to the potential for significant effects on the Cork Harbour Special Protection Area. The Board conducted an Appropriate Assessment exercise in relation to the Cork Harbour Special Protection Area.
Having regard to;
(a) the separation distance between the application site and the Special Protection Area, (b) the relatively low ecological value of the application site, (c) the mitigation measures included in the application, especially those in relation to the control of runoff from the site to the Atlantic Pond, (d) the planning history of the site, (e) the provisions of the South Docks Local Area Plan and the Marina Park Masterplan
the Board concluded that the proposed development on its own or in combination with other plans and projects would not affect the integrity of The Cork Harbour SPA or any protected species.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 77
The Board had regard to the Environmental Impact Statement submitted with the application, the additional information submitted to the planning authority, the material submitted in relation to the appeal and to the evidence adduced at the oral hearing held by the Board on the 10th, 11th and 12th or September 2014. The Board conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment in relation to the likely significant environmental impacts of the proposed development. The Board had particular regard to the measures set out in the application to mitigate traffic impacts arising from the proposed development, to prevent the runoff of contaminants to water courses within the site and to limit noise impacts on nearby residential uses. The Board considered that these impacts and the anticipated visual impacts of the proposed development would be acceptable and concluded that the proposed development would not have significant adverse effects in the environment.
CONDITIONS
1. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the plans and particulars, including the mitigation measures set out in the environmental impact statement, submitted to the planning authority on 8th day of November 2013, as amended by the further plans and particulars submitted to the planning authority on 3rd March 2014 and, except as may be required in order to comply with the following conditions. Where such conditions require details to be agreed with the planning authority, the developer shall agree such details in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development and the development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the agreed particulars.
Reason: In the interests of clarity.
2. The period during which the development hereby permitted may be carried out shall be 10 years from the date of this order.
Reason: Having regard to the nature of the development the Board considers it appropriate to specify a period of validity of this permission in excess of five tears.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 77 3. All uses hereby permitted shall be ancillary to the principal use of the development site as a sports facility.
Reason: To define the scope of the permission and in order to comply with the land-use zoning objective in the Cork City Development Plan.
4. Prior to the first operation/opening of the development the applicant/developer shall submit for the written agreement of the planning authority a lighting control plan to include details of the operation hours of the floodlighting to the second, all-weather playing pitch.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
5. (a) All areas within the proposed development site, with the exception of the stadium itself, the enclosed/fenced all-weather pitch and the car parking areas associated with the stadium located immediately to the north and the west of the stadium, all as reflected in the submitted plans and particulars, shall be accessible by the general public at all times and shall not be closed, restricted, gated or otherwise constrained unless in accordance with the provisions of this condition.
(b) Prior to the first operation/opening of the development the applicant/developer shall submit for the written agreement of the authority full details of the arrangements for and management of the temporary short-term closure to the general public of the public path/accessway between the stadium and the all-weather pitch, the public car parking to the east and north-east of the stadium, and other vehicular and pedestrian roads and paths within the proposed development site for matches and other large or significant events.
Reason: To ensure adequate linkages between the western and eastern portions of the Marina Park, and to ensure that the general public has adequate access to all areas of the public realm.
6. The construction period of the development shall be limited shall be limited to 30 months and shall managed in accordance with a Construction Management Plan, which shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 77 development. This plan shall provide details of intended construction practice for the development, including:
(a) Location of the site and materials compound(s) including areas identified for the storage of construction refuse;
(b) Location of areas for construction site offices and staff facilities;
(c) Details of site security fencing and hoardings;
(d) Details of on-site car parking facilities for site workers during the course of construction;
(e) Details of the timing and routing of construction traffic to and from the construction site and associated directional signage, to include proposals to facilitate the delivery of abnormal loads to the site;
(f) Measures to obviate queuing of construction traffic on the adjoining road network;
(g) Measures to prevent the spillage or deposit of clay, rubble or other debris on the public road network;
(h) Alternative arrangements to be put in place for pedestrians and vehicles in the case of the closure of any public road or footpath during the course of site development works;
(i) Provision of parking for existing properties at [specify locations] during the construction period;
(j) Details of appropriate mitigation measures for noise, dust and vibration, and monitoring of such levels;
(k) Containment of all construction-related fuel and oil within specially constructed bunds to ensure that fuel spillages are fully contained. Such bunds shall be roofed to exclude rainwater;
(l) Off-site disposal of construction/demolition waste and details of how it is proposed to manage excavated soil;
(m) Means to ensure that surface water run-off is controlled such that no silt or other pollutants enter local surface water sewers or drains.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 77
A record of daily checks that the works are being undertaken in accordance with the Construction Management Plan shall be kept for inspection by the planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity, public health and safety.
7. A full architectural survey (drawn and photographic) of the viewing stands associated with the former Munster Agricultural Showgrounds on site and proposed for demolition shall be carried out, and shall be submitted to the planning authority prior to the commencement of development.
Reason: In order to facilitate the conservation, preservation and/or recording of the architectural heritage of the site.
8. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant/developer shall submit for the written agreement of the planning authority full details, including selected sample boards, of all external finishes, materials, textures and colours.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
9. A comprehensive boundary treatment and landscaping scheme, with a time scale for implementation, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority, prior to the commencement of development. This scheme shall include the following:-
(a) details of all proposed hard surface finishes, including samples of proposed paving slabs/materials for footpaths, kerbing and road surfaces within the development;
(b) details of any proposed tree felling on the Monahan Road/Park Avenue boundary,
(c) details of the locations of trees and other landscape planting in the development, including details of proposed species and settings;
(d) details of proposed street furniture, including bollards, lighting fixtures and seating;
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 77 (e) details of proposed boundary treatments at the perimeter of the site, including heights, materials and finishes.
