An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

PL01.244762

DEVELOPMENT:- Construction of an off-line motorway services area with all associated site works at Rathcrogue, Wexford Road, Co. .

PLANNING APPLICATION

Planning Authority: Carlow County Council

Planning Authority Reg. No: 14/342

Applicant: Topaz Energy Ltd

Application Type: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Grant

APPEAL

Appellant: (1) Peter Thomson (2) (3) Eugene Kealy (4) Applegreen Service Areas Ltd

Observers: Karl Broderick

Type of Appeal: 3rd-v-Grant

DATE OF SITE INSPECTION: 01st July 2015

Inspector: Colin McBride

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 21

1. SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 The appeal site, which has a stated area of 3.03 hectares, is located in townland of Rathcrogue to the south of Carlow Town. The site is located 1km to the east of the settlement of Tinryland and approximately 4km to the south of Carlow town. The site is located on the northern side of the M9 motorway at the junction of the N80 and M9 (junction 5). The appeal site consists of a vacant piece of land (was formerly used as a construction compound for the M9) adjacent the interchange as well as part of the curtilage of a dwelling (Rathcrogue House) to the north east of the site. The site currently has an access from the N80 at the western corner of the site and an access from an existing laneway off the that also serves the existing dwelling to the north east and agricultural lands along the northern side of the motorway. Boundaries of the site consist of a post and rail fencing along the N80 (south west), and existing hedgerow along the south eastern and north western boundaries. Adjoining lands to the north and east are in agricultural use.

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Permission is sought for the construction of an off-line motorway services comprising of an amenity building (retail area and foodcourt), an ESB substation, a forecourt area, 132 no. car parking spaces, 14 no. HCV parking spaces, 4 no. coach parking spaces, 5 no. motorbike parking spaces and 6 no. bicycle stands. The development also consists of the modification of the existing roadways to create a new vehicular access; corporate signage throughout the site; drainage works including attenuation and all associated boundary treatments, landscaping, infrastructural and site development works.

3. LOCAL AND EXTERNAL AUTHORITY REPORTS

3.1

a) SEE (19/12/14): No objection. b) HSE (23/12/14): No objection subject to conditions. c) National Roads Authority (02/11/14): Concerns raised regarding the proximity of proposal to the M9 and location at the junction of the M9 and N80 and the impact of the proposal on the carrying capacity, efficiency and safety of the national road network. d) National Roads Authority (19/12/14): The proposal is at variance with official policy in relation to the control of frontage development on/affecting national routes as outlined in the Spatial Planning and National Roads

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 21 Guidelines for Planning Authorities and would adversely impact upon the operation and safety of national road network. e) Roads (no date): The proposal is located in accordance with NRA Service Area Policy and the proposal does not create a traffic hazard. The proposal was considered satisfactory apart from the alignment of proposed right turn to Rathcrogue House. f) Irish Water (08/01/15): No objection. g) Inland Fisheries Ireland (13/01/15): A tributary of the River Barrow borders the site with it noted that the Barrow River is a candidate SAC. The proposal has the potential to impact on water quality through discharge of suspended solids, chemicals/hydrocarbons. h) Environment (12/01/15): Grant of permission recommended subject to conditions. i) Planning Report (26/01/15): Further information required including a review of the alignment of the right turn to Rathcrogue House and proposal to address concerns regarding potential ‘swipe collisions’ and submission of a report to address the potential impact of noise and lighting from development on property in the vicinity. j) Roads (11/03/15): It is noted that the amended proposal submitted regarding access to Rathcrogue House deal with concerns raised and that the proposal is satisfactory in regards to all roads issues. k) National Roads Authority (19/03/15): The NRA’s position remains the same as in their submission on the 19/12/15. l) Environment (23/03/15): Details of noise impacts were considered satisfactory with a grant of permission recommended subject to conditions.

4. DECISION OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

4.1 Permission granted subject to 27 conditions. Of note are the following conditions…

Condition no. 1: Retail space shall contain convenience shop not more than 100sqm. Condition no. 9: Noise limits on construction and operation. Condition no. 14: Details of public lighting scheme to be submitted and agreed in writing. Condition no. 23: No blocking of rights of way which may existing through the site.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 No planning history on site.

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 21 5.2 PL01.244827: Appeal in relation to construction of an off-line motorway service area with all ancillary site development and associated site works adjacent junction 6 of the M9 motorway. This proposal was withdrawn prior to decision.

5.3 PL10.243782: Permission granted for development of a 24 hour opening motorway service area with associated works, new access from M9 Link Road. This development was granted adjacent junction 7 of the M9 motorway.

