An Bord Pleanála.

Inspector’s Report

Case References: 26.KA0012 / 26.HA0017

Description of Development: Strategic Infrastructure Road Development. Provision of a service station. CPO and EIS Approval.

Address: Ballyellin, Ballyellin Upper and Ballyellin Lower, , County .

Applicant:

Objectors to CPO Scheme: 1. David and Helen Byrne 2. Francis and Miriam Seale 3. Kenneth Walters 4. Tadhg and Mary O’Scanaill

Objectors to the EIS Scheme: 1. Doran O’Toole. 2. Ruth and Dorothy Hughes. 3. Carol Brauders 4. Eileen and Ray Collins 5. John and Allison Mc Carthy 6. Donal and Olivia Molloy 7. Patrick Fleming 8. Liz Gardiner 9. Kenneth and Eimear Kenny 10. Lyndsey and Joshua Walters 11. Bryan and Rachella O’Donnell

1 12. Gerard and Teresa Tobin 13. Patrick and Mary Condren 14. Naomi Seale and Roy Dempsey 15. Ciaran and Eilish Fleming 16. Ballyellin Residents Group

Dates of Oral Hearing: 24 th , 25 th , 26 th , 27 th and 31 st of March and 1 st of April 2009.

Date of Site Inspection: 18 th March 2009 and 26 th March 2009.

Inspector: Derek Daly

2 CONTENTS.

1. INTRODUCTION.

2. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

4. APPLICATION DETAILS

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

6. RAL HEARING.

7. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS OF ORAL HEARING

7.1 Submissions of NRA and Wexford County Council

Mr. Dermot Mc Guinness S.C. Mr Pat Maher in relation to NRA Policy; Miss Cliona Ryan in relation to Planning Context and the Socio Economic Impact. Mr D Houston Planning Dept Wexford County Council Mr. Ernie Crawford in relation to General Design Information including Site Selection. Mr. James Montgomery in relation to Architecture. Mr. Peter Heffernan in relation to the installation of Fuel Facilities. Miss Lisa Courtney in relation to Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; Miss Jennifer Harmon in relation to Noise and Vibration; Dr. Eoin Collins in relation to Air and Climate; Mr. Kieran O'Dwyer in relation to Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology; Mr. Francis Ryan in relation to Surface Water Drainage; Mr. Gordon Barry in relation to Foul Drainage; Mr Gerry Forde Wexford County Council Water Services Mr Michael Jones Wexford County Council Water Services Mr. John Bligh in relation to Agricultural Properties; Mr. Michael Sadlier , a specialist in Equine Matters; Miss Janet Slattery in relation to Ecology; Mr. Kevin Cleary in relation to Public Lighting; Mr. Thomas Burns in relation to Landscape and Visual Impact. Mr. Martin Deegan in relation to Traffic Issues;

7.2 Submissions of other parties

Mr Michael O’Donnell B.L. Mr Karl Searson Chartered Consulting Engineer Mr Francis Seale a local resident Mr Tadgh O’Scannail a local resident

3 Bernard Kavanagh Chartered Consulting Engineer Mrs Mary Condren a local resident Mr David Byrne a local resident Mrs Eileen Collins a local resident Mr Tony Byrne a local resident Mr Ciaran and Mrs Eilish Fleming local residents Mr Kenneth Kenny a local resident Mrs Mary O’Scannail a local resident Mr Roy Dempsey a local resident Mr Gerard Tobin a local resident and horticulturist Mr Donal Molloy a local resident Mrs Rachella O’Donnell a local resident Mrs Liz Gardner a local resident Mr Ray Collins a local resident

7.3

Closing Submission of Mr Mc Guinness S.C.

8. ASSESSMENT.

9. CONCLUSION.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

11. APPENDICIES

Appendix 1 Objections and the submissions to An Bord Pleanala in relation to the EIS Approval.

Appendix 2 Objections and the submissions to An Bord Pleanala in relation to the CPO.

4

1. INTRODUCTION

An application has been made by the National Roads Authority for the construction of a motorway service area referred to as the N11 Gorey North Service Area Scheme under Section 47 (2) of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended by Section 9(1) (a) of the Roads Act 2007. The site of the service station is situated on the west side of the N11 north of Gorey and south of . The application has been the subject of a number of objections mainly from surrounding landowners and residents.

2. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The site has a stated area of approximately 13.3 hectares, 10.2 hectares on the west side and 3.1 hectares on the east side and is located approximately 9 kilometres from Gorey and 9 kilometres from Arklow. The site is primarily located on the western side of the N11. To the east of the site a local road (L-1003-01) runs in an east-west direction linking the village of to the northwest to the village of Castletown to southeast. The L-1003-01 traverses the N11 as a flyover.

3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed scheme comprises the provision of service area facilities in the form of a Type 2 Service Area as indicated in the NRA Technical Guidance Document TA 70/08. Type 2 Service areas are larger scale service areas providing an amenity building together with other facilities. The development is a single sided service area, which is generally provided where the total design year AADT on the route is less than 40,000. The facilities will be primarily on the west side of the N11. Access to and from the facility will be via slip roads directly off the northbound carriageway. The lands on the east side of the N11 required so that slip roads and an overbridge can be constructed to allow traffic from the southbound carriageway use the facility.

