An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report PL 07. 235821 Development

Description: Continuation of quarrying and operation of concrete batching and bitumen plant (previous reg. ref. 06/4125)

Address: Barretts Park, Oranmore, Co. Galway

Planning Application

Planning Authority: Galway County Council

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 09/1958

Applicant: Coshla Quarries

Type of Application: Continuation of Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Grant

Planning Appeal

Appellant: (1) Gerry and Edel Keane (2) Brendan Dowling (3) Cllr. Jim Cuddy

Type of Appeal: Multiple Third Parties

Observers: Anthony Greaney

Date of Site Inspection: 6/5/10

Inspector: Louise Kiernan

Appendices: Appendix 1:Site Context Map Appendix 2:Key map & associated photos Appendix 3: Development Plan Extracts Appendix 4: M6 Motorway to south of site

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 35 1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The subject site is located in Barretts Park, Oranmore, in Co. Galway (see appendix 1: site context map). The site is situated approximately 9 km to the west of the town of Athenry, and 6 km to the northeast of Oranmore, east of Galway City. The site is located south of the R339 (Galway –Monivea) Road. Access to the quarry is gained from a local 3 rd class road, the L7109, commonly referred to as the ‘Coshla Road’, which branches off the R339. This local road also serves the ESB substation, C & F Tooling and a number of rural houses and farm builings, in addition to the subject quarry. At both sides of the R339 junction, there are detached bungalow dwellings, whilst there is no development on its northern side. There are no paths, cycle lanes or pedestrian refuges on this regional route or on the Coshla Road itself. Access off the Coshla Road is in turn gained via an access road serving solely the quarry which is approximately 1 km in length. Immediately adjacent to said site entrance along the Coshla Road on the opposite side of the road, is a tooling business, C & F tooling, which has recently been granted permission for a 70,000 sq.m. extension (reg. reg. 09/386). An ESB substation is located to the northeast of the quarry. The surrounding area is predominantly rural with a scattering of one-off houses. There are approximately 4 houses within 500m of the quarry and a substantial number of other dwelling houses along the 1.5km access road from the R339. There is a dwelling located immediately to the south, but this has been indicated as being unoccupied and in the ownership of Coshla Quarries Ltd. The site is located approximately 170 metres to the north of the M6 motorway (see appendix 4).

The existing quarry which has a total area of 27.5 ha. and an extraction area of 13 ha. was established to service the construction of the M6 Ballinasloe-Galway section of the motorway, the line of which is situated approximately 170 metres to the south of the quarry. In the past a temporary access haul road had been constructed linking the southwestern corner of the quarry with the N6 construction site. However this haul road is no longer in existence. The site and surrounding area are further documented in the key map and associated photos (appendix 2).

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development comprises of permission to continue quarrying with associated roads and ancillary services and to operate a concrete batching plant and a bitumen batching plant within the quarry. It is indicated that the 13-hectare extraction area and the 27.5-hectare site boundary remains identical to that outlined in the existing quarry planning permission of Coshla Quarries Ltd (06/4125). The types of material being extracted are limestone gravels and rock. It is indicated on the application submitted that the date which quarrying commenced on the land was October 2007. It is also indicated in the application form submitted that the traffic generated by the operation of the quarry is 400 two-way movements. The development employs a maximum of 12 permanent staff, with an additional 40 people involved in site collection and delivery, however it is indicated that this number fluctuates with demand and supply. An Environmental Impact Statement has been submitted as part of the application.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 35 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Environmental Impact Statement submitted as part of this application included the quarry operation and all the ancillary activities as they presently stand. The Environmental Assessments previously associated with the asphalt plant, concrete plant and machinery maintenance shed are also resubmitted as part of this application. The EIS submitted with the planning application was prepared in accordance with Part X of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. The impact of the proposed development was assessed under all the relevant headings with respect to human environment; traffic; ecology; soils, geology and hydrogeology; water; air quality; noise; climatic factors; landscape and visual; material assets; cultural heritage; and the interaction of the foregoing. Apart from the consideration of alternatives, which is absent, the content and scope of the EIS is considered to be reasonably acceptable and in compliance with Planning Regulations.