6. PLANNING POLICY

6.1 The relevant plan is the Carlow County Development Plan 2009-2015.

The site is zoned as ‘Carlow Logistics Park’ with it noted that vehicle parking, garage, filling station, vehicle washing, recreation area and restaurant uses are ‘permitted in principle’ within this zoning.

6.2 Section 6.3.8: Petrol Filling Stations, a limit of 100sqm for retail areas applies.

6.3 Chapter 6: National Road Network: The National road network through the county caters for the efficient and safe movement of long distance traffic through the country. The network also provides strategic links for the towns within the county and within the South- East region. To maintain their primary function in an era of rapid growth in car ownership it may be necessary to restrict access and junctions to the network.

• Safeguard the capacity of the National Road network within the county by the restriction of access points to the network.

7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

7.1 A third party appeal has been lodged by Peter Thomson, 4 Priory Grove, Kells, Co. . The grounds of appeal are as follows...

• The proposal fails to have regard to the other proposals and permission granted for similar development at other junctions off the M9 and if implemented would result in a proliferation of motorway services contrary NRA policy. • The proposal is not at a preferred junction as identified in the NRA Service Area Policy and is only 32km from the online motorway services. • The proposal is at variance with NRA policy in terms of the control of frontage along National Routes in that it entails a new entrance from the N80.

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 21 • The development in question should be plan led (development plan). It is noted that proposal is based on an objective of the Draft County development plan and such should not be a material consideration. • The proposal is contrary regional Planning guidelines which require compliance with NRA policy.

7.2 A third party appeal has been lodged by the National Roads Authority. The grounds of appeal are as follows…

• The proposal is contrary the National Spatial Strategy and Regional Planning guidelines. • The proposal is contrary development plan policy regarding direct access to national routes where the maximum speed limit applies. • The NRA Service Area Policy identifies locations in need of service areas. It identifies the need for a Type 1 Service Area on the M9 between J6 and J8 with it noted that permission has been granted for one at junction 6 (ref no. 14/353 and current appeal ref no. PL01/244827). • The proposal has the potential to endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard as a result of traffic movements generated and impact upon the carrying capacity and efficiency of the existing junction and national road network.

7.3 A third party appeal has been lodged by Liam McGree & Associates Limited on behalf of Eugene Kealy, Kellymount, , Co. Kilkenny.

• The proposal is outside of any designated settlement under planning policy and is an inappropriate form of development to the detriment of existing settlements in the area. • It is considered that the proposal is at variance with official policy in relation to control of frontage development in relation to national routes. The increased traffic generated would adversely impact the operation and safety of the national road network. • The proposal is at variance with national policy on the location of both on-line and off-line motorway service areas set down under the NRA Service Area Policy as junction 5 is not identified as a location such development is required. The proposal would result in a proliferation of such developments along the M9 and be contrary proper planning and sustainable development. • The proposal is 18.4km from a site where permission was granted for an off- line motorway service area, the proposal would be contrary to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, which advocate a coordinated approach to the provision of such development. • It is noted that the Council have granted permission for a similar development at junction 6 of the M9 and that there is a lack of clear policy in the Carlow

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 21 County Development Plan 2009-2015 or the Draft County Development Plan. The proposal is premature pending such. • The proposal would result in increased traffic movements that would result in a traffic hazard and adversely impact the carrying capacity and efficiency of an existing motorway junction.

7.4 A third party appeal has been lodged by McGill Planning on behalf of Applegreen Service Area Ltd. The grounds of appeal are as follows…

• The proposal is contrary NRA Motorway Service Area policy which identifies junction 6 to 8 as an appropriate location for future service areas and not junction 5. • The proposal is contrary to the Spatial Planning & National Roads Guidelines and will lead to a proliferation of off-line service facilities along the M9. • The proposal is contrary national retail policy and will adversely impact upon existing settlements in the vicinity by becoming a retail destination and impacting adversely on the service function of the existing settlements. • The proposal is contrary national road design standards and will impact upon the capacity and safety of the M9/N80 intersection. • The proposal has the potential to impact adversely upon features of archaeological significant with an archaeological assessment required. • The proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining properties through unacceptable noise levels. • The applicant has not demonstrated sufficient legal interest to carry out the development.

8. OBSERVERS

8.1 An observation has been submitted by Karl Broderick, Brownshill Avenue, Carlow.

• The observer owns lands at Rathcrogue that are served by a right of way owned by the Council and that also serves lands owned by other parties. The proposal entails alterations to the right of way so that it will cross the applicants site. The observer is dissatisfied with this arrangement and was not consulted about such. • The observer is concerned regarding the status of the right of way, the fact that his access to land will be impacted by increased levels of traffic using the existing access and notes that his submission concerning the application was not given adequate regard.