On the west side of the N11 it is proposed to provide, • Fuel storage and dispensing facilities for cars and heavy commercial vehicles, • A service building including fuel payment and shop facilities, restaurant facilities, toilet facilities, showers, baby changing rooms, indoor children’s play areas, travel / tourist information point and an ATM, • Parking for cars, heavy goods vehicles and coaches, • Picnic area, • Outdoor children’s play area, • Slip roads to and from the facility from the N11, • Circulatory roads within the service area, • Access points for employees from the L-1003-01 local road to the facility, • Lay-by for use by agencies enforcing traffic legislation, • Associated ancillary works including foul and surface water drainage and water supply.

5 4. APPLICATION DETAILS.

The Application lodged under Section 51(2) (as amended by Section 9(1) (e) (i) of the Road Act 2007) to the Board on the 10 th October 2008. An E.I.S. has been prepared in accordance with Section 50 (as amended by Section 9(1) (d) of the Roads Act, 2007) in respect of the development. A list of prescribed bodies on whom notice was served was also attached.

For the purpose of this development it is proposed to compulsorily acquire land or a substratum of land and certain rights in relation to land; extinguish certain private rights of way; prohibit, alter, divert or restrict a means of direct access to and from the proposed service area.

Documentation submitted including notices, schedules and maps associate with the development. A preliminary design report including a separate volume of drawing and a site selection report was submitted.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.

An Environmental Impact Statement was submitted by the NRA and the report addresses these impacts in accordance with the statutory requirements. The EIS was in four volumes, a non-technical summary, main report, drawings and appendices. On day 6 of the oral hearing a document of errata relating to the EIS was also submitted.

Many of the issues raised in objection to the development arise in relation to the information submitted in the statement and these issues were further considered in the course of an oral hearing in submissions made by the applicant, in questions arising and in the submissions by objectors to the proposal.

6. ORAL HEARING.

An Oral hearing in relation to the development was held in the Ashdown Park Hotel, Gorey, Co. Wexford, which commenced on the 24 th of March 2009 and concluded on the 1 st April 2009.

A transcript of the proceedings of the oral hearing was taken and considered in the assessment of this development.

7. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS OF ORAL HEARING

7.1. Submissions of the National Roads Authority /Wexford County Council.

7.1.1.

Mr. Dermot Mc Guinness , Senior Counsel on behalf of the NRA set out the position of the NRA that the land acquisition proposed for the service area is approximately 13.3 hectares, 10.2 on the western side and 2.1 on the eastern side of the N1. The scheme as proposed seeks to acquire two large plots of land in the ownership and occupation of two persons which is currently agricultural land and ten other relatively small plots in the ownership of other owners is also being acquired.

6 Additionally no public rights of way are being affected or extinguished and there are no relevant planning permissions relating to the land being acquired for the scheme which will be affected or modified or both.

Attention was drawn to a number of deletions proposed from the schedule; referring to schedule 1, deletion of four plots was proposed from Schedule 1 Part 2 No. 1 -plots 104A101 and 104B102, 105A101 and 105A102. These are plots which it was proposed to acquire these was in order to give safe lines of visibility for traffic emerging from using the access road to the proposed site. The NRA has carefully considered the objections of Mr. & Mrs. O'Scannail and Mr. & Mrs. Seale and now proposes to omit these lands in tandem with a consideration of the objections of a number of other local residents; it is proposed therefore to delete these plots from the schedule of lands to be acquired and that would be a modification which the NRA would be asking the Board to make to the scheme without obviously the necessity for issuing any new CPO order or document.

Mr Mc Guinness indicated that drawings which will be made available to show the revised location of the access road.

7.1.2

Mr. Pat Maher, Head of Network Operations of the National Roads Authority in his submission outlined the objectives in relation to road development under Transport 21 and the evolution of NRA policies regarding service areas. Initially it was the intention that service area needs on the motorway / network was to be provided by the private sector but in mid-2005, the NRA was requested to provide service areas along the motorway network as clear intention of interest in providing such facilities by the private sector were not forthcoming.

In September 2006 the NRA stated it was their intention to provide these service stations. Mr. Maher went on to outline the provision of these service stations on a national scale and highlighted the importance of providing such facilities in terms of safety, convenience and amenity issues with reference to correspondence from the Road Safety Authority (RSA).

As a consequence of the scale of the present national roads programme it is now possible to travel on dual carriageway or motorway standard road from the Northern Ireland border to the south of Gorey town with just a short remaining section of two lane road between and Arklow. The overall distance from the border to the southern end of the Gorey Bypass is in excess of 200 kilometres and traffic on these new roads is no longer obliged to pass through towns and villages, many of which experienced serious traffic congestion when the urban areas concerned were directly on the national road network, highlighting the need to provide service facilities on the N11 and to met the needs of people travelling on the N11.