4.0 REPORTS An Taisce • There are continuing complaints by local residents on lack of planning compliance, operating hours and the unauthorised construction of the tarmacadem plant. • Questions why it is allowed to continue with a retention application in breach of the EIA Directive.

NRA • The Authority will rely on Galway County Council to abide by national policy in relation to frontage development on national roads as outlined in Circular Letter 6/2006.

Roads ‘This quarry was given a licence for a 5 year period to satisfy the construction requirements of the nearby M6. The construction works are now completed on the M6 and I recommend that the quarry be rehabilitated back to its original condition. I recommend refusal of the development as the local road infrastructure is not adequate to cope with the level of traffic as generated by the quarry and evidenced on the existing road destruction’.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND NATIONAL POLICY Galway County Development Plan 2009-2015 The site is located in an area designated as Landscape Sensitivity Class 1 ‘Low Sensitivity’ and a Landscape Value Rating of low. The site is located within an area designated as (Rkc) Regionally Important, conduit karst aquifer, development potential limited. The area is undrained by any important river. The site is located within the GTPS. The site is located within 500 metres of a proposed NRA Route. The proposal is within the zone of influence of Galway Airport and all buildings, structures, erections and works exceeding 45m are subject to development controls. The following policies and objectives also apply to the subject site (appendix 3): - Section 4.6 Extractive Development

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 35 4.6.1 Extractive Development Policies 4.6.2 Extractive Development Objectives DM Standard 35: Extractive Development

Quarries And Ancillary Activities - Guidelines For Planning Authorities (DEHLG 2004) –The environmental implications of quarries are discussed under the headings noise and vibration, dust deposition/air quality, water supplies and groundwater, natural heritage, landscape, traffic impact, cultural heritage and waste management. Under each heading, best practice/possible mitigation measures are suggested. Possible planning conditions are proposed.

The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities, DoEHLG & OPW 2009 These Guidelines introduce comprehensive mechanisms for the incorporation of flood risk identification assessment and management into the planning process.

6.0 PLANNING HISTORY

98/375 - permission refused to reopen quarry for rock excavation and removal from site and access to public road at Barretts Park for the following reason: -

1. ‘The site proposed to be developed is located in a rural environment predominantly in agricultural use but with a mix of residential properties along the narrow unrealigned local road serving the site. The proposed development because of the nature and volume of traffic that it would generate on roads of inadequate strength and capacity would seriously injure the amenities and depreciate the value of properties in the vicinity’.

PL 07.130534 (02/652) - An Bord Pleanála refused permission for the excavation, crushing and haulage of rock and for the development of an access road for the following reasons: -

1. ‘The proposed development is located in an open rural landscape with many residential properties along the proposed access route. The proposed development, by reason of the nature and volume of traffic that it would generate on roads of inadequate strength and design, would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

2. It is considered that the proposed development would generate considerable additional traffic, especially in relation to the junction with the R339, which would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard’.

06/893 – permission was refused for the development of a 13-hectare quarry with associated roads and services for the following reasons: -

1. ‘The proposed development is located in an open rural landscape with many residential properties along the proposed access route. The proposed development, by reason of the nature and volume of traffic which it would

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 35 generate on roads of inadequate strength and design, would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

2. It is considered that the proposed development would generate considerable additional traffic, especially in relation to the junction with the R339, which would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.

3. In the absence of any evidence of a potable water supply to the proposed development, it is considered that the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health and would seriously endanger the health and safety of persons occupying or employed in the structure.

4. In the absence of any evidence of the suitability of the site for the safe disposal of effluent treatment, it is considered that the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health and would seriously endanger the health and safety of persons occupying or employed in the structure. The proposal if permitted, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. It would also contravene the provisions of the County Development Plan 2003-2009.

5. In the light of the regional and local significance of the Strategic Development Corridor identified in Section 6.5 of the West Regional Planning Guidelines 2004-2016, the development of the nature proposed would be contrary to the Regional Planning Guidelines and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area’.