9. RESPONSES

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 21 9.1 Response by Coakley O’Neill Town Planning on behalf of the applicants, Topaz Energy Ltd.

• The applicant outlines the background to the case and relevant policy noting that permission should be granted. • The applicant notes they have engaged with the relevant authorities through submissions to establish a clear policy context for the proposal. • The applicants note that although there are service stations along the N80, there is no dedicated facilities catering for Heavy Goods Vehicles. It also noted that the junction of N80 and the M9 is an important junction and recognised for its strategic location under the Draft County Development Plan. • The applicant notes that the NRA Service Area Policy is not a Spatial Planning Document and the NRA has no role in determining how or where off- line series should be delivered. • The applicant notes that they have not relied on the zoning of the site for a logistics park with the proposal being for a Service Station. It is noted that NRA raised concerns regarding the zoning of the site and that the proposal is assessment of a proposed service station and not an assessment of a Development Plan. It is noted that the proposal for a Service Station is compatible with the zoning objective for the site. • It is noted that the Logistics Park zoning at this location may come under the exceptional circumstances listed under the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012. • It is noted that the issue of noise impact has been dealt with by the applicant in the Noise Impact Assessment submitted. • The applicants refer to the Transport and Traffic Assessment and Road safety Audit submitted and note that it has been demonstrated that the proposal would have no adverse impact in regards to traffic safety. • In regards to retail impact it is noted that retail floorspace is confined to 100sqm in keeping. • In regards to policy in relation to National Roads it is noted that the proposal is not creating a new access onto a National Route. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in that it is designed to service the traffic on the motorway. • The appellant notes that the NRA have no objected to similar proposals at Junction 6 and Junction 7. It is noted that there is misrepresentation of policy regarding the spacing of such development and that if traffic safety concerns can be dealt with and there is a clear business case for such development, it should be permitted as in this case. • The applicant notes that the proposal is in accordance with the DRMB guidelines with no alterations to the design of the roundabout. • The applicant has demonstrated sufficient legal interest to make the application.

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 21 • There are no archaeological monuments recorded on the site and all matters concerning ecology, conservation, environmental and heritage matters have been addressed.

9.2 Response by Liam McGree & Associates Ltd on behalf of Eugene Kealy, Kellymount, Paulstown.

• The appellant notes support for the grounds of appeal raised by the other appellants and reiterate their concerns regarding the proposal.

9.3 Response by Liam McGree & Associates Ltd on behalf of Eugene Kealy, Kellymount, Paulstown.

• The appellant notes that the applicants response fails to deal adequately with the grounds of appeal and in particular fails to deal with the NRA’s assertion that the proposal would be contrary Service Area Policy and Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012.

9.4 Response by the National Roads Authority.

• The NRA refutes the applicant’s claims regarding an inconsistent approach noting that the proposal accesses the N80 whereas the Applegreen (junction 6) proposal accesses a non-national route. • The NRA reiterates the provisions of Section 2.8 of Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012. • The NRA reiterates that the proposal is at variance with official policy regarding direct access to the N80.

9.5 Response by the National Roads Authority.

• The NRA note they have no more additional comments to make.

9.6 Response by Liam McGree & Associates Ltd on behalf of Eugene Kealy, Kellymount, Paulstown.

• The response concurs with the views of the Development Applications Unit assessment that the proposal would affect the setting of Rathcrogue House.

9.7 Response by Coakley O’Neill Town Planning on behalf of the applicants, Topaz Energy Ltd.

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 21 • In response to the issues raised by the Development Applications Unit the applicant clarifies their proposals in regards to the entrance to Rathcrogue House. Included is a conservation report outlining the background and history of the House (earlier conservation report). • In response it is noted that the entrance is to be recessed further and the existing entrance piers and gates are to be reused as well and a significant degree of planting to deal with concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the entrance and setting of the protected structure.

10. CORRESPONDENCE

10.1 Correspondence has been received from An Taisce.

• The development significantly alters the setting of a protected structure and its landscape demesne setting.

10.2 Correspondence has been received from the Development Applications Unit.

• The Development Applications Unit raise concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the setting of an existing protected structure (Rathcrogue House) with it noted the alterations to the access would result in a diminished approach to the existing protected structure. It is noted that there is no designs provided of the revised entrance to Rathcrogue House.

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 Having inspected the site and examined the associated documentation, the following are the relevant issues in this appeal.