The NRA's approach as then outlined envisaged that service areas would be provided for users of motorways and high quality dual carriageways at intervals of approximately 50-60 kilometres, where feasible, having regard to engineering, safety, environmental and other relevant considerations and the possibility was left open to cater for road users needs through a combination of facilities located on-line where

7 proposals are brought forward by the Authority and / or local authorities and at or close to interchanges in the case of proposals promoted by commercial interests.

NRA policy and implementation strategy continued to evolve and led the Authority to identify optimum locations for up to twelve on-line service areas distributed across the five major inter-urban routes as well as the N11 Wexford Road. The Authority's intention to actively implement a service area programme and the key elements of that implementation strategy were reiterated in the Authority's Policy for Provision of Service Areas on Motorways and High Quality Dual Carriageways which issued in October 2007.

He referred to international comparisons in Europe and the U.S. and outlined the benefits of providing on-line facilities (away from interchanges) compared to the provision of off-line facilities (at interchanges) in particular from the point of view of safety and that the preferred option was on-line locations as access directly off the mainline is most convenient for road users, the benefit in terms of reduced fatigue related road accidents, there are benefits in relation to road safety and traffic movement, there was a preference for on-line service areas on roads of motorway standard in the UK and other European countries, which were examined and the Roads Act 1993 as amended, provides the statutory basis to regulate the provision of service areas on national roads and for on-line service area proposals using the service area scheme procedure set out in the Act.

Pat Maher of the National Roads Authority in his evidence then outlined criteria for site selection of service area locations in a broad context identifying the optimum locations for service areas on motorways and high quality dual carriageways and a key consideration in this regard was a general objective to achieve to the extent feasible the siting of on-line service areas at intervals of about 50 to 60 km which equates to a typical travel time of about 30 minutes.

In relation to site identification regard was made to a range of factors including, route length, distance from junctions to avoid traffic weaving problems, traffic volumes and related potential road user demand for service area facilities, suitability of site in terms of land holding size and general layout, site levels relative to the mainline and drainage, access to the local road network to cater for construction traffic, also employees access from the local area to the services area and where appropriate certain delivery vehicles and avoidance of archaeology and other environmental constraints. These issues would be addressed in later briefs of evidence.

Reference was made by Mr. Maher to Design Standard TA70/08 which sets out basic parameters for the design of service stations. In relation to single versus double sided facilities the NRA determined that above a threshold AADT traffic volume of approximately 40,000 a two sided facility would be provided serving each side of the motorway/dual carriageway; below a value of 40,000 AADT it is less economic to locate a service area serving each direction of traffic flow and in such situations service area facilities will generally be located on one side of the motorway with a bridge providing access to the facility for traffic travelling in the opposite carriageway.

8 Mr. Maher then submitted a paper specifically responding to the objections raised by third parties in relation to NRA service station policy.

Many of the issues raised in questions by many parties to Mr Maher related to the evolution of policy by the NRA in relation to service area provision on the motorway network, to the spacing of these areas, the issue of on-line and off-line locations, to consideration of alternative sites adjacent to the N11 primarily in the Arklow area on zoned lands offering possible on-line and off-line access in proximity to a junction, the consultation process with local people.

7.1.3.

Ms Cliona Ryan Planning Consultant presented two papers in relation to Planning Context and Socio-Economic issues.

Ms. Ryan outlined the strategic planning context in relation to National Development Plan, National Spatial Strategy, Retail Planning Guidelines, and TA70/08 (NRA Publication) referring to investment under the Transport Programme of the NDP, supporting balanced regional development with transport networks developing an improved mesh or network of roads and public transport services including the development of the N11.

In relation to the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2005, service Areas are not considered within the Retail Planning Guidelines and are explicitly a function of and ancillary to the presence of the high quality dual carriageway and in view of the service area on-line location on the N11 and the limited retail offering associated with the scheme it is considered that the service area will not act as a destination shopping facility and therefore will not create additional travel patterns nor affect existing travel patterns

In relation to statutory plan provisions Ms Ryan referred to the Wexford County Development Plan 2007 – 2013; the Plan also specifically considers roadside services in Section 3.3.4 and that the Planning Authority in assessing applications for Road Side Services will have regard to the NRA Policy Statement Provision of Service Areas and Rest Areas on Motorways and High Quality Dual Carriageways.

The site it was indicated does not contain, nor is it adjacent to any protected land area or features as evidenced in the relevant sections of the EIS, is considered to promote the sustainable development objectives of the Wexford County Development Plan and the operational impact of the proposed development on the local planning context of the subject lands is considered to be positive, long term and moderate.

In relation to socio economic considerations Ms Ryan concluded that it was considered that the proposed scheme will not have a significant negative material effect on, nor diminish the existing residential or agricultural amenity of surrounding lands by virtue of the design and layout of the scheme and mitigation proposed as part of the development.

Ms. Ryan then presented submissions specifically dealing with third party objections.

9 Many of the issues raised in questions by many parties to Ms Ryan related to the consultation process with local people, clarity in relation to local impacts or perceived lack of impacts in her evidence and issues relating to the development plan.

