An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL.31.232507

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development: Mixed use residential / retail /office / hotel development including 365 no apartments and all associated site works at the Former Waterford Stanley Factory, Bilberry, Waterford.

Planning Application

Planning Authority: Waterford City Council.

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 08/138

Applicant: W.D.Bolster and Son Limited.

Type of Application: Permission.

Planning Authority Decision: Grant Permission subject to conditions.

Planning Appeal

Appellants: 1. Bowefield Residents Association. 2. Brendan McCann. 3. Gracedieu Residents Group.

Type of Appeals: Third Party v Grant.

Observers: 1. Tadhg Murphy and others.

Date of Site Inspection: 20 May 2009.

Inspector: Bríd Maxwell.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 26 1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

1.1 The subject site, which has a total area of 5.238 hectares is located approximately 1.5km to the northwest of Waterford City Centre fronting the southern bank of the River Suir. The site is roughly an elongated rectangle which is at its widest approximately at the centre of the site and tapers significantly to the east. The site comprises a derelict industrial site formerly the Waterford Stanley Factory and is occupied by derelict factory units, offices and car parks. Buildings on site comprise a mix of porta-cabins, single storey brick sheds, various office accommodation and the large industrial corrugated factory units. The site is openly visible from across the River Suir from either the railway or the main road access into Waterford from the Newrath Road and the N7. The River Suir forms the northern boundary of the site.

1.2 The site is relatively flat throughout with average level being 3.8m OD. The southern part of the site would have previously been excavated from the hillside and the topography rises steeply away from the site to the south and southwest to Gibbethill and to Bilberry Rock. The roadside boundary is defined by stone walling and hedging while there is a small piece of woodland at the north-western side of the property. The northern part of the site is made ground created by infilling the riverbank mudflats with introduced hardcore.

1.3 The immediate surrounding land use is mixed with commercial and industrial property along Bilberry Road, immediately to the northwest is the Watersgate Residential Development and two detached residences. To the southwest on Gibbethill Hill are a number of older detached dwellings and a more recent development the in the form of linear string of two storey dwellings. Biblerry Rock, a rocky outcrop, famed home of the Bilberry Goat, lies to the southeast. Adjacent riverside site to the southeast is occupied by industrial buildings with a number of boats moored up against it on the Riverside. Some appear to have been in situ for some time. Agricultural lands and railway sidings lie on the immediate opposite bank.

1.4 Application documentation outlines that the site originally comprised of mainly mudflats until the Waterford South Station was formed here as the terminus of the Waterford, Dungarvan and Lismore Railway in the late 1800s operating till 1908, when it became a storage depot for materials used in the construction of Redmond Bridge. A munitions factory operated here between 1916 and 1919. The site was then derelict till 1937 when Allied Iron Founders Ltd was established. Site was used as a foundry for casting of solid fuel ranges and vitreous enamelling was introduced in the late 1950s. Waterford Stanley Ltd purchased the site in 1983 and commenced casting, painting, enamelling and assembly operations. Foundry operations ceased in 2002 and all operations were moved from the site in 2006.

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 The proposed development involves demolition of all existing structures on site and the construction of 11 no development blocks arranged in varying

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 26 heights up to 33 storeys consisting of a mixed use development named “Water Haven”. Use mix is set out as follows:

LAND USE AREA / NUMBER OF UNITS Office 8.885m2 / 13 units Restaurant 1,171m2 Retail 2,535.23m2 Conference Facility 1,098m2 / 500 seats Apartments 395 units 73 no.1 bed units 167 no two bed units 48 no 3 bed units 20 no 3 bed duplex units 39 no 3 bed penthouse units 48 no two bed luxury apartments Hotel 156 bedrooms / 11,021 m2.

2.2 In terms of building design the development comprises two landmark towers of 33 and 15 storeys above ground level with bridge link, a conference facility and eight other blocks of varying heights. A summary description of the built elements is as follows:

BLOCK HEIGHT ACCOMMODATION GROSS FLOOR AREA M2 Njord 33 storeys Car parking level -1 Tower 121.85m to Lobby Restaurant level 0 roof level Office Units level 1-10 28,297 141.67m to 143 apartment units level 11-32 top of roof Plant services level 33 feature 2nd Tower 15 storeys Lobby, office, function room, Hotel 64.9m conference, leisure centre, food & beverage area level –1-0 11,021 156 Hotel rooms level 2-14 View deck and helipad level 15 Support area level 1 Conference 2/3 storey Facility/ 22.45m Conference facility / Auditorium 1,098 Auditorium Block 1 2 storeys Retail Units including restaurant Mixed use 16.12m level 0-1 3,132 foundry Office level 2 station Block 2 6 storeys Retail / crèche level 0 Mixed use 30.75m Apartments level 1-3 4,548 Asgard Office level 1-6 House

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 26 Block 3 5 storeys Garage level –1 6,249 Residential 29.1m Apartments Level 0-5 Loki House

Block 4 Residential 6 storeys Garage level –1 7,936 Aegir 33.2m Apartments Level 0-6 House Block 5 Residential 9 storeys Garage level –1 11,052 Siguard 42.43m Apartments Level 0-9 House Block 6 Residential 2 storeys Apartments Level 0-2 570 Tyr House 18.73m Block 7 Residential 2 storeys Apartments Level 0-2 570 Odin 18.73m House

Block 8 Mixed use 5 storeys Retail level 0 3,138 Midgard 26m Residential Level 1-5 House

2.3 As regards materials a mixed palette of materials is proposed include terracotta tiles, zinc cladding panels, curtain wall glazing systems and limestone cladding. The development also proposes an extensive green roof system.

2.4 A marina with approximately 80 berths is proposed subject to obtaining foreshore license. Marina construction will comprise piling with standard tubular piles with a floating pontoon. A boat slip and launch will also be provided No dredging is proposed. A boardwalk is to be provided along the river and the tramline will also extend along the full shoreline of the site. Two tramstops are proposed on the site adjacent to Foundry station and adjacent to the hotel. The applicant is seeking that the appropriate period of the permission be 7 years.

2.5 The application is accompanied by a number of documents and reports including an Environment Impact Statement and Development Framework Document, copy of feedback comments from public consultation exercise, CD Rom of 3d views, photomontages, Mechanical and Electrical Services Report, Fire Safety Report, Outline Preliminary Safety and Health Plan, and Landscape Report. The Environmental Impact Statement is in two volumes. Volume 1 contains the non-technical summary and the Environmental Impact Statement. Volume II contains 8 appendices.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 26 2.6 The majority of the buildings are built on a raised podium. The podium is to be built over the car park, which will be at existing ground level thus hiding car parking from all views. A total of 691 car parking spaces are to be provided. On the river and southside of the podium extensive terraced landscaping treatment is proposed. Other edges of the podium structure are to be hidden by low level buildings.