Principle of the proposed development/development plan policy/national policy Traffic safety/national road network Appropriate Assessment Wastewater/surface water/flood risk Architectural heritage/Archaeology Other issues

11.2 Principle of the proposed development/development plan policy/national policy: 11.2.1 The proposed development consists of the construction of a service station adjacent junction 5 of the M9 motorway. The site is to use an existing access from the interchange between the M9 and N80, National Secondary Route. The existing access, which currently serves a dwelling (Rathcrogue Houses)

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 21 and agricultural lands located along the northern side of the M9 is to be modified in layout to provide access. The appeal site is located in the rural area of the county. Notwithstanding such the site is currently zoned as ‘Carlow Logistics Park’ with it noted that vehicle parking, garage, filling station, vehicle washing, recreation area and restaurant uses are ‘permitted in principle’ within this zoning. In terms of the County Settlement Strategy the nearest settlements are Tinryland (1km west of the site), which is defined as a ‘smaller town’ under Development Plan policy and Carlow town 4km to the north. It is policy under Section 6.3.8 to restrict the retail area of petrol stations to 100sqm. The floorplan submitted provides for a net floor area of 100sqm for convenience retail and condition no. 1 of the grant of permission reinforced this policy requirement. Based on current Development Plan policy the proposal is consistent with the zoning objective for the site and the restrictions imposed for retail development associated with service stations. Given the location of the proposal remote from existing settlements it is imperative to ensure that this development does not undermine the function and viability of existing settlements through becoming a destination retail/commercial development and not just a service area development in relation to the M9 motorway. In terms of type of development proposed the design and scale of the proposal is consistent with a Type 1 Service Area as identified under Section 2 of the NRA Service Area Policy Document and is defined as being “a large scale service area providing an amenity building (including a convenience shop, restaurant, washrooms and tourist information), fuel facilities, parking and picnic area”. This is the highest order of service area development and is a substantial development with the potential to generate a significant level of traffic. As noted above the proposal is consistent with the restrictions for retail developments associated with services stations. In terms of settlement strategy the proposal should not have an adverse impact on the function and viability of Carlow Town. In the case of Tinryland the existing settlement is a low order settlement in the hierarchy and does not have a strong function regarding retail or commercial development being a mainly residential settlement.

11.2.2 Notwithstanding Development Plan policy I would consider that there would be concerns regarding the zoning of lands for development outside of established serviced settlements at locations on or adjacent interchanges on the national motorway network. I would consider that national policy in regards the national road network is extremely important in assessing the current proposal. The Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012 is the relevant document in terms of national policy in regards to the national road network. These Guidelines issued by the Minister under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 deals with off-line Motorway Service Areas at National Road junctions on page 17 of the Guidelines. Section 2.8 of the guidelines provide that “a

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 21 proliferation of private off-line service area facilities at national road junctions should be avoided. It is therefore important that a coordinated approach between planning authorities should be undertaken in consultation with the NRA as part of the drafting of development plans. In addition, facilities proposed for inclusion in service areas should be of a type that avoids the attraction of short, local trips, a class of traffic that is inconsistent with the primary intended role motorways and other national roads and associated junctions in catering for strategic long-distance inter-urban and inter-regional traffic and inter-regional traffic. Furthermore, to permit a service area to become a destination for local customers would be contrary to Government planning policy on retail and town centres as set out in Retail Planning Guidelines 2005. The consequence of this would be to threaten the viability of businesses in cities, towns or other local centres.”.

11.2.3 The NRA “Motorway Service Areas Programme” issued October 2013 sets out that “the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007 require that service area scheme proposal for locations on national roads must be brought forward either by the NRA or the relevant County Council or City Council for the area concerned. However, proposals for service area type facilities at off-line locations close to the national road network may be pursued by private sector development interests. Guidance on the planning and development of such proposals is provided in Section 2.8 of the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2012 as outlined above. The NRA published their “Service Area Policy” in August 2014. With regard to existing off-line facilities the document sets out that “a number of off-line facilities already exist or are advanced in construction or planning in close proximity to the dual carriageway network. The Authority considers that the policy should recognise those off-line facilities that provide extensive services and fulfil certain criteria namely: include an appropriate level of provision parking for cars and Heavy Commercial Vehicles, be located within a few hundred metres of the dual carriageway, remain open 24 hours and permit commercial vehicles to park for longer periods including overnight thus allowing drivers to take break and rest periods.” The document identifies two other locations where future off-line facilities could meet the criteria. One of these locations includes Carlow South to Kilkenny (Junction 6 to Junction 8) on the M9. As clearly set out “any decision to advance these service areas is a matter for the developers and any decision to approve them is a matter for the planning authorities. The Authority is not advocating or opposing their development, but to the extent that these service areas are developed and fulfil the criteria noted, the Authority does not envisage providing on-line service areas in their vicinity, at least not in the short or medium term.”