7.1.4.

Mr Ernie Crawford gave evidence on general design details and the land to be acquired and described the following aspects of the project, the site selection process, details of the proposed scheme and the lands to be acquired for the scheme

In considering the site selection process on the N11 a number of factors determined the preferred locations of service areas along the particular route, including the overall length of the route between Dublin and Rosslare, the location of major towns along the route, traffic volumes and related potential road user demand for service area facilities, proximity of existing grade separated junctions to one another and topographical constraints

A primary constraint in identifying possible suitable sites is the necessity to avoid conflict between traffic using the service area slip roads and traffic using the slip roads of the nearest adjacent junction with reference to NRA standard TD 22, which identifies that ideally a minimum distance of 2km should be provided from one junction to the next to allow for sufficient lengths for streams of vehicles to safely merge and diverge between the junctions. This Mr. Crawford indicated equated to a minimum distance of approximately 6km between existing junctions in order to accommodate a new service area and its required merge and diverge slip roads between any existing junctions but he also indicated that where a new junction is being constructed and the minimum distance of 2km is not achievable this may be reduced to a minimum 1km as a relaxation or a departure from standards depending on the traffic volumes.

Mr. Crawford outlined the site selection process and the section of the N11 from a distance of 33.5km to 81.5km from the M50 junction was examined initially extending from the proposed junction at the Beehive to the Clogh roundabout south of Gorey.

The section between Junction 18 Beehive and Junction 20 Arklow North was discounted for geometrical reasons. The section between Junction 20 Arklow North to Junction 21 Arklow South was discounted as preliminary proposals are in place to provide an interchange at the R747 Aughrim Road which is located approximately halfway between these two junctions

The remaining sections, Junction 21 Arklow to Clogh Roundabout were all deemed suitable in terms of junction spacing and were evaluated further and this section was considered to be the study area for the N11 Gorey North Service Area. Arising from this assessment six sites were examined within this section of road, Site 1A Ballyellin West, Site 1B Ballyellin East, Site 2A Killybegs West, Site 2B Killybegs East, Site 3A Moneycross Upper West, Site 3B Moneycross Upper East and these are shown on Figures 2.6 and 2.7 of Volume 3 of the EIS.

It was concluded from an assessment of the sites that the preferred site location for the

10 N11 Gorey North Service Area was Ballyellin West Site 1A with the site considered to represent the best compromise of all technical and environmental criteria as the site meets the spacing requirement between service areas and has sufficient land available and unrestricted frontage on to the N11 to accommodate an interchange.

Mr Crawford then outlined lands to be Acquired for the Scheme referring to the CPO Deposited Map, TJSARE-S11-CP-003, that the lands to be acquired had a total area of 16.67 hectares, on the original deposit map but that was subsequently changed to 16.61 hectares with the omission of the four plots referred to on the first day of the hearing.

Mr. Crawford then outlined details of the proposed Type 2 Service Area and that the design and layout of the proposed service area is based on the NRA advice note TA 70/08 "The Location and Layout of Service Areas." In his submission the various components of the development including layout and services were outlined at length.

Details were also outlined of amendments arising from the revised entrance onto the local road and other mitigation proposals with reference to Figure 3.2 Rev. D . (Note this revised drawing formed the basis of the main revision to the development arising from responses to initial objections and submissions received to the development).

Mr. Crawford then presented submissions specifically dealing with third party objections.

Given the nature of Mr. Crawford’s brief of evidence many of the parties including the inspector addressed questions not just regarding the broad site selection process i.e. the defining of the area south of the Beehive Junction to the Clogh roundabout but more details issues relating to the six sites identified, the methodology used in evaluating sites and the issue of on-line and off-line selection of sites.

Consideration of alternative sites adjacent to the N11 primarily in the Arklow area on zoned lands rather than the selected site offering possible on-line and off-line access in proximity to a junction was raised at length by Mr Kavanagh not only in relation to broad issues but also in aspects of detail relating to spacing from junctions, road geometry, lane merge and availability of services. Aspects of the development on the selected site also arose particularly in the context of the revised details submitted generally referred to as the revised D proposals and the implications of the revisions on other potential impacts. The primary case made and presented in these questions was the perceived flawed nature of the site selection process both in broad policy terms and specific assessment of the six sites.

Mr Crawford was questioned in relation to aspects of the development, the layout, changes to the original proposal, the construction phase, impacts generally on local residents and the consultation process with local people (day 2 pages 160 to 224).

7.1.5.

Mr James Montgomery architect gave evidence in relation to the buildings proposed on the site indicating the overall size of the amenity buildings has been determined in two ways. Firstly, the restaurant seating capacity has been related to the total parking

11 provision for passenger cars and heavy commercial vehicles and secondly, the convenience shop size is related to the total vehicle turn-in portion of average annual daily traffic. The overall size of the building to be provided is approximately 1400 square metres including 230 square metres for the convenience shop and seating for up to 175 people.

Mr Montgomery was questioned by Mr O’Toole, Mr Searson and Mr O’Scannail (Day 2 pages 224 to 235) in relation to similar type developments in other countries, aspects of the ventilation system, the issue of whether it is a definitive design and impact on residential properties.