2.7 Ancillary works including hard and soft landscaping, ESB Substation, plant rooms, 3 no marinas (80 no berths) and boardwalk (subject to foreshore license), helipad, railway and all associated ancillary accommodation and site development works.

2.8 In relation to the issue of the Waterford and Suir Valley Railway, it is envisaged that the rail line will continue onto the south quays (or at least onto Rice Bridge) to facilitate pedestrian travel to the heart of the city. In terms of connecting to the existing lines at Bilberry it is intended to run the new line on the outside of the adjoining Water Gate site to the north on piles set into the river. Level of this line is approximately three metres below the existing ground level of the Water Haven site. The train line will then turn at the end of the Water gate site and connect to the end of the existing track line, ultimately providing for pedestrian access to the heart of the city.

2.9 A management company is to be established to oversee maintenance of the site. Open spaces e.g. riverside walk, and areas around retail and office areas will be open for public access.

2.10 Following request for additional information expressing concerns in respect pf the standard of residential amenity, the residential apartments were amended with balconies added to the majority of units and private gardens to units at podium level. The overall number of single aspect residential units was reduced. There are 12 single aspect north facing apartment units within the tower and excluding the tower 96% of the units are dual aspect. Omitting the tower 5% of the units do not have dedicated private open space. It is argued the apartment units within the tower have above sized living rooms and communal private open space is provided at podium level with an area of 1,484 square metres dedicated for the other residents of the tower building. 96 square metre entertainment room and a 70.8 square metre games hall located on the mezzanine level of the tower exclusively for use by the residents. Residents it is also put forward will benefit from a high quality public realm. Communal Private open space provided between each residential block and at podium and roof level.

3.0 NATIONAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTEXT

3.1 Waterford City Development Plan 2007-2013.

3.1.1. The site is identified in the Waterford City Development Plan as a key opportunity site. At 8.2 it is stated that one of Waterford’s key assets is its

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 26 riverside and estuarial location. The redevelopment of the north and south quays can revitalise the asset by integrating everyday city life with the river. In relation to Bilberry the plan states at 8.2.2 : “The relocation of the Waterford Stanley operation from Bilberry provides an opportunity for the redevelopment of a prominent riverside site. The redevelopment proposal could be extended to adjoining sites, which are obsolete, derelict or have relatively low order uses. The redevelopment proposal should consist of a mixed-use development which would be primarily residential but which could include a commercial element such as a hotel, leisure centre, marina and limited retailing in accordance with retail strategy. The proposal should provide for riverside access and facilitate the extension of the Suir Valley rail line through the site. Any development proposal should be based on an urban design framework and a master plan for the overall site. Development of the site may be constrained pending the improvement of the Bilberry Road.”

3.1.2 Chapter 10 sets out zoning policy and objectives. At 10.10 in relation to mixed use and opportunity sites it is stated that the development of the opportunity sites of which there are eight in total will be based on “ an overall design framework for each site and shall contain an appropriate mix of compatible and complementary uses. The developments shall be subject to the policies and objectives set out elsewhere in this development plan including the Retail strategy.”

3.1.3 Development Management criteria are addressed in Chapter 11. Residential Development is addressed at 11.1, It is stated that in dealing with applications for residential development on sites over 0.5ha in area or for more than 15 units the Planning Authority will require the submission of a design brief as part of the application documents. It is stated that: “The design of residential development should not be based solely on compliance with quantitative standards. The creation of residential areas with a sense of place should be a priority. In the making of places it is not the road layout but the relationship of buildings to each other which should be paramount. The design should provide for a network of spaces rather than a hierarchy of roads. The design should recognise the role of streets and open spaces as play areas and should adopt the ‘home zone’ approach”.

3.1.4 Residential Density is addressed at 11.1.1 providing for a flexible approach having regard to the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Residential Densities. Qualitative Criteria are addressed at 11.1.2. Qualitative and Quantitive Standards for apartments are set out at 11.1.3.2. “In relation to apartment blocks, particular attention must be paid to the location of the communal open space for the residents. The open space should not be unduly overshadowed by the blocks and be laid out in such a fashion to provide for ease of maintenance.” Building height control is addressed at 11.2.1. Fourteen detailed considerations are set out on page 97 which will be taken into account in deciding an application for a high building.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 26 3.1.5 The reaches of the River Suir within the city boundary are part of the Lower Suir Estuary Special Area of Conservation. (Site code 02137.)

3.2 North West Suburbs Action Area Plan 2005.

3.2.1 The North West Suburbs Action Area Plan relates to an overall area of approximately 860 hectares with 750 hectares undeveloped. The design approach in the Action plan was the establishment of two distinct new neigbourhoods with a range of facilities and residential areas within walking distance. The two neighbourhoods, Carrickpherish and Gracedieu are separated by a green wedge consisting mainly of the more elevated lands in the area. It was considered that Carrickpherish would be developed first and the Graciedieu would be developed following the achievement of critical mass of sustainable development in Carrickpherish. The Waterford City Development Plan 2007-2013 refers to the neighbourhood strategy at 9.0 and outlines at 9.1 that a detailed framework plan for the layout of Gracedieu will be prepared and adopted prior to the opening for development. The ‘Green Wedge’ runs along the elevated lands general above the 60m contour, which is to remain as open area.

3.3 National Policy

3.3.1 The 1999 Residential Density Guidelines for Planning Authorities promotes higher densities for residential development to achieve sustainable development by making more economic use of physical infrastructure. The guidelines stress the need for safeguards and qualitative standards to ensure an acceptable and appropriate level of residential amenity.

3.3.2 The Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments, September 2007 set out recommended minimum standards for apartments. The guidelines seek to promote sustainable urban housing by ensuring that the design and layout of new apartments will provide satisfactory accommodation for a variety of household types and sizes over the medium to long term.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The following planning applications pertain to the site. • 98/24 Installation of dry bag filtration system. 13/5/1998 • 00/3666 Provision of two wet spark anesters. Permission granted. 29/8/1977 • 00/1001 Store. Permission granted 22/12/1964 • 00/1724 Office block. Permission 6/2/1970 • 00/1289 Permission for Boiler House. 9/12/1966

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 26 5.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION

5.1 Deliberations of the Planning Authority

5.1.1 Third Party Submissions

I have reviewed the numerous submissions received by the Planning Authority from third parties. Issues raised reflect in detail those raised by the appellants and observers to the appeal.