11.2.4 As clearly stated in the document, except for the statutory consultee role as described under section 1.4 of the Services Area Policy, the National Roads

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 21 Authority has no role in determining how off-line developments should be delivered. The proposal is for an off-line service station and as such should be assessed on its own merits having regard to all national, regional and local planning policies. In terms of type of development proposed the design and scale of the proposal is consistent with a Type 1 Service Area as identified under section 2 of the Service Area Policy Document and is defined as being “a large scale service area providing an amenity building (including a convenience shop, restaurant, washrooms and tourist information), fuel facilities, parking and picnic area”. The NRA document clearly sets out that there is scope for an off-line facility to be provided between Junction 6 and Junction 8 of the M9. The document does not identify any particular site and as such it is considered that the provision of any off-line service area should comply with normal planning considerations and the level of service to be provided should be commensurate with the appropriateness and suitability of the site to cater for such having regard to site characteristics, proximity to settlement centres, traffic generations etc.

11.2.5 Normally where there are proposals for a number of commercial developments similar in nature, such would be viewed on their merits and with no consideration of competition or the cumulative impact of such. The current proposal is being assessed on its merits, but must be assessed in the context of similar development permitted or planned along the M9 motorway. As noted above National Policy states that “a proliferation of private off-line service area facilities at national road junctions should be avoided. It is therefore important that a coordinated approach between planning authorities should be undertaken in consultation with the NRA as part of the drafting of development plans”. I would have concerns regarding compliance with this policy in the context of permitted development, existing development and planned development of this type. In the context of the M9 there is a planned online Service Area between junction 2 and 3 of the M9 (Kilcullen), 35km from the appeal site. There is a permitted off-line Service Area at Junction 7 granted under PL10.243872 19km from the appeal site. There was a proposal at junction 6 for a service area granted by the Council and was on appeal under ref no. P01.244827 and is referred to in the appeal submission (this proposal has been withdrawn). As it stands there does not appear to be a coordinated approach being taken to the provision of off-line motorway service area facilities and there is a very real possibility that if permitted the proposal would lead to a proliferation of such facilities and be contrary National Policy as outlined under Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012. The Council and applicant note that the Draft Carlow County Development Plan 2015-20121 identifies the site as suitable for a service area/filling station under Appendix 11 of the Draft Plan regarding the zoning of the site as a logistics park. Notwithstanding such and having regard to level of planned, permitted and proposed

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 21 competing proposals in close proximity to the M9, the proposal would be contrary to National Policy as set out under The Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012 which states that “a proliferation of private off-line service area facilities at national road junctions should be avoided. It is therefore important that a coordinated approach between planning authorities should be undertaken in consultation with the NRA as part of the drafting of development plans”. The proposed development would, therefore, by itself and the precedent it would set for similar such development, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

11.3 Traffic safety/National Road Network: 11.3.1 The proposal is to be accessed from an existing roundabout on the N80 that is part of the interchange of junction 5 of the M9 motorway. The proposal entails use of an existing access road from the roundabout that serves Rathcrogue house and agricultural lands along the northern side of the motorway. It is proposed modify the existing access/roadway to provide an 7- 8m wide two lane carriageway with a new roundabout providing access to the service station and revised access to Rathcrogue House and the existing agricultural lands currently served by the existing access arrangements. It is proposed to provide for 132 no. car parking spaces, 14 no. HCV (Heavy Commercial Vehicles) parking spaces, 4 no. coach parking spaces, 5 no. motorbike parking spaces and 6 no. bicycle stands.

11.3.2 A Traffic & Transport Assessment (TTA) was submitted. This includes details of traffic counts carried out in 2013 and 2014 and an assessment of junction capacity. The assessment of the proposals based on a development year of 2015, a 15 year design analysis at 2030 and a 20 year design analysis at 2035. The assessment provided details of trip generation and distribution. The conclusion of the assessment is that the key junctions serving the proposed development will operate within capacity for the years identified for the purposes of assessment and this is also taking into account increased traffic levels on the National Road network. A Road Safety Audit was also submitted.

11.3.4 In regards to parking it is intended to provide for 132 no. car parking spaces, 14 no. HCV parking spaces, 4 no. coach parking spaces, 5 no. motorbike parking spaces and 6 no. bicycle stands. As noted earlier the proposal is a Type 1 Service Area based on the NRA guidelines. The internal road layout and level of car parking provided would appear be satisfactory based on the information in the Transport and Traffic Assessment and in context of NRA guidance regarding the design and layout of service stations.