7.1.6.

Mr Peter Heffernan presented a submission on the fuel systems proposed and indicated that the design, construction and operation of a retail fuelling facility in Ireland is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Dangerous Substances Act 1972 and Dangerous Substances (Retail and Private Petroleum Stores) Regulations 1979 to 2008 and other statutory and regulatory codes. The design of tanks provides for leak detection and prevention. Question were put to Mr. Heffernan in relation to safety measures, controls on ADR vehicles and groundwater protection (Day 3 Pages 8 to 40)

7.1.7.

Mr. D Houston Senior Planner Wexford County Council read from a submission and indicated that the Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013 is the relevant development plan for the subject area and sets out the broad development guidelines for the county over the plan period and offers guidance to developers in framing development proposals and this is the primary tool available to the planning authority for assessing development proposals.

The proposed service area is located outside of any local plan areas and does not therefore hold a specific land use zoning objective but is considered to be a rural site within the rural countryside. Proposals for development in rural areas are considered on their merits having regards to the provisions of the development control standards of the Development Plan and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and that the provision of this service area is considered to be an important element in the future development of the Euro Route 1 and therefore complies with the aims and objectives contained within the Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013.

Questions were addressed to him from the inspector and a number of parties (Day 2 pages 43 to 68) in particular relating to provisions of the development plan and in particular the issue of service areas and petrol filling stations in the rural areas. The issue of submission to the development plan and whether the NRA made a submission was raised in the context of site selection.

12 7.1.8.

Ms. Lisa Courtney presented a submission relating to archaeology and cultural heritage and concluded no residual impacts are envisaged as all archaeological, architectural heritage issues will be resolved at the pre-construction and construction stages of the development

7.1.9

Ms. Jennifer Harmon gave evidence in relation to noise issues and responses to matters raised in the objectors submissions (pages 80 to 140 day 3). It was indicated that the existing noise climate was quantified by a series of baseline noise surveys conducted during day and night-time periods in accordance with ISO 1996 Acoustics: Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environmental Noise 2007; predicted noise levels associated with the service area construction phase have been assessed using modelling and are well within the recommended noise limits for construction activities set out in the EIS. Arising from these studies the predicted impact was assessed for the nearest noise sensitive properties to the site and proposals for noise mitigation in the form of acoustic screening along the northern site boundary of the service area in order to reduce noise emissions from vehicle movements within the site was outlined.

Noise sources during the survey period were found to be from traffic along the N11 mainline and traffic movements along local adjacent roads during both day and night- time periods. Daytime noise levels were found to be of the order of 54 dBLaeq to the west of the site, between 48 and 52 dBLaeq to the northwest of the site and between 59 and 61 dBLaeq to the northeast of the site.

Night-time noise levels were found to be in the range 39 to 40dBLaeq to the west of the site, between 36 and 42dBLaeq to the northwest of the site and between 37 and 57 dBLaeq to the northeast of the site.

The site it was indicated has been designed to minimise the potential noise impact through considered layout and design. This includes lowering the site by 2 to 3metres below existing ground levels, extensive earth embankments encircling the site perimeter, the location of heavy commercial vehicles HGVs parking areas away from noise sensitive boundaries and plug in points for refrigerated HGVs.

In terms of cumulative Noise Impact from Service Area Activities the total level of noise emissions from the service areas are all within the daytime criterion of 50 dB and the predicted night-time levels associated with the development from each source of noise complies with the night-time criterion of 45 dB Laeq 5 minutes at the nearest noise sensitive properties to the site. The predicted values are therefore within acceptable levels and in conclusion the predicted noise levels from construction activities at the nearest noise sensitive properties are within the appropriate limit value.

As part of her submission Ms Harmon detailed the predicted calculations for each of the sources including traffic accessing the development from the N11 Road, traffic using the local access road, building services plant, car parking, filling station

13 activities, and traffic within the development and refrigeration vehicles parked on the site.

The submission also included a Technical Statement of Assessment of Proposed Revised Mitigation Measures as shown on Revision D in particular the changes arising from the new entrance proposals on the local road and concluded there is no material change to the impact assessment on noise improvements arising from the landscaping proposals and that in the assessment a worse case scenario was examined.

7.1.10.

Dr. E. Collins read from a brief of evidence and a brief of responses to objections on the issue of air quality (pages140 169 Day 3). The submission he indicated that the assessment was carried out using guidance from the National Roads Authority document "Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes" and other current published national and international guidance and standards as required, that the existing ambient air quality was qualified by means of an extensive baseline air quality survey and a review of long-term representative monitoring data complied by the EPA and thereafter, the likely levels of air pollutants associated with both the construction and operational phrases of the proposed development were assessed.

The impact of road traffic emissions associated with the proposed development on exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), benzene, particulate matter with a size less than 10 um (PM10) and particulate matter with a size less than 2.5 um (PM2.5) was determined using air dispersion modelling.