5.1.2 External Consultations Prescribed Bodies

• Southern Regional Fisheries Board submission indicates no objection subject to implementation of appropriate mitigation of pollution risks from contaminated soils. Best practice measures to minimise discharge of silt / suspended solids including silt traps and buffer zones, bunded fuel storage, oil interceptors. No discharge to water from craft berthed at the marina. • Environmental Health Officers of the Health Service Executive HSE South submissions indicate no objection subject to a number of conditions including provision of appropriate filtration and sterilisation system for swimming pool, noise mitigation, appropriate drainage measures, and standard food hygiene facilities.

5.1.3 Interdepartmental Reports

• Environment Section report makes reference to the Residuals Management Plan required as a condition of the IPPC licence for the site and notes that ground works soil removal, asbestos and demolition waste removal should be agreed with EPA. Report indicates no objection subject to appropriate noise mitigation, dust mitigation, Further information required to clarify waste management for operational phase. • Architects’ Department report asserts that development appears to provide a good architectural standard and urban renewal of the area. A variety of use will provide a good standard of life. Landscaping requires to be more fully developed. Tower is orientated such that it will deprive several apartments on each floor of sunlight, • Roads and Transportation report deems the traffic impact assessment inadequate. Waterford City Council currently formulating proposals for the upgrade of Bilberry Road and this should be taken into account by the proposals. Parking provision is considered inadequate. Only 64% of requirement is provided. Considering a 20% reduction due to dual usage this still leaves a substantial shortfall, Stage 1, 2 and 3 road safety audits to be carried out and a mobility management plan. Substantial upgrades of the Bilberrry Road and junctions with Quarry Road and Rice Bridge. While some of these upgrades are planned by the Council the developer will have to pay a proportion towards the works.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 26 • Water Services Section report recommends seeking further information in respect of foul and surface water drainage, water supply and water management and conservation plan. Chemical analysis of leachate effluent in the existing drain traversing the site to be submitted. Final report indicates no objection subject to conditions including payment of special contribution of €98,013.00 in respect of upgrading of the existing public water network infrastructure to serve the development. • Report of Chief Fire Officer seeks additional information in respect of fire safety. • Further information request issued seeking a number of details including (a) a detailed description of likely and significant cumulative effects, (b) details of soil investigations and environmental and human health risk assessments as were carried out in accordance with the conditions of the IPPC license, consideration of these matters in the context of the Human Beings part of the EIS. (c) Details of volume and chemical composition of leachate from the existing open drain which it is proposed to discharge to the main drainage system. (d) Address issues raised in Waterford City Development Plan 2007- 2013 in relation to building control height. (e) Consideration of microclimate inadequate in the EIS. Shadow analysis only refers to impacts on March 21 st . (f) Concerns in relation to the lack of external private open space provided to a number of residential units, single aspect units especially north / northwest facing, absence of shared indoor spaces. Absence of managed laundry facilities, communal satellite dishes, broadband connectivity. Audit in the context of “Sustainable Urban Housing; Design Standards for new apartments” (g) Revised traffic impact assessment, additional car parking provision, results of stage 1 road safety audit, (h) Water management and conservation plan. (i) Written justification for decision not to carry out a benthic flora and fauna study in view of the location of the marina within a cSAC. (j) Waste management proposals. (k) Detailed proposal for the light railway. (l) Proposals to comply with requirements of Irish Aviation Authority if any. (m) Proposals for areas on the site to be taken in charge by the local authority.

• The Planner’s final report asserts that the development proposed generally complies with the objectives as set out in the Development Plan. The improvements to the Bilberry road are currently at design stage and therefore not considered a constraint to the development. The overriding issue for consideration is in relation to scale and building height. It is asserted that the site’s location and surrounding topography and river provide that a tall building can be accommodated. Significant visual impact from Bowefield estate (viewpoint 2 EIS). At larger scale

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 26 visual impacts are confined to the River Suir Corridor, approach from the north and the quays. Proposal will create a new urban quarter on a derelict site and in combination with the new Suir bridge will transform the image of the city. Helipad to be omitted from the development on basis that it is not designed in accordance with IAA specifications. Permission for a seven-year period is considered reasonable.

5.2 Decision of the Planning Authority

5.2.1 Waterford City Council issued notification of decision to grant permission on 22/12/2008 subject to 22 conditions, of which the following are of note:

• Condition 2 required omission of the helipad. • Condition 3 required road reservation line (for Bilberry Road improvement / realignment) to be maintained free from development. • Condition 20 required payment of development contribution of 2.903,090 in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme. • Condition 21 A special contribution of €98,013 in respect of public water supply Bilberry. • Condition22. Developer to provide a civic artwork on or in the vicinity of the site. Costing not less than €44,000.

6. 0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

6.1.1 Three third party appeals are submitted by Bowfield Residents Association, Brendan McCann and Gracedieu Residents Group. As these appeals raise many issues in common, I have summarised grounds of appeal as follows:-