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 21 11.3.5 Under the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012 one of the key objectives under Chapter 2 is that “development plans must include policies which seek to maintain and protect the safety, capacity and efficiency of national roads and associated junctions, avoiding the creation of new accesses and the intensification of existing accesses to national roads where a speed limit greater than 50 kmh applies”. In the same guidelines under section 2.5 (required Development Plan policy on access to National Roads) it states that for “lands adjoining National Roads to which speed limits greater than 60km apple: the policy of the planning authority will be to avoid the creation of any additional access point from new development or the generation of increased traffic from existing accesses to national roads to which speed limits greater that 60kmh apply. This provision applies to all categories of development”. Current Development Plan policy in relation to the National Road network is under Chapter 6 of the Carlow County Development Plan 2009-2015 with one of the main objectives “to safeguard the capacity of the National Road network within the county by the restriction of access points to the network”. The applicant notes that the proposal comes under the criteria of exceptional circumstances listed under Section 2.6 of Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012. The applicant also notes the findings of the TTA as well as noting that the proposal does not entail a new access onto a National Route as it uses an existing public road onto the roundabout. Also the applicant notes that although the site is at a location outside of the 50 or 60kph limit, the speed of traffic is significantly lower than the actual limit due to the existing roundabout on the N80.

11.3.6 Notwisthanding the contents of the TTA the proposal is a Type 1 Service Area and is a development of significant scale proposed in close proximity to the national road network at a key interchange between two heavily trafficked national network routes (the M9 and N80). I would consider that this is a development that will have significant impact on the carrying capacity of the national road network, both the N80 and N9 with the proposal entailing a significant increase in traffic over the existing access arrangements at this location. It is considered that the proposed development, which takes access from the N80 and the junction interchange between the N80, National secondary route and the M9 Motorway and would generate significant traffic movements at this location would contravene the objectives of the planning authority to preserve the level of service and carrying capacity of the national road network and would be contrary national policy as set out under the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012 to maintain and protect the safety, capacity and efficiency of national roads and associated junctions The proposed development would, therefore, by itself and the precedent it would set for similar such

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 21 development, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

11.4 Visual/residential Amenity: 11.4.1 In regards to visual amenity the proposal entails a landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. This assessment includes the provision of a number of photos taken from 8 points in the surrounding landscape to assess visual impact. It is concluded that the site due to its elevation, landscape, topography and existing vegetation has a very small Zone of Visual Influence and that overall visual impact from these points is moderate/imperceptible. The proposal also entails a comprehensive landscaping plan for the site including the construction of soil mounds along the south eastern boundary and adjacent the eastern boundary of the site to be landscaped and planted. The information submitted includes a tree survey with details of all trees and vegetation for retention on site. Having inspected the site, I would note that the site is a flat site located significantly below the level of the M9 motorway. I am satisfied that subject to adequate landscaping and taken into conjunction with the existing topography of the site and vegetation in the area, that the proposed development would have an acceptable visual impact at this location.

11.4.2 Some of the appeal submission raise concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on residential amenity through noise and disturbance. In terms of existing residential development, the nearest dwellings are located to north of the site approximately 150m from the northernmost part of the site. There is also an existing dwelling, Rathcrogue House located to the north east of the site (250m away from the eastern boundary of the site), it would appear that the site is using part of the curtilage of the existing dwelling as part of the site. The applicant submitted unsolicited further information dealing with both noise impact and lighting impact in regards to adjoining properties. The information submitted includes a detailed report in relation to lighting that demonstrates that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of adjoining properties due to their proximity to the appeal site and due to the specific lighting proposals for the project. I am satisfied based on the information submitted that the proposal would have no adverse impact on adjoining properties through light pollution, with the measures proposed taken in conjunction with the levels of separation between the site and existing dwelling being adequate to protect residential amenities.

11.4.3 In relation to noise the applicant also submitted a noise impact assessment as unsolicited further information. This assessment identified noise monitoring locations including the nearest dwellings to the site, established the baseline standards and estimated the predicted noise levels for both the construction

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 21 and operational phase of the proposal. The assessment includes details of mitigation measures proposed during the construction and operational phase. The assessment concludes that the noise levels generated by the proposed development will be below the adopted noise limits recommended by the EPA for noise nuisance control at sensitive noise receptors. I am satisfied with the scope of the noise impact assessment submitted and would consider that the conclusions are satisfactory. I would consider that the appeal site is not located in extreme close proximity to existing dwellings in the vicinity with a reasonable degree of separation. This fact taken in conjunction with proposed mitigation measures including landscaping, existing topography and vegetation as well an appropriate condition limiting noise levels, would be sufficient to protect the amenities of existing properties in regards to noise and disturbance.