In the summary of the assessment it was indicated that good air quality is currently experienced in the region of the proposed development. In relation to potential impacts indicated at the worst-case assessment locations in the region of the proposed service area are below their respective limit values and that the impact of the proposed service area will be negligible.

In conclusion, in relation to CO, benzene, PM10, PM2.5 and NO2, the results of both the DMRB and CAL3QHCR air dispersion modelling studies show that predicted ambient concentrations in the region of the proposed service area in the opening year will be below the ambient air quality standards set for the protection of human health as for example levels of NO2 are predicted to reach at most 42% of the respective limit values the opening year and the impact on NO2 concentrations will account for at most 3.8% of the limit values.

The responses restated many of the issues raised in the course of submission.

7.1.11.

Ms. Harmon was questioned by the inspector, Mr Searson and a number of other parties in relation to a number of issues including the lowering of the site by approximately 2 to 3m, in general terms and its significance, clarification in relation to current ambient levels and predicted levels arising from the activities proposed on the site, the first entry point for construction vehicles into what will be a development

14 site, the impact on adjoining properties not just in the context of the interior of their properties but within their curtilage, tones at night-time, issues relating to current ambient levels in particular at night time in adjoining residences, mitigation arising from the height and width of berms, the uncertainty of the assessment in the context that the nature of plant in the proposed buildings is unknown and the intermittent impact of HGVs at night,

7.1.12.

Dr. Collins was questioned by the inspector and a number of other parties in relation to a number of issues including, dispersion models, the methodology used for prediction, the sites selected locally, local wind direction patterns, impact on the more approximate properties and issues relating to odour.

7.1.13.

Mr. Kieran O’ Dwyer read from a brief of evidence (page 275 Day 3) relating to soils, geology and hydrogeology assessment, the methodology including a description of bedrock and soils on the site identified as Macamore Clay an overburden of low permeability firm to stiff., which although having poor percolation properties provides excellent protection against the downward mitigation of contaminants due to low permeability.

The area in the vicinity of the proposed development is served by mains water and mains water is proposed on the site. From observation well water level data collected at the end of the pumping test has indicated that under the exceptional occasions when the well may be brought into operation that the drawdown in the nearest neighbouring well would be insufficient to compromise its yield. It is envisaged that this well will be used to top up the fire fighting reservoir and in exceptional circumstances, should there be capacity problems in providing for the service area from the local authority public water supply provide the service area with its daily water usage of water. Groundwater quality at the site was indicated as generally good.

Potential impacts were considered including groundwater pollution from spillages and surface water runoff from the forecourt and the car parking areas and as sewage generated on the site will be treated and piped away from the site, it is not proposed to dispose of treated effluent by discharge to ground and consequently there is no impact on groundwater anticipated.

Mitigation measures were outlined in relation to hydrogeology. Surface water runoff, accidental leaks and spillages of stored hydrocarbons and chemicals, construction impacts and mitigation measures and there were responses to issues raised by other parties.

7.1.14.

Mr. Francis Ryan read from a brief of evidence (page 292 Day 3) relating to surface water drainage. He indicated that the drainage design follows the principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and that the system aims to limit surface water runoff rates from a development to the maximum runoff rate which occurred from the

15 greenfield site with a 100 year return period prior to the development and also provides a series of treatment systems, which combine to ensure that surface water runoff entering the receiving watercourse is of a high quality.

Reference was made to the drainage design and that the fuel station forecourts, fuel delivery areas and paved surfaces surrounding the fuel pumps will be contoured to ensure that all runoff and accidental spillage within these areas will be contained in a closed surface water pipe drainage system. This system will discharge to a full retention light liquids separator with sufficient storage capacity to accept an accidental spillage from a single cell of a fuel delivery vehicle.

From the interceptor, the runoff will pass into the link road and parking area drainage system where it will be treated in a hydrodynamic vortex separator before being discharged into the attenuation storage /constructed wetlands prior to discharge from the Service Area. All of the rainwater draining from the Service Area and the adjacent access roads passes through a final pollution control device before being discharged to the Clonough stream via a process of attenuation to regulate flow rate to the receiving stream.

Runoff from the roofs of the amenity building (including the runoff from the forecourt canopies) will discharge to a dedicated closed-pipe drainage system and may be stored in a storage tank, to be used for grey water recycling, before discharging to the constructed wetland. This runoff will not pass through the attenuation system, ensuring that some proportion of the runoff from the proposed development will re- charge the wetland.

The runoff from the car parking areas on site, the slip roads, internal roadways in the service area, and the heavy commercial vehicle parking will be collected by means of kerbs and road gullies or similar. Closed pipe systems will collect the runoff and discharge via hydrodynamic vortex separators that remove grit, oil, and floatables prior to discharging to an attenuation facility and then to a constructed wetland.

Flow attenuation will be provided to ensure that there will be no increase in peak flows in the watercourse and the volume of storage provided shall be sufficient to accommodate the runoff from a once in one hundred year rainfall event. Pollution controls were it was indicated incorporated into the system and the outfall ditch will run from the attenuation pond/wetlands south to the Clonough River.