• Development interferes with the scale and visual quality of existing development in the surrounding area. • Development does not conform to requirements of the Waterford City Development Plan. • Significant adverse impact and visually obtrusive from many vantage points. • Design is not suited to the natural high rising topography of the area and will create a tunnelled, visually darkened, overshadowed entrance to the city. • Density is out of character with adjacent development. • Ability of fire services to deal with emergency in 33 storey building and helipad. • Detailed proposal for a complete viable light rail service should form part of any proposal for the site. • Development should be considered with Urban Design Framework for the North Quays and Ard Ri site and the planned new neighbourhood area at Carrickpherish. Duplication of northquays development.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 26 • Lack of schools, footpaths and basic infrastructure. Roads inadequate. Development will not be served by adequate roads or public transport in the foreseeable future. • Requirement for more office space is questioned Much existing office space available for rent. Oversupply of apartments in the city. • Viability of hotel conference centre and office accommodation is questionable. Conference centre proposed as part of the north quays development. • Development is unrealistic in economic terms in terms of its poor residential amenity and in terms of its overbearing visual impact. • High quality redevelopment of the site would be appropriate. • Poor linkage to the city centre. • Speculative development, which emphasises quantity over quality, Proposal represents a missed opportunity to provide an appropriate and sensitive redevelopment of this important site. • Bulk mass and scale of the development is unacceptable. • Disruptive to the setting of the South Quays Conservation area. • Inadequate open space, which is largely circulation space, tokenistic play area contrary to the provisions of the residential density guidelines. • Mutual overshadowing and overlooking between the blocks most notably between block 5 and block 4. • Diminished daylight reception by lower floors on basis of proximity of neighbours and height and proximity of Bilberry Rock. Lower floors will likely require artificial lighting at most times during the day. • Overlooking and overshadowing of established residential development. • Apartments in Njord Tower single aspect devoid of private open space. Presence of commercial development on lowest ten floors will mean that the residents will be living in a cut off environment. • Extreme high rise blocks on confined and exposed site not appropriate. In context of Waterford. • Site should be fully decontaminated in advance of any development. Groundwater is vulnerable. Deep piling could result in significant groundwater pollution. Recharge to the river Suir could result in long- term leachate of pollutants, including heavy metals to the river. • Will lead to further traffic congestion on Rice Bridge. • Noise disturbance of helipad. • Elevation to Bilberry Road is unattractive especially for pedestrians and cyclists. • Existing stand of tall trees in the north west sector of the site, as identified in the Fauna and Flora Assessment, should be retained. • Old former station house should be retained and incorporated into the development so as to retain a link with the history of the site. • Upper level bridge link between hotel and apartment / office towers may be structurally unsound. In the event of a high wind loading it is not evident that lateral displacement will be the same given large discrepancies in profile. • Seven-year permission would be undesirable and would encourage speculative development in Waterford.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 26 • Social and environmental sustainability of the high rise elements of the proposed development needs to be fully accounted for. • Development should not compete visually with the South quays and should not project above the skyline when viewed from Gracedieu or other city centre locations. Residential element should be omitted or substantially scaled back. • Development should be revised to include an expanded conference centre of high architectural quality capable of attracting major events

7.0 THIRD PARTY OBSERVATIONS

7.1 Third party observations raise similar issues to those of the third party appellants and I have summarised issues as follows:

• Bilberry is rural location. • Height of iconic tower casting shadow and negative visual impact. • Impact on setting of south quays architectural conservation area. • Skyline development in the views and panoramas identified in the Action Area Plan. Assertion that the visual impact will be neutral or beneficial is not accepted. • Contravenes policies of development plan protection of views from riverscape. • Scale of development will impact negatively on adjacent residential properties. • Danger arising from helipad. Ability of fire brigade to deal with fire at 30m. • Noise and disturbance created by helicopter traffic. • Overlooking. • Inconsistent manner in which Waterford City Council treated this application as opposed to other development. • Oversupply of apartments • Road infrastructure inadequate. • North West Suburbs Action Area Plan 1999 states that the sloping an elevated land to the south of the site was to form a green wedge connecting city centre to the newer neighbourhoods that were being created under the plan. Development negates this key features. • Impact of prolonged development of the site. • Competing with the two neighbourhood centres proposed in the Action Area Plan. Impact on vitality of Carrickpherish Neighbourhood Centre. • Fire Safety and public safety. • Attachment of road layout design to decision is inappropriate. • Road levels beside Waterhaven scheme. • Premature pending design and completion of the Bilberry Road upgrade. • Conditions that require further consultation with the developer are objectionable.

8.0 FIRST PARTY RESPONSE TO APPEALS

8.1 The detailed response of the first party firstly seeks to set out a justification for the scale and height of the development and also addresses the specific issues

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 26 raised in the appeals. The response is also accompanied by letters of support from the Waterford Chamber, Waterford City River Rescue, Waterford and Suir Valley Railway Company. Response is summarised as follows: • Optimum gateway location for strategic mixed use development. Given the nature of the surrounding topography the site lends itself to a high building and landmark feature. • Precedent cases in Atlantic quarter Cork Docklands, The Titanic Quarter Belfast, Bibao Riverfront Regeneration, Malmo Seafront Redevelopment. • No adverse impact on Bilberry cliffs. Will provide visual focus along the river corridor a sense of destination within walking distance of the city centre and a sense of Gateway to the city in combination with the new river crossing. • Argument for the suitability of the site to accommodate a tall building is based on the expanse of the river corridor at this point and the relative lack of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. River provides a suitable sense of scale for a development of this nature and this combined with local topography provides suitable definition and sense of place. • Density is appropriate to the site. • Shadow created on the residential development immediately to the north west of the site shadows the area for a maximum of 1 hour during the morning time and given the slender design of the tall buildings and the transient nature of the shadow only small elements of the residential development are shadowed at on time within this hour. As regards overlooking separation distances are in excess of the separation distances recommended in the Department of the Environment Residential Density Guidelines. • Hierarchy of private residential outdoor spaces and substantial public realm areas including the broad waterfront zone are provided. • Claim that the open space between the blocks is overshadowed is refuted. • 35m distance between block 4 and 5 adequate to ensure no overlooking. Design ensures maximum sun penetration into the site and to maximise views to the river from Bilberry road. • As outlined in EIS adequate capacity in the existing City centre schools to cater for the development. It should be noted that the applicant is currently in detailed consultation with an education institution to examine the feasibility of housing such an institution on the site. • Tall building can have positive effect in showing image as modern and dynamic place. • Development will encourage the completion of the rail link by providing a proactive developer-led approach, which will stimulate adjacent landowners and the City Council to progress the rail line. • Commitment to provide 4m of the site's boundary for the provision for road widening. Traffic Impact Assessment concludes that with adequate mitigation the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the Rice Bridge / Merchant’s Quay / Bridge Street / Bilberry road junction. Sufficient car parking provided. • Residuals Management Plan RMP presently being implemented on site in accordance with license conditions and this covers both above and belowground residuals. Risk based approach adopted, as is standard