06/4125 – permission was granted on 25/6/07 for the development of a 13-hectare quarry with associated roads and services. It is indicated that all traffic to the proposed M6 is not required to use the R339 junction as it exist, therefore reducing significantly the movements at this junction. All haul traffic with materials for the M6 exit from the site directly onto the proposed M6 site via the construction only roadway. Therefore the traffic hauling material will not be required to traverse the existing road network, as it will be accessing the M6 project directly to the south. A memo from the Director of Services, dated 16/5/07, which contained a direction in relation to this development, stated the following:

‘Please issue a grant of permission for the above application 06/4125 subject to a five year duration and the limitation of movement onto the R339 to 400 movements per day two way. A special contribution of 82,830 euros is to be levied, the purpose of which is to strengthen the county road leading up to the R339. The reason for this decision; This is a critical infrastructure needed for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and wider region’ .

Of particular note are the following conditions:-

Condition no. 1:

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 35 This permission is for a period of five years from the date of this decision. The site shall then be restored unless, prior to the end of the period, planning permission shall have been granted for the retention for a further period’.

Reason: In the interests of proper planning and sustainable development.

Condition no. 2: The movements from the proposed quarry to the R339 Regional Road shall be restricted to a maximum of 400 movements per day (2 way).

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

PL 07. 233579 (09/230) – An Bord Pleanála granted permission for the retention of a concrete batching plant and temporary access haul road from Coshla Quarries Ltd to the M6 construction site. This was granted having regard to (a) the nature and limited extent of the proposed development, which is related in the main to the adjacent N6 roads project (b) the identified need for the product, and (c) the location of the batching plant within the body of an existing permitted quarry. Of particular note are the following conditions: -

Condition no. 1: This permission shall expire on the 25 th day of June, 2012, in accordance with the conditions of the primary permission for the quarry use on the site, unless prior to that date, a new permission has been granted for an extension of the operational period of the quarry and batching plant’.

Reason: In the interest of clarity and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Condition no. 3: The temporary haulage road to the N6 shall be decommissioned on completion of the roads project and prior to the operation of the national road.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety and appropriate operation of the national road.

PL 07. 234608 (09/1143) – An Bord Pleanála granted permission for the retention of an asphalt batching plant with temporary access haul road from Coshla Quarries Ltd to the N6 construction site. The following conditions are noted: -

Condition no. 1: This permission shall expire upon completion of the N6 project road.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

Condition no. 3: The temporary haulage road to the N6 shall be decommissioned on completion of the N6 roads project and prior to the operation of the national road.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 35

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety and appropriate operation of the national road.

09/610 – permission granted on 31/8/09 for retention for a maintenance shed for quarry machinery (gross floor space 394 sq.m.). Of particular note is condition no. 2:-

Permission for the retention of the maintenance shed is limited to a period of two years from the date of the final grant of this permission after which time the structure shall be removed unless in the meantime an additional limited permission has been granted by the planning authority for same.

Reason: To enable the planning authority to review the orderly planning and development of the area, having regard to the fact that the structure is temporary in nature.

Sites in the Vicinity: 09/386 – permission granted to C & F Tooling for a 6,900 sq.m. extension to their existing 2,256.45 sq.m. premises.

7.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION

Galway County Council issued a decision to grant permission subject to 21 no. conditions.

8.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

This is a multiple Third Party appeal by (1) Gerry and Edel Keane; (2) Brendan Dowling, and (3) Cllr. Jim Cuddy against the decision of Galway County Council to grant permission for the proposed development. The main grounds of appeal are summarised as follows: -

(1) Gerry and Edel Keane • Severe vibrations in their residence from blasting, which is 2 miles away and resulting in structural damage. • Opportunity to get the existing 500m boundary of the old permission extended to include our and surrounding neighbourhoods affected as a direct result of the blasting and also be included in a pre and pro blast monitoring programme. • Quarry responsible for pumping water onto adjoining lands without the landowner’s consent, which may have been contributory to flooding of houses, land and local roads. • The Council did not carry out any survey or check if the water pumped from the quarry was a contributory factor in flooding of homes and did not contact the neighbourhood or investigate concerns as to the structural damage caused. • The Council has an enforcement file open against the same quarry for carrying out work outside of the conditions attached to permission granted as per