The submission also refers to mitigation measures in the construction phase and no residual impacts are anticipated however the surface water drainage design proposed will require maintenance at regular intervals during the life time of the service area facility.

7.1.15.

Mr. Gordon Barry read from a brief of evidence (page 303 Day 3) relating to foul drainage and referred to estimation of the waste water volumes and loads, the identification of the waste water disposal options, the selection of the preferred solution and the identification of the requirements to implement the preferred solution.

16

The waste water volumes and loads generated by the activities on the service area site are estimated as a wastewater volume in 2025 of 36.47m3/day, which approximately equates to a Population Equivalent (PE) of 203, assuming a per capita contribution of 180 l/hd/day. The waste water loading was similarly estimated as 48.180kg BOD5/day, which is a PE of 803. The scheme and treatment plant is designed to provide for additional augmentation of capacity as necessary

In terms of waste water disposal options, the option of treatment followed by discharge to groundwater via a percolation area was discounted in response to the local conditions as was the option of treatment followed by discharge to a receiving water i.e. the Clonough River due to low assimilative capacity The chosen option was discharging to a Local Authority Waste Water Scheme identified the Coolgreany scheme, which offers sufficient capacity to facilitate the proposed service area. Consultations were held with Wexford County Council in relation to this connection and agreement has been reached to allow the waste water be discharged to the Coolgreany Waste Water Treatment Plant. The connection will be authorised by means of a Section 16 Discharge Licence.

It is anticipated that the discharge Licence will require that the collected waste water be treated to a secondary standard prior to being pumped to the Coolgreany collection network and hence to the Waste Water Treatment Plant. This treatment of the waste water to a secondary effluent standard will require the installation of a conventional secondary treatment system on site and the pumping of the treated effluent to the Coolgreany scheme will require a rising main approximately 2.7km long.

It was indicated that odours from wastewater treatment processes can cause nuisances if the facility is not designed to manage and eliminate the odours. The facilities at this location will be provided with passive odour control units using activated carbon or a similar system to remove any odourous compounds from the vented air.

7.1.16.

At the commencement of day 4 Mr. K O’Dwyer, Mr. F. Ryan and Mr. G. Barry answered question from the inspector, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Byrne, Mr. O’Scannail, and Mr. Seale.

In the course of initial questions to Mr .O’Dwyer, Mr Gerry Forde and Mr Michael Jones from Wexford County Council water services commented that if the development gets permission, part of the condition of the licence for connecting the sewage will be that the developers will have to put telemetry on the system that will record leaks, and will record the pressure drops on the rising main so that will be covered under licence conditions. The plant at Coolgreany is just ready for commissioning at the moment; it is just completing its construction phase.

The existing load from the village of Coolgreany at the moment is approximately 450 PE. There are two independent treatment units on the site, each capable of treating 1200 population equivalent with the second stream built already, ready for future expansion of the village to a 2,000 PE. The treatment process is a sequence batch reactor, the type process which will accept variable flows coming into it.

17

Mr Forde indicted that Wexford County Council were obliged to submit an application for a licence to the EPA and as yet had not as yet received a licence. In regard to the water supply and one of the issues that came up quite regularly in regard to this development has been the issue of a poor water supply at certain periods in the local public piped water scheme, which is fed from the Coolgreany scheme. The scheme he indicated is served by a borehole in Coolgreany and that borehole runs for about ten to eleven hours a day. At the moment, the total scheme uses 800 m 3, about 48% of overall capacity in terms of the supply.

In relation to complaints and problems with the scheme, two years ago there were problems but improvements were carried out to the scheme, increasing storage and the pipe network. The supply is very secure and the water supply scheme can handle the demand for the proposed development, but would not be able to supply a fire floor requirement.

The issues addressed in questions to Mr O’Dwyer included impacts arising from the large level of excavation occurring on the site, seasonal fluctuations in the water table, the implications on adjoining lands from works carried out on the site including berms and bunds, information on wells in the area, the properties of Macamore clay, the thinness / thickness of topsoil,

The issues addressed to Mr Barry included on-site options for foul drainage treatment instead of pumping off-site, impacts arising from different loads and fluctuations; estimating the nature of potential loading arising from the proposed development; technical problems arising from discharging off site and the agreements reached with Wexford County Council on connecting to the Coolgreaney scheme.

Also raised was the need to pump treated sewage instead of direct pumping of raw untreated sewage, issues relating odour and the nuisance to the local residents, distances of treatment plants to adjoining boundaries, the issue of odours from sludge on the treatment plant on the site and from desludging and their avoidance if all the material was just pumped straight up to Coolgreany.

It was indicated by Mr Forde that Wexford Co. Council requested that the applicants to pre-treat on the basis that although it is a relatively low hydraulic load, the biological load would have used up more capacity than the council would have liked to allocate to this, so that was the purpose of asking for the pre-treatment and in terms of desludging, Wexford Co. Council have about 120 small plants ourselves around the county, which are regularly desludged on a minimum basis and there is not a difficulty with that process.