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 26 practice. Appropriate mitigation measures designed to minimise risk to River Suir and potential for risk to human health receptors. EPA will have to be fully satisfied that the soils remaining in situ do not pose a risk to the environment or future residents. Leachate will be redirected to the foul sewer on Bilberry Road. • Active frontage to Bilberry Road is provided by Block 1, 6. and 7 fronting Billberry road while not obstructing vistas to the waterfront. • Likely use frequency of helipad will not create disturbance or pollution. • Recommendation to retain trees in northwest sector of site was considered however extent of level change meant their retention was unviable. Development proposal allows for comprehensive planting programme of 450 trees. • Water Haven Scheme evolved through a master plan and urban design framework • Bridge link between tower and hotel is both feasible and structurally sound. Response for the project's consulting engineers outlines that the link will be designed in accordance with wind code 6399-2. Bearings and an allowance will be made to cater for differential movement between the bridge and support structures. • Retention of the station house is unwarranted as this is if no particular architectural merit. To ensure recognition of the past and historical association with the site the applicant commits to incorporation of a number of features or sculptures within the public realm. • Access and facilities for fire services in accordance with Part B 5 of the Techchical Guidance Document. Requirements of the fire authority taken into account. • Seven year permission is justified on basis of scale of the proposal. • Buildings are sustainable with appropriate balance between environmental economic and social benefits. • Conference centre capacity of approximately 500 people is appropriate. • Proposed site not addressed by the North West Suburbs Action Area Plan. No conflict with objectives. • Construction and operational noise impacts appropriately mitigated. • Conditions precedent to Waterford City Council’s notification to grant permission are not considered to be materially significant.

9.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY RESPONSE TO APPEALS

9.1.1 The response of the Planning Authority is summarised as follows: • The strategic context for the development is the need for Waterford to develop as regional Gateway City as envisaged in the National Spatial Strategy and South East Regional Planning Guidelines. • Site identified as key opportunity site. • Numerous precedents for similar dockland / riverside projects. • References to visual impacts in the appeals are subjective. Planning Authority considers that, given its relationship to the surrounding topography and the river, the site is capable of accommodating a tall building. It is not accepted that the development will disrupt the setting of

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 26 the South Quays ACA. The relationship of the development to the South Quays will be similar to that of La Defence project in Paris, visible from the old centre but separated from it as recognisably modern. Same argument could be made for the new Suir Bridge under construction, which already provides a spectacular element in the views upriver from the South Quays. • Scale and mass of buildings is appropriate. Neither plot ratio nor density is excessive. Proposal does not fail against criteria set out at 11.2.1 of the City Development Plan. • Adequate open space provided. Substantial intervening landscaped courtyards and significant riverside public realm. • Provision has been made for two new schools in the Carrickphierish neighbourhood on of which at design stage and has departmental approval. Generally no shortage of school place in Waterford and there are a number of schools on the edge of the city centre in close proximity to the site. • Extended bus services will service the proposed development. • Amount of car parking is deemed adequate given mix of uses proposed and likelihood of public transport system being extended to the site. • Decontamination of the site will proceed under EPA supervision in accordance with the residuals management plan and associated risk assessment. • Development does not present a dead face to the Bilberry Road. • Helipad should be omitted from the development, as it does not comply with IAA requirements. Could be considered in future. • No protected trees or structures on site. Removal of trees in northwest sector of site and demolition of the remains of the station house are justified. • Seven year permission is appropriate. • Waterford City council respectfully urges the Board to uphold the Planning Authority’s decision to grant permission in this case.

10.0 RESPONSES TO THE RESPONSE OF THE APPLICANT TO THE APPPEALS

10.1 Responses of the Third Party Appellants to the response of the First Party to the appeals.

10.1.1 Responses are summarised as follows: • Submission of the first party does not allay concerns raised in the appeals. • Submission appears to gainsay every point made in the appeals. Makes selective use of references to plans and guidelines and makes tenuous claims. • Precedent cases cited in the submission provide strong evidence that the Bilberry site is not suitable for the scale mass and height of development proposed. • No connection between the proposed development at Bilberry to the next nearest buildings which are in the vicinity of Rice Bridge over half a

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 26 kilometre distant from the site. Lack of connectivity places a significant question mark over the visual and social integration of the development with the city centre. • Precedents are largely in respect of large dockland areas, which form or have potential to form natural extensions to their respective city centres. By contrast the Bilberry site is a relatively small, standalone site that will always be half a kilometre from the next nearest development. • Topography is also very different, other sites are also low lying and flat whilst ridge forms a natural skyline in the vicinity of Bilberry site. Flat lands lend themselves more readily to contrasts in building height and to taller buildings in general. No natural backdrop to disrupt, and are less obtrusive as they are more easily masked by intervening buildings of more modest height. • River Suir as one travels upriver from Bilberry is in contrast to the heavily urbanised and industrialised dockland areas. • Clarion Hotel in Limerick is successful and differs substantially. It is 16- 17 storeys in height, lines are clean and simple, plant incorporated into the curved sloping roof. Whilst highly prominent does not dominate because River Shannon is broader at this point than the River Suir at Bilberry. Adjacent buildings on quay are 6-7 storeys and provide an appropriate visual linkage to the city centre. Also landscape is flat. • Cited precedent cases are not comparable with Waterford with population of approximately 49,240. (Cork 120,000, Belfast 267,500, Bilbao 354,145, Malmo 258,000.) • Precedent cases show that the scale, massing, form and height of the proposed development are inappropriate for this narrow visually sensitive riverside site. • Development would seriously injure the amenities of adjacent and nearby residents by virtue of visual intrusion, would obtrude on the skyline, would disrupt the city streetscape and would disrupt the landscape of the River Suir Corridor. Dominant impact on the River Suir corridor. • Gross incongruity of the development is most readily appreciated from photomontage V9. Visual impact creates a surreal likeness of a rocket launch pad with an oversized and obese Saturn V rocket. Perplexing as to how the landscape and visual impact assessment was unable to recognise the disruption to the existing landscape. Landscape and visual assessment has failed to provide an adequate assessment of the development. • Argument at the end of section 5.2 that the site is suitable to accommodate a tall building based on the expanse of the river at this point and the relative lack of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. 41 dwellings in Watersgate development, and two adjacent houses and nearest houses in Bowfiled are not given adequate consideration. • Site is within the area addressed by the northwest suburbs Action Area Plan and is specifically referred to in Section 2.2.3 of the Action Area Plan. The visual analysis and policy regarding the preservation of the landscape character contained in the Action area Plan, Map 2.7 shows Bilberry Ridge designated as visually sensitive. Section 4.1.4 of action area plan states that “the exposed headland to the east of Quarry Road” ie