11.5 Wastewater treatment/surface water/flood risk assessment: 11.5.1 In terms of wastewater treatment the proposal is to be connected to the Council’s Wastewater Treatment Plan at Tinryland. According to the information on file this wastewater treatment system has capacity for the proposed development. The proposal requires use of a soon to be constructed pumping station off site. It noted that Council has no objection to the proposal for wastewater treatment. In relation to storm water, discharge is to be the adjacent stream with appropriate attenuation and water treatment measures on site. All discharges from trafficked areas are to pass through an interceptor with the fuel filling areas to have a full retention forecourt interceptor.

11.5.2 A Flood Risk Assessment was also submitted. This assessment indicates there is no history of flooding at the site based on the OPW flood maps. It is noted that the attenuated storm water drainage system is designed for a 100 year event. The assessment identifies that the site is not within a river plain or wash land, within a coastal flood plain or adjacent a flood bank or other flood control structures and does not involve the culverting or diversion of any watercourse. It is considered that the proposal will not result in any loss of flood plain storage and it is considered that attenuation measures are sufficient to eliminate the potential for increased flooding at this location.

11.6 Appropriate Assessment: 11.6.1 The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 6 (3) requires that “any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the (European) Site, but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 21 competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public”. The Board as a competent authority is obliged "shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned". In this regard it is appropriate to carry out a stage 1 screening assessment and then if necessary a stage 2 appropriate assessment.

11.6.2 The applicant submitted a screening assessment. The focus of this screening assessment relates to the River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code 002162). It is noted that the site is located adjacent a tributary to the River Barrow with storm water discharge proposed to this watercourse. The assessment outlines the qualifying interests and conservation objectives of the SAC and including the following habitats and species, Floating River Vegetation, Atlantic Salmon, Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey, Brook Lamprey, Otter, White Clawed Crayfish and Kingfisher. The assessment also includes details of water sampling which identifies the water quality downstream of the watercourse as being Q3-4 with the watercourse adjacent the site having the same status. This is regarded as being of moderate ecological status with a target standard of good ecological status.

11.6.3 The potential impacts on the designated site are discharges of suspended solids, fuels, hydrocarbons etc, into the adjoining watercourse with subsequent reduction in water quality that would impact adversely on aquatic habitats and species within the River Barrow SAC. The screening report indicates measures put in place to prevent spillages or accidental discharges of hydrocarbons/chemicals on site and to prevent contamination of the adjoining stream. The report notes that there are to be no discharges to groundwater. In terms of potential impacts on the SAC it is noted that the proposal would not result in any loss or fragmentation of habitats and that the proposal would not have any future significant impact on the water quality of the River Barrow, or the qualifying interests and conservation objectives of the SAC. It is noted that the proposal on its own would not have an adverse impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site nor will it add to the cumulative impact from other sources. In this regard it was considered that a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment was not required.

11.6.4 In terms of screening there are two Natura 2000 sites within 15km of the appeal site.

River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code 002162). Slaney River River Valley SAC (site code 000781).

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 21 Both Natura 2000 sites are aquatic environments and dependent on good water quality. In the case of the Slaney River Valley SAC the appeal site is a significant distance from the designated site and is not within the catchment area. I would consider that the proposal would entail no direct or indirect impact on the integrity of the designated site in question. The site is within the catchment of the River Barrow and River Nore SAC and is located in close proximity to a stream that is a tributary of the River Barrow. The potential impacts of the proposal include discharges to the stream of chemical/hydrocarbons, suspended solids and polluting material that would reduce the water quality of the stream and subsequently of the water quality in the River Barrow and River Nore SAC. The information submitted in the applicants screening report indicates that water quality levels in the stream are of moderate ecological status. Subject to adequate measures to prevent spillages/accidental discharges both during the construction and operational phases, the proposal would have no adverse impact on the integrity of designated Natura 2000 site. In terms of impact the proposal entails one discharge point to the existing stream from the storm water interceptor. I am satisfied that subject to adequate measures to prevent accidental spillages and discharges during the construction and operational phase as well as ensuring all surface water/storm water is directed to interceptors on site, that the proposal would not result in a significant or adverse impact on the integrity of the adjoining Natura 2000 site. I consider that adequate conditions can deal with this aspect. In this regard I am satisfied that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on the integrity of any Natura 2000 site and a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is therefore not required.