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 35 06/4125. Very difficult to understand how the Council could justify granting further permission to a company not adhering to previous conditions. • Query how condition which restricts movements to 400 per day (2 way) will be monitored and if there are restrictions on how many movements can take place per hour. • Condition 4, 5, 9 and 10 – query that the information the council had before them at decision making stage in relation to severe flooding. Should the Council not have put monitoring in place and carried out all necessary surveys to ensure the quarry was not a contributory factor. Granting permission shows the Council did not consider residential amenity or public health.

(2) Brendan Dowling: • Deficiencies in permission/retention permission application – this development is currently in operation for some considerable time. It is retention permission that should be applied for. Are ignoring the EIA Directive which debars retention permission since the ECJ Judgement of 3 rd July 2008. • Aviation Traffic – EIA is deficient as it has not considered aviation traffic directly above it. Galway Airport is less than 3 miles away. During bad weather, flocks of birds often collect. Explosions will frighten birds causing them to take flight, and has the potential to cause a major air traffic accident. No correspondence with the Irish Aviation Authority or Galway Airport. • Danger to Motorway Traffic – danger of debris from explosions landing on the motorway. Vibrations and overblast contribute to the danger as a distraction to motorists. When the original permission was given, the motorway was not in existence. This is a new danger not addressed in the EIA. • Damage to local homes from explosions • Water Well – drinking water from the appellants well has a strange taste and smell and been rendered unfit for use (copy enclosed of report from Public Health Microbiology Laboratory and Official Public Analyst’s Laboratory) • Hydrology – enclosed photos show flooding is coming from the quarry down onto the Monivea Road (R339). It appears that the water table has been disturbed. The associated risks of oil and other contaminants escaping due to flooding would appear high. There has been a failure to scope the project adequately with regard to water, and have ignored EIS, planning legislation, guidelines, and the Development Plan in preparing and evaluating the EIS. • As part of the appeal submission a report on the ‘Effects due to Floods in Cashla, Athenry, Co. Galway’ by Savithri Senaratne, Engineering Hydrologist in January 2010 was submitted. This reached the following conclusions: o The area has Limestone bedrock with karst features. These karst features are a turlough, a number of caves and an estevelle in the area under consideration or in the vicinity. Therefore, there is a threat of contamination to groundwater. o Parts of the area under study have a history of flash flooding and the entire area considered in this study was flooded in November/December 2009. This will lead contaminants from the development to mix and travel in the water to other areas and leak to groundwater. o Has a definite flood risk according to the recently published guidelines titled The Planning System and Flood Risk Management.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 35 o Flood Risk Assessment according to the aforementioned guidelines should constitute an integral part of the EIS. This EIS included does not include a flood risk assessment. • Visual Impact – photos from the M6 motorway show the extraction face clearly visible. As extraction proceeds the visual aspect will become more negative. • Damage to the Galway Tourist Industry – the M6 will form the primary route for tourists travelling to and from Galway from the east. The tourist industry will be damaged by the bad impression left by this negative visual aspect. The batching plants emit large plumes of smoke and with prevailing westerly winds will sometimes place smoke directly over the motorway. This will have a negative visual aspect and visitors would also express health fears. Danger of dust being disturbed and of this escaping onto the motorway, which could create a negative impact visually, and a health risk. • Planners Decisions – the details of planning reference 09/1143 / PL 07. 234608 have been excluded from the decision making process. • Traffic – the temporary haul road is now extinguished with only one route onto the local county road. The cumulative effect of the combined traffic from the quarry, the concrete batching plant, the asphalt batching plant and C & F Tooling Ltd, which has recently been given permission to increase in size substantially will create a traffic hazard. The full cumulative effect of adding the projected factory traffic with that of quarry does not appear to have been fully evaluated. Past movements have significantly damaged the road leading to the quarry from the R339, and the local road has not been designed or constructed to carry the loads involved. • C & F Tooling factory extension (shared junction and access road L7109) – C & F Tooling has been given permission to extend the factory with 385 parking spaces and an additional 5 parking bays for commercial vehicles. The combined movements from both locations, which share the same access road, does not seem to have been assessed cumulatively. A traffic flow assessment should be carried out with the inclusion of all of the combined cumulative influencing factors associated with the large commercial interests that propose to share the country road. • Future – in relation to other infrastructural projects – no longer direct access to the motorway to facilitate movements; the extra long distances to be travelled will increase traffic hazard; heavy movements on the local country roads will cause deterioration in condition; will be an increase in the negative environmental impact through additional emissions, noise and vibration. • Non-compliance with the PRTR Regulations