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 26 Bilberry ridge is undeveloped and will form a green corridor extending to the city. • Site will compete with Carrickpherish neighbourhood centre, which is designated as a mixed use development area. This is currently under construction but is being mothballed due to lack of purchasers for apartments, which is citywide phenomenon. • In relation to the residential amenity of the proposed units usability of the space between the blocks is in question. Not suitable for active recreation. Small playground and no suitable active recreation area for older children. During the winter months courtyards will be in shade virtually all day long. No shadow diagrams for 17.00-18.00 hours. • Lack of schools and community facilities within walking distance and absence of public transport system demonstrate that this is not an appropriate location for 395 apartments. • Picture and maps submitted are out of date and do not reflect the nature of the area at present, Estates of Bowefield, Carn Glas, Sherlocks Walk and Carrickpherish Road are missing. • Project out of date in light of the current economic situation. Road and rail infrastructure provision in question. • Underprovision of car parking not appropriate particularly given out of centre location. • Helipad would create disturbance. • Disruption caused by seven year permission to surrounding residents is unacceptable. • Sustainability argument failed in case of Ballymun. • Strategic planning policy documents from Regional Planning Guidelines to PLUTS and City Development Plan focus on the North Quays as the prime area for this type of development. Assertion that this development will not compete with this strategic objective is rejected. • Development will compete with proposals to create an office disctrict in the Bolton Street area of the city. • Site is brownfield site on the fringes of the city. One mile from the Clock Tower, which forms the gateway to the city core. The site is approached from the city core by passing along the south quays which are made up of mainly underused small retail spaces as far as Rice Bridge and then by passing some tax incentive shoe box apartments, a recently modernised brewery, a traveller halting site, a number of recently constructed light industrial units a sand and gravel compound / dredger tug boat mooring, waste ground and finally an old industrial unit. Surrounding and beyond the site is low to medium density housing or agricultural land. • Reponses from the developer in relation to the visual impact of the proposal show an element of arrogance. Page 12 it is claimed that residents of Bowfield have no rights to the view from their homes and yet on page 37 and in section 5.6 virtues of living with spectacular views are extolled. • The building of an exclamation mark on this site is not visionary. It is simply a higher stack of unnecessary and unwanted apartments, which will stop any more imaginative or worthwhile use of the site being considered.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 26

10.2 Response of the observer to the response of the First Party to the appeals.

• Height of Njord tower and helipad will have serious impact on home. • Development contravenes City Development Plan policy relating to high buildings. • Cited precedent cases not comparable. • Display model did not give true and accurate depiction of the area.

10.3 Response of the Planning Authority to the response of the First Party to the appeals.

• Submission asserts that the Planning Authority would generally concur with the issues raised in the submission of the First Party which is broadly similar to the Planning Authority’ previous submission.

11.0 ASSESSMENT

11.1 Having examined the file, considered the prevailing local and national policies, inspected the site and assessed the proposal and all submissions, I consider the key issues to be: • Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement • Principle of development. • Scale of the development and proposed visual impact and urban design. • Impact on established residential amenity and adjacent properties. • Residential Amenity of the proposed units. • Traffic and Access. • Site decontamination. • Other matters.

11.2. ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

11.2.1 The prescribed information to be contained in an Environmental Impact Statement EIS is set out in Article 94 and Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001. The EIS submitted with the application addresses the impact of the proposed development under all the relevant headings.

11.2.2 I note certain shortcomings in the EIS, which are discussed further under the relevant headings below. As regards the issue of alternatives, it is asserted that a review of alternative site locations was not relevant as the site is zoned mixed use opportunity site and therefore alternative sites were relevant to the development plan and its policies. On the issue of alternative detailing and site layout the EIS discusses alternative marina and boardwalk construction

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 26 methods and operation. In relation to the tower the discussion relates to alternative tower location and it is asserted that the proposed location was conclusively found to be best case in the interest of maximising solar gain, minimising overshadowing of existing residential development and achieving the desire to draw the eye through the development to the western end. The do nothing alternative is unfavourable having regard to the derelict nature of the site and zoning provisions of the development plan. I consider that the issue of alternatives is poorly explored in particular as alternative detailed design.

11.2.3 Notwithstanding such shortcomings I consider that the content and scope of the EIS, as supplemented by further information and accompanying reports complies with the legislative requirements and is adequate for the purposes of informed decision making.

11.3 Principle of Development.

11.3.1 In relation to the principle of development, having regard to the zoning provisions of the site as set out in the Waterford City Council Development Plan 2007-2013, I consider that the principle of development is acceptable. The third parties refer to the North West Suburbs Action Area Plan and neighbourhood centres of Carrickpherish and Gracedieu and argue that the proposal will impact on the vitality of Carrickpherish and will negate the green wedge, a key feature of the North West Suburb Action Area Plan. On this matter I consider that the first party is correct in the assertion that the site is not specifically addressed by the North West Suburbs Action Area Plan and that there is no fundamental conflict in principle with the objectives.

11.4 Scale and layout of development, Visual Impact and Urban Design

11.4.1 In terms planning and design concept, The First Party asserts that the proposal will form an extension of the existing quay and is broken down into different areas with different scale developments contained within but an overall consistency of quality and design throughout. In terms of visual impact at the macro level views are mostly confined to the River Suir corridor from where it is asserted that the visual impact is generally beneficial given the capacity of the site to accommodate development of this nature in close proximity to the city centre. It is asserted that this development provides visual focus along the river corridor and a landmark destination and sense of arrival in the city context. In terms of transition it is argued that the architecture of the site with landmark tower block and hierarchy of lower buildings and exterior spaces achieves a visual transition with street trees and landscaped courtyards softening the exterior facades of the buildings and dense vegetative corridors along the Bilberrry Road and the Waterfront creating the framework for future connectivity to and from surrounding development and the city centre.

11.4.2 At the micro level it is acknowledged that adverse impact and sense of overlooking will be experienced by residents adjacent to the northwest boundary and within residential estate on the hillside.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 26

11.4.3 The site specific zoning objective for the site does not include any visual guidance for developing the site. The proposal involves a plot site ratio of 1:5.1 and site coverage of 45%. The Development Plan is not definitive in terms of plot ratio rather places greater reliance on the qualitative factors defining built form including height; public and private open space provision, standards of roads and parking provision to inform a decision on the acceptability of any particular proposal.

11.4.4 The site development standards in respect of building height control as set out at 11.2 of the Waterford City Development Plan 2007-2013 outlines 14 considerations to be taken into account in determination of an application for a high building. These relate to issues of overshadowing, overlooking, impact on streetscape, structures or spaces of architectural heritage importance, impact on landmarks, views, level of obtrusion on the skyline, scale in relation to surrounding space, visual transition, whether the purpose or civic importance of the building would justify its prominence, effect on micro climate, advertising impact.