11.7. Architectural Heritage/archaeology: 11.7.1 Part of the appeal site appears to be within the historic and current curtilage of Rathcrogue House, which is on the Record of Protected Structures under the Carlow County Development Plan 2009-2015. Part of the site takes in and extends beyond the existing entrance gate to Rathcrogue House with the proposal entailing significant revision to the existing access arrangement for the protected structure. Given its location within the curtilage of a protected structure, such should have been included in the site description and public notices. Notwithstanding such the proposal should be considered in terms of its impact upon the integrity and setting of a protected structure. Rathcrogue House is located to the north east of the site and is described as “a three-bay, two—storey house with a gabled, advanced bay in the centre. The house dates from circa 1780 and was remodelled in circa 1840 with the addition of the advanced bay. It has painted, lined rendering, a simple granite cornice, sash windows with Georgian panes, a tripartite, square-headed doorcase and a hipped roof of natural slates”. The applicant submitted a Conservation Report regarding the protected structure. The report includes a description and details of the historical background of the structure. It is noted that the

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 21 lands part of the site are not regarded as part of the existing curtilage of the protected structure with the curtilage altered dramatically by the construction of the M9. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not encroach onto the curtilage of the protected structure. The report notes that the existing trees and vegetation provide sufficient screening of the proposed development from the existing dwelling

11.7.2 The Development Applications Unit raised a number of concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the protected structure in particular the approach to the protected structure and identified the lack of details regarding the entrance. The applicant has responded clarifying the proposals at the entrance including recessing the entrance further than originally shown and reinstating the existing gates and piers in the new entrance location as well as a comprehensive planting scheme at the entrance and adjacent the new roundabout. The appeal site uses part of the curtilage of the protected structure and entails modification to the entrance to the site. In terms of impact on the setting and integrity of the protected structure I would note that despite the encroachment onto curtilage, the existing dwelling has a sizeable curtilage and level of encroachment onto the curtilage is not of a significant amount. Given the size of the curtilage, I would consider that the proposal would have no significant or adverse impact on the setting or character of the existing structure. The proposal does entail alteration of the existing entrance to the site, but does not entail the loss of any significant architectural features of great significance as it would appear the existing entrance is not original main entrance based on historical maps. It would appear that the building of the M9 has already significantly altered the curtilage of the site. Having regard to the size of the curtilage of the site, the design and scale and general visual impact of the proposal, and the proximity to the protected structure, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the character or setting of an existing protected structure.

11.7.3 One of the appeal submissions raises concerns regarding possibility of archaeological material on site and the need for an archaeological assessment of the proposal. There are no recorded monuments identified on site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The appellant’s assertion is based on archeological material found during the course of construction works for the M9. The Board may wish to request and archaeological assessment, however it is notable that the Development Applications Unit did not raise any concerns in regards to archaeology. I would consider an appropriate condition requiring archeological monitoring to be sufficient to deal with this issue in the event of a grant of permission.

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 21 11.8 Other Issues: 11.8.1 It is suggested by one of the appellants that the applicant’s do not have sufficient control over the lands to carry out the proposed development. I would consider that this is not a planning matter; I would however note that the applicant has provided letters of consents form the relevant landowners.

11.8.2 An observer has raised questions regarding access noting that he among others has an existing right of way to agricultural lands at this location over the existing access that is to be used and modified to access the site. The observer raises concern regarding the modification of the access and the fact that it requires access through lands in different ownership than the current arrangement. The revised access arrangement proposed will still provide access to Rathcrogue House and the agricultural lands located on the north side of the motorway. This is clear from the layout proposed and reiterated within the information submitted by the applicants. Notwithstanding such issues of rights of way are not relevant planning consideration for the Board and are a civil matter.

RECOMMENDATION I recommend a refusal based on the following reasons.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS 1. Having regard to level of planned, permitted and proposed competing proposals in close proximity to the M9, the proposal would be contrary to National Policy as set out under The Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012 which states that “a proliferation of private off-line service area facilities at national road junctions should be avoided. It is therefore important that a coordinated approach between planning authorities should be undertaken in consultation with the NRA as part of the drafting of development plans”. The proposed development would, therefore, by itself and the precedent it would set for similar such development, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. It is considered that the proposed development, which takes access from the N80 and the junction interchange between the N80, National secondary route and the M9 Motorway and would generate significant traffic movements at this location would contravene the objectives of the planning authority to preserve the level of service and carrying capacity of the national road network and would be contrary National policy as set out under The Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2012 to maintain and protect the safety, capacity and efficiency of national roads and associated junctions The proposed development would, therefore, by itself and the precedent it would set for similar such development, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 21

Colin McBride 24th July 2015

______PL01.244762 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 21