(3) Cllr. Jim Cuddy: • The quarry is not able to contain its own rainwater and during recent floods pumps were used to pump the water onto adjoining farmlands, with a number of houses flooding. • No reference to how the council can enforce condition 2 – how are they going to be able to check on the number of lorries going and leaving. • Not satisfied the enforcement section is in a position to monitor this quarry in relation to blasting. • Notification to people within 500 metres of the quarry of blasts is not sufficient. Needs to be at least 1,000 metres radius.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 35 • Noise from the quarry can be heard over a wide area. • Severe ground vibrations – householders well outside the 500m area have complained of structural damage to property. • Before permission was granted should have been obliged to submit details of a noise-monitoring programme. • Number of local wells in close proximity - negative effects on water quality. • Wheel wash facility makes no reference as to where residue will go - Fear it may enter the local water table. • Fear if permission is upheld by An Bord Pleanála that another application could be made and granted when this is due to expire. • Negative impact on property values as a result of the close proximity of he operation of the quarry and the scale of the work. This is a residential and agricultural area and not an industrial area. If there was a reduced and properly monitored operation of the quarry, concerned local people could have confidence, and it might be possible to allow this quarry continue operation. • Volume of traffic generated will have a detrimental effect on the local road network. Impact of the noise and effluent from these vehicles. • Attached aerial photographs taken during the flooding in November 2009 of the quarry, adjoining lands and houses that were flooded. • Attached copies of appeals from some who made initial submissions.

9.0 OBSERVATIONS Made on behalf of Anthony Greaney by Vincent JP Farry & Co. Ltd, Planning and Development Consultants: The Observation received largely reflects those concerns raised by the Third Party appellants. The main issues raised are summarised as follows: - • No plans to improve the local road network. • Overlooks the existence of several, more appropriately situated permanent quarries in the immediate vicinity of the identified projects. • While the parent permission was issued in the context of the motorway and the temporary haul road, the circumstances which justified this consent no longer exist as the motorway has been completed and the haul road discontinued. The factors which justified the original temporary permission are no longer in place, with the surrounding circumstances now virtually identical to those exhibited when the Board denied consent. A grant of permission to continue quarrying would give rise to the same reasons for refusal and would prejudice road safety and free flow of traffic. • The lack of formal drainage channels, combined with bedrock characteristics of limestone characterised by high fissure permeability and karst features, such as turloughs and caves, results in this areas being flood prone. Surface run off permeates through to ground waters and to the protected, highly vulnerable aquifer, after it has ponded and absorbed the contaminants associated with this industrial process (refuelling apparatus, diesel tank, wash areas, oil interceptor, hydrocarbon and admix). • The EIS does not discuss the impact of quarrying activities on local residents and ignores the impact of traffic and blasting noises on amenity. Would result in large trucks along the minor road on a daily basis and would affect residential amenity. The EIS makes no reference to the use of explosives and