11.4.5 The predominant pattern of residential development in the vicinity of the site is two storey and single storey properties. However I consider that the characteristics of the site, in particular the topography of the area, detachment from established residential properties and location on the riverfront, creates an opportunity to provide for taller building volumes. The question arises as to the degree to which the intervention proposed is appropriate to the setting and respects the established development in the vicinity and mitigates impact on residential amenity.

11.4.6 I note a number of positive aspects to the design framework, which is based on landmark structures, subdivision of the residential blocks to provide for increased river views, avoidance of long monolithic development along the river, creation of a diverse waterscape and high quality public realm. However I consider that it is the scale of the buildings that pose significant problems. The proposed Njord Tower rises to 33 storeys 111.6m over finished ground floor level (133 to top of roof feature). Whilst as noted above, the site has landmark gateway potential, I consider that there is insufficient justification for a building of this height at this location. There is no policy context for such a building and the site presents contextual constraints particularly in terms of access and topography. I concur with the views of the third party objectors that the precedents cited by the first party are all very different contexts not relevant to the current site, which is at a distance of 1.5km from the city centre. The topography of the area and nature of the road network provide that the site is quite removed from the city centre. The proposed development represents a stark contrast to the prevailing pattern of development in the vicinity and would constitute an over development and over intensification of use on the site and would detract from the visual amenity of the area.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 26 11.5 Residential Amenity of the Proposed Units.

11.5.1 In response to concerns raised in respect of residential amenity in the request for additional information, the proposal was revised to provide balconies to a number of residential units and provide private gardens at podium level. The Apartment Audit which is submitted as further information sought to test the revised proposal against the standards set out in The Sustainable Urban Housing Design Standards for New Apartments, 2007. In total there are 32 single aspect units (12 of these north facing within the tower) and 148 units (37%) without private open space. Excluding the Njord tower there are 9 single aspect units (4%) and 7 units (2.7%) without private open space.

11.5.2 In terms of recommended minimum floor areas and internal space standards the unit sizes are generally in line or in excess of minimum standards. As regards open space within the Njord Tower (within which residential units are accommodated on floors 11-32) communal private open space is at podium level with an area of 1,484sq.m. dedicated for future residents. In addition there is a 96sq.m entertainment room and 70 sq.m. games hall on mezzanine level. In relation to communal open space to serve the overall development this is provided in the space between the blocks and at roof top level (mix of public space and viewing areas). There are six play areas (three private play areas and crèche play area between the blocks and two public play areas at the waterfront boardwalk). I consider that the Third Parties raise valid questions in relation to the lack of amenities for older children and conflict and safety issues arising from location of the play areas adjacent to the rail line and boardwalk. The crèche play area is also not immediately accessible. I conclude that the layout will not provide for a hierarchy of open spaces, which would be a requirement having regard to the scale of development proposed. Furthermore the separation of open space amenity areas within the Njord Tower is also problematic. I also concur with the third party appellant’s view that overshadowing of play areas by the buildings within the site is not insignificant.

11.5.3 In relation to micro climate, a wind engineering desk study was carried out in respect of the proposed design to assess wind effect around tall buildings. The assessment used industry standard Lawson assessment criteria and results found that the wind effects from the development are generally confined within the site itself with the exception of the Njord Tower and hotel where down wind effects may impact on neighbouring inland region. It is proposed that mitigation strategies would be further explored as part of the development. The assessment provided no detailed analysis of sunlighting daylighting and on this basis I consider that the quality of the environment for the occupants of the proposed dwelling units is poorly explored.

11.6 Impact on established residential amenity of adjacent properties .

11.6.1 As regards the issue of overshadowing, a revised shadow analysis for March, June, September and December was submitted in response to the request for additional information. The analysis demonstrates that the only occurrence of

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 26 overshadowing is to the Watersgate development to the west. The extent of analysis is limited and I note that not all established development is shown on shadow analysis drawings. The submission suggests that the development is in line with BRE Guidelines which state that access to potential sunlight should not be reduced below 80% of the former value after construction.

11.6.2 On the issue of overlooking it is asserted that in relation to the western boundary, the hotel conference centre is circa 30 metres from the boundary, hotel is50metres and there is approximately 80metres between the Njord Tower and the boundary. To the southwest residential developments lie circa 120 metres from the boundary and approximately 160metres separates residential development from the residential tower. The submission on behalf of the first party relies on the fact that the separation distances are in excess of those recommended in the Department of the Environment’s Residential Density Guidelines for Planning Authorities 1999. As the minimum separation distances therein relate to standard two storey back to back residences, the relevance of achievement of these standards is tenuous in the context of the current application.

11.6.3 As noted not all existing residences adjacent to the north west of the site are represented on the submitted plans. The submitted plans are patently lacking in detail in terms of describing the nature of the relationship between the proposed development and the established residential properties adjacent to the west. Contiguous elevations are deficient. For the information of the Board, I note that there is a recently constructed two-storey dwelling adjoining to the north west boundary and which is orientated towards the site. The impact on this dwelling will be significant with a fifteen storey hotel presenting within 60metres and a 33 storey tower within 90 metres. Furthermore notwithstanding the geographical separation distance of the site from adjacent dwellings to the south and southwest, the topography of the area has the impact of lessening distance and the proposal development will as a result give rise to significant domineering impact and sense of overlooking.

11.6.4 The scale volume and design of the new development is significant and in my view the proposed development would have negative and prominent impact on the visual and residential amenities of the area. As regards the development’s contribution to the streetscape, whilst the site’s current derelict presentation to Bilberry Road is detrimental to the amenities of the area and therefore re- development of the site would be an improvement, I consider that the proposal fails to provide for an appropriate transition between adjacent established development and this represents a design failure to integrate the proposal within the established local community.

11.6.5 The proposed development seeks to exploit the potential of the site having regard to its location and having regard to the present under-utilised and derelict nature of the site. This is a positive objective but must have regard to the established pattern of development and the residential amenities of existing adjacent structures. Whilst I note that the location and characteristics of the site and the development plan provisions would allow for some flexibility in terms of overshadowing and overlooking, I consider that the development

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 26 design is excessive in scale resulting in over dominance in proportion and in the context of the surrounding established area and in this sense constitutes an over development of the site.

11-7 Traffic and Access

11.7.1 The provision for rail line through the site is a welcome proposal although as noted by the third party objectors, the likely timeframe for provision of rail link is in question. In relation to access and internal circulation on site, a stage one road safety audit was carried out and submitted as further information and identifies internal issues arising and recommends appropriate measures.