The questions raised and issues addressed to Mr Ryan included increased occurrences of high rainfall events, water levels on the Clonough River and periodic flooding, impacts on adjoining properties, the issue of oil interceptors, rates of discharge and attenuation, problems relating to the outfall ditches and sedimentation, procedures in the event of a prolonged breakdown in the foul drainage system and issues relating to the wetland size and capacity and rates of recharge,

18 7.1.17 .

At this point (Pages 83 to 87 day 4) Mr David French , Fanning French & Associates, acting for and on behalf of Francis and Miriam Seale, in the issue of the CPO objection to the land take of their property at Ballyellin and following on from discussions at the early part of the proceedings, the NRA furnished a letter and maps showing an amendment for the CPO. The National Roads Authority has requested An Bord Pleanala to omit the land plots from the CPO lands, and that will be the end of the matter as regards the CPO for Francis and Miriam Seale.

In the case of his clients David and Helen Byrne, they have had some discussions with the NRA in relation to accommodation works and minimising the associated affects. On the basis of the documentation received, David and Helen Byrne withdrew their objections to the CPO.

7.1.18.

Ms. Janet Slattery read her evidence from a prepared written submission, (pages 87 to 97) relating to ecology, outlining methodology, the existing environment, activities associated with the proposed development that have the potential to affect/ impact on the ecology of the site and surrounding area, mitigation measures and concluded no residual impacts are anticipated.

7.1.19

Mr. John Bligh read evidence from a prepared written submission, (pages 97 to 109) in relation to agriculture and potential impacts. A separate equine assessment was carried out in September 2008 on one of the farms to assess the impact of the proposed service area on the equestrian enterprise.

7.1.20

Mr. Michael Sadlier read evidence from a prepared written submission, (pages 109 to 120) in relation to equestrian matters and to report on the environmental impact on the 2 enterprises of Ken Walters, Ballyellin Equestrian Centre and David Byrne, Rushbrook Farm. The submission indicated proposals for general ameliorative works in additional to specific recommendations for specific areas and concluded the presence of the proposed bund, on the southern and western boundaries of the service area will significantly mitigate any noise and/or light pollution from the service area. Some drainage issues will need to be addressed to prevent the land at the Ballyellin Equestrian Centre becoming over saturated with rain water runoff and otherwise, the proposed works at the Gorey North Service Area will have minimal effects of the business of Ballyellin Equestrian Centre.

The building of the Gorey North Service Area would it as indicated have a mild to moderate effect on equine activities at Rushbrook Farm, however, once the Service Area is built, with the proposed bund extending along the entire western boundary of the service area, the Service Area will have minimal impact on equine activities in Rushbrook Farm.

19 7.1.21

Mr. Bernard Kavanagh acting on behalf of Mr. Kenneth Walters indicated that after discussions with the promoters of the scheme and on the basis an agreed map they would like to place on the record that Mr. Kenneth Walters will withdraw his objection to the CPO.

7.1.22.

Mr. J. Bligh and Ms. Slattery were questioned by Mr. O’Scannail, Mr. Fleming and Mr. O’Toole in relation to Mr. Bligh’s experience with bees, the impact from sources of vibration on the behaviour of bees, bees swarming and the implications arising.

Mr. Sadlier was questioned by Mr. Fleming, Mr. O’Toole, Mr. Kenny on the affects on suckler breeding cattle, general effects on equine matters, impacts of noise and light on horses, . 7.1.23

Mr. K. Cleary (pages 148 to 158) read from a prepared brief relating to road lighting, highway lighting and general outdoor lighting. Details of light are shown on drawing Number TJ-SARE -SII-PDR-016 Revision C.

It concluded that there will be some negative impacts on the day and night visual environment but appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that these are kept to a minimum.

7.1.24.

Mr. T. Burns (pages 158 onwards day 4) read from a written brief in relation to landscaping including methodology, survey, the impact of the proposed development and mitigation measures to be introduced .

It was indicated that all developments have some degree of landscape and visual impact and this impact is influenced by the degree and significance of change in any given location and although the proposed interchange and service area are located within an area of relatively open visibility, nevertheless, topography and/or vegetation will ensure that longer and wider-range views of the service area will either be entirely or substantially well screened from the north, northwest and northeast. Furthermore the nature of much of the surrounding topography and vegetation means that views from the majority of local roads are well screened also.

In relation to mitigation measures the proposed development includes a series of design and specific landscape measures all of which are proposed with the specific objective of mitigating visual impact from surrounding properties while retaining insofar as possible the open nature of existing long-range views.

To that end Mr Burns indicated that the service area building has been lowered or cut into the site thereby reducing its visual presence and associated impacts particularly as the site also includes for significant set back areas and other areas which will be

20 utilised for mounding and strong landscape planting aimed at visual screening and integration of the development into its wider landscape setting.

The proposed site it is indicated particularly impacts upon seven residential properties; one property to the east of the site, four properties on the opposite side of the Ballyellin Road to the northeast,; and two properties near the northwest corner of the site. Screen mounding up to 3 metres in height with planting along the north- eastern and northern boundary of the site and planting will be established on the mounding providing for an element of immediate