The boundary treatment and landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
10. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant/developer shall submit for the written agreement of the planning authority details indicating the provision of a temporary access path on the northern side of the northern stream channel to link the existing path to The Marina, including details of how the development will accommodate a permanent path in this location as included in the proposals for Marina Park, and details of a temporary path during the construction period linking The Marina to the Atlantic Pond at the north-eastern side of the stadium.
Reason: In order to facilitate continued public access to public areas and in order to ensure consistency between the development and the Marina Park.
11. The mesh perimeter fencing to the second, all-weather pitch shall be powder-coasted and black in colour. The ball netting behind the goals of the all-weather pitch shall be retractable and shall be retracted when not in use.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
12. Prior to the commencement of development and following consultation with Inland Fisheries Ireland the applicant shall submit for the written agreement of the planning authority detailed specifications of all works to watercourses within the site.
Reason: To protect ecological diversity and prevent water pollution.
13. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit for the written agreement of the planning authority details and locations for the provision of temporary gates and fencing at selected locations to prevent unauthorised access to the proposed development site in the event that the Marina Park works are not completed in advance of the stadium opening.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 77 Reason: To prevent unauthorised access to the proposed development site should the Marina Park works not be completed in advance of the stadium opening.
14. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit for the written agreement of the planning authority details for the provision of access and hard standing arrangements for a high-reach fire appliance to serve the new southern stand.
Reason: In the interests of fire safety.
15. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, or any statutory provision amending or replacing them, no advertisement signs, other than the signage zones on the elevations of the stadium indicated in the plans and particulars, (including any signs installed to be visible through the windows), advertisement structures, banners, canopies, flags, or other projecting elements shall be displayed or erected on the buildings or within the curtilage of the site, unless authorised by a further grant of planning permission.
Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area.
16. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant/developer shall submit for the written agreement of the planning authority full details of the increase to 5,250m3 of the flood capacity of the flood storage provided under the second, all-weather pitch.
Reason: In order to mitigate flood risk.
17. Prior to the first operation/opening of the development the applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the planning authority in accordance with section 47 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, providing for the regular and satisfactory monitoring, maintenance, cleaning and repair of the surface water attenuation tanks to be installed under the permitted all-weather pitch.
Reason: In the interests of flood prevention.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 77 18. A plan containing details for the management of waste (and, in particular, recyclable materials) within the development, including the provision of facilities for the storage, separation and collection of the waste and, in particular, recyclable materials and for the ongoing operation of these facilities shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development. Thereafter, the waste shall be managed in accordance with the agreed plan.
Reason: To provide for the appropriate management of waste and, in particular recyclable materials, in the interest of protecting the environment.
19. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the attenuation and disposal of surface water, shall comply with details set out in the Environmental Impact Statement and further information submitted with the application and the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services.
Reason: In the interest of public health.
20. All services and cables associated with the proposed development (such as electrical, television, telephone, broadband and public lighting cables) shall be run underground within the site.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
21. Prior to the first use of the permitted development the applicant shall submit for the written agreement of the planning authority detailed Mobility Management Plan for the operational phase of the proposed development. The plan shall provide detail arrangements for the vehicular movement and parking and pedestrian movement arrangements set out in the application, shall provide for the employment of a mobility manager for the proposed development and for the provision of on-site cycle parking.
Reason: In the interest of traffic and pedestrian safety and to avoid traffic congestion.
22. The developer shall facilitate the preservation, recording and protection of archaeological materials or features that may exist within the site
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 77 and in the water courses within the site. In this regard, the developer shall - (a) notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any site operation (including hydrological and geotechnical investigations) relating to the proposed development,
(b) employ a suitably-qualified archaeologist who shall monitor all site investigations and other excavation works, and
(c) provide arrangements, acceptable to the planning authority, for the recording and for the removal of any archaeological material which the authority considers appropriate to remove.
In default of agreement on any of these requirements, the matter shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.
Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation and protection of any remains that may exist within the site.
23. The noise level shall not exceed 55 dB(A) rated sound level (i.e. corrected sound level for a tonal or impulsive component) at the nearest occupied dwelling house during construction working hours. Procedures for the purpose of determining compliance with this limit shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development.
Reason: To protect the residential amenities of property in the vicinity of the site.
24. Detailed measures in relation to the protection of bats shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority, prior to commencement of development. These measures shall be implemented as part of the development. Any envisaged destruction of structures that support bat populations shall be carried out only under licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and details of any such licence shall be submitted to the planning authority.
Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 76 of 77 25. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution as a special contribution under section 48(2) (c) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 in respect of improvements to street lighting along Monahan Road, Centre Park Road, Old Railway Line and the Marina. The amount of the contribution shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board for determination. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of the development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be updated at the time of payment in accordance with changes in the Wholesale Price Index – Building and Construction (Capital Goods), published by the Central Statistics Office.
Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute towards the specific exceptional costs which are incurred by the planning authority which are not covered in the Development Contribution Scheme and which will benefit the proposed development.
26. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution as a special contribution under section 48(2) (c) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 in respect of works to Monahan Road in the area of the proposed revised access to the proposed development. The amount of the contribution shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board for determination. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of the development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be updated at the time of payment in accordance with changes in the Wholesale Price Index – Building and Construction (Capital Goods), published by the Central Statistics Office.
Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute towards the specific exceptional costs which are incurred by the planning authority which are not covered in the Development Contribution Scheme and which will benefit the proposed development.
______Hugh Mannion Planning Inspector st 31 October 2014.
PL28.243384 An Bord Pleanála Page 77 of 77