11.7.2 As regards the capacity of the road network in the vicinity of the site, I note that Bilberry Road is extremely narrow and particularly hazardous for pedestrians. The traffic and transportation documentation within the application file indicates discussions with Waterford City Council revealed that there are road and junction improvements proposed for the Rice Bridge/ Merchants Quay / Bridge Street Bilberry Road Junction which would include additional right turning lane from Rice Bridge into Bilberry Road provision for cycle lanes, bus lanes and footpaths. Submission concludes that based on projected traffic conditions the likely traffic generated by the proposal would have a negligible impact on the Rice Bridge / Merchants Quay / Bridge Street / Bilberry Road junction.

11.7.3 Proposals for the upgrade of Bilberry Road are not finalised at the time of decision of Waterford City Council and therefore condition 3 with accompanying map of the road reservation line requires that the road reservation line be reserved free from development in order to facilitate future road improvements. A revised site layout plan in compliance was to be submitted for the written agreement of the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. As outlined on Drawing entitled “Site Layout Plan indicating Bilberry Road line Option” Ref: 07-104-PL-M-13 which was submitted in response to the request for additional information, the road reservation line impinges significantly on the site particularly the south western extremity of site frontage and would impact on circulation area, entrances and car parking. I would therefore concur with the views expressed by the third party appellants that the significance of the revisions to the layout is material and therefore not suited to condition precedent. However I do not consider that this issue presents an obstacle to an appropriate development of the site.

11.8 Site Decontamination

11.8.1 On the issue of the contaminated nature of the land, the third party appellants assert that the land should be decontaminated prior to redevelopment of the site. I note that the EPA did not respond to the Boards referral for comment on the application. The Environmental Assessment Report, which was prepared in January 2007 to comply in part with IPPC licence conditions, was

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 26 submitted following the request for additional information and concludes that generally there are no contamination issues with the native materials under the current site conditions. However fill materials in localised areas across the site and extending to a maximum depth of 1.0mbgl contain elevated levels of contaminants that have the potential to pose risks to human health and/ or the environment. Principal contaminants of concern are PAHs and toxic metals with localised hot spots of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants. Results of Tier 1 and Tier 2 risk assessments conclude that the soils and groundwater on site following site development will not pose any risks to the environment. It was established that groundwater under the site does not pose any risks to human health or the environment and therefore does not warrant remediation. The risk assessments have indicated a potential risk to human health receptors (i.e future site users and occupiers) from surface soils via the direct contact and volatisation to indoor air exposure routes.

11.8.2 The recommendations are that soils exceeding the Tier 2 site-specific risk assessment criteria should either be removed or risks mitigated using engineering controls, which remove the pathway between the contaminant sources and the potential receptor. An Environmental Consultant should be onsite to visually inspect all soils, which are excavated for risk mitigation purposes, and to inspect engineering control measures during installation phase and at completion. On site monitoring utilising a Photo-Ionisation Detector (PID) should be undertaken to detect any soil vapours that may indicate the presence of contamination during excavation works and, in the case of removal of contaminants, confirmation samples should be collected for analysis to confirm that all contaminated material exceeding applicable risk assessment criteria has been removed.

11.8.3 In the response to request for additional information on the issue it was asserted that it has been agreed with the EPA that a further round of soil sampling and testing will be undertaken when the buildings are demolished in order to verify the findings of the risk assessment and to further establish the need for localised areas of soil removal. I consider that this issue is appropriately dealt with in the context of the residential management plan and issue does not present a reason for refusal.

11.9 Other Matters.

11.9.1 As regards archaeological or cultural impact, I accept the findings of the EIS that the red brick former station building which has been heavily modified is of no particular architectural merit is however is of social / cultural significance. To mitigate the removal of the building it is proposed that the building be surveyed in advance of demolition to provide record of remaining elements of Waterford South Station. The site is unlikely to contain below ground archaeological remains and the only likelihood relates to the possible survival of maritime material buried in the silts beneath the infilled riverbank, which should be undisturbed except where piling occurs.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 26 11.9.2 The Flora and Fauna Assessment found that there is little of conservation interest in the site or adjacent to the property other than the marginal interest of the River Suir noting that the natural bank has been infilled on site. There is local interest in the stand of trees in the north west corner and bats may roost in this group of trees and while otter would pass along the shoreline at times. Mitigation proposals include measures to prevent restrictions to the unhindered movement of otters along the riverbank, protection of birds, protection and improvement of the riverbank, protection of water quality and protection of bats. Impact on flora and fauna does not present an obstacle to the development of the site.

11.9.3 In relation to the helipad, it was determined that the helipad would be considered as an elevated heliport, which under current aviation legislation must be licensed by the IAA and would be subject to annual inspection. Standards and recommended practices applicable to an elevated heliport are contained in Annex 14, Volume 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and include provision that the size of the heliport which must have a diameter 1.5 times the overall length of the helicopter to operate to the site and be surrounded by a safety area of at least 3m or 0.25 times the overall length of the helicopter. I note that the decision of the Council omitted the helipad from the permission on the basis that design did not comply with IAA requirements. I also consider that the implications and environmental impact of the provision of a helipad on the site are poorly explored within the Environmental Impact Statement.

12.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

12.1 On the basis of the information submitted, it is considered that the scale mass bulk and height of this development is excessive. The proposal represents an overdevelopment and over intensification of use on the site, would be visually obtrusive, would be out of character with the surrounding area and would dominate and devalue property in the vicinity. Having considered the file and all submissions and having visited the site, and in light of the above assessment I recommend that permission be refused for the following reasons and considerations.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. Having regard to its scale, massing, bulk and height, it is considered that the proposed development represents an over-development and over- intensification of use on the site and would result in a development that would be out of character with the surrounding area, would be visually obtrusive and overbearing. It would, as a result, be seriously injurious to the amenities of the area, would dominate and devalue property in the vicinity The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 26 2. Having regard to the scale, massing and layout of the proposed buildings, to the prevailing climate and topography of the area and to the submissions made in connection with the planning application and the appeal, including the environmental impact statement and associated documentation, the Board is not satisfied that the proposed development would bring about a high quality environment for future occupants, having regard to considerations of microclimate, including availability of daylight and penetration of sunlight. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Bríd Maxwell, Planning Inspector. 15 June 2009

PL 31.232507 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 26