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 35 should have discussed the impact of blasting on nearby residents most of which are impacted upon by the noise and structural stability of their properties. • Heritage Features – the EIS identifies 6 archaeological features in the vicinity. However this was based on a field walking exercise and no substantive attempt was made to assess the impact, especially of blasting on these heritage features. • Adequacy of EIS – slightly out of date; fails to identify precise reasons why permission was granted for the quarry; omits consideration of alternatives and the principal as to whether the road projects listed should be served by existing quarries which are more favourably located; fails to properly characterise local road conditions and assess whether the network could accommodate extra large quarry vehicles; fails to justify sightlines, no reference to blasting; omits assessment of impact of vehicular noise on residential amenity; fails to identify a haul route; no reference to this land flooding or impact of same on groundwater pollution; fails to adequately address cultural heritage. • Planning Conditions o Condition 2 – query whether it is actually capable of being monitored without considerable expense to residents. o Condition 4 - Query whether it is appropriate to require vibration and water quality monitoring where neither the applicant nor Planning Authority have yet considered the impact of existing vibration levels or have yet determined whether the existing quarrying operation has already caused groundwater pollution. o Condition 5 - breaches planning law as it relates to a payment for professional services rather than for infrastructure. Would put pressure on scarce local authority resources and result in inadequate monitoring. o Conditions 5 and 7 - time limitations are insufficient to ensure a reasonable level of amenity for local residents. It would be possible to arrange a more restrictive schedule for the use of explosives without significantly impeding on quarrying operations. o Conditions 12, 13 and 16 – it is difficult to appreciate the purpose of these conditions which require bunding, the control of surface run off and groundwater sampling, given that the entire site floods to a notable degree. o Condition 17 – query the type of remedial measures given the flood prone nature of this low-lying land. • Future timescale – given the reduced demand for aggregate as a result of lower economic activity, the time taken to exploit the remaining 27.5 million tonnes will greatly exceed 10 years. • Consistent with government guidance, consider that the precautionary principle should be applied and that this site should be deemed unsuitable for any form of industry, especially that involving toxic material. • The Coshla Road/R339 junction is a substandard intersection which cannot accommodate the movement of large vehicles and has limited sightlines outside the applicant’s control. Sightlines have not been sufficiently set back at this location. • Although the northern leg of the Coshla Road has been resurfaced, it is still inadequate to accommodate 2 large vehicles travelling in opposite directions.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 35 10.0 RESPONSES First Party Response submitted by Inis Environmental Consultants Ltd on behalf of Coshla Quarries Ltd: An individual response to each of the appeal submissions and observations received has been made by the First Party. A number of the issues raised overlap and are collectively summarised as follows: -

Blasting and Structural Damage • Blasting has been ongoing at the quarry and was generally carried out fortnightly. There have never been more than two blasts a week. 43 no. blasts have been carried out since May 2008. Presently there is only a demand for one blast every two months or as needed. • Blasting operations are carried out as per standard practice and in accordance with all National Roads Authority (NRA) guidance regulations. Blast monitoring for air overpressure and ground vibration are put in place at several proximal or sensitive locations. No blast has ever exceeded the set ground vibration limit or 12mm/second PPV. According to British safety standards, 12.7mm/second PPV at 10 to 50 Hz is defined as the level above at which cosmetic and structural damage may occur in a building. The average reading of PPV from blasts are generally below 3mm/seond PPV. A copy of the on site-basting portfolio has been submitted. • On site third party monitoring at houses to establish the possible impacts of blasting indicate that there is no ground vibration close to or above the threshold that could indicate a possible impact. Increasing the zone of 500 metres to 1000 metres is only going to show even lower PPV values. • No safety concerns posed to the public. There have never been any public or private accidents. In terms of on site safety and blasting safety, the site was visited by a Mines & Quarries Inspector for the Health & Safety Authority who signed off in August 2008 to allow blasting on site. • No danger to motorway traffic as a result of blasting. Technical information regarding blasting provided. • As a courtesy the notification radius was extended from 500m to 1000m in May 2009. If require an additional 500m radius have no objection. • As indicated on attached map the majority of surrounding households have no complains in relation to blasting or any other activities.

Flooding • Carnmore East and Carnmore have been officially identified as prone to flooding following heavy rains at a time prior to the existence of the quarry. Trial pits at Carnmore have shown that the topsoils are clay in nature and provide significantly slow percolation rates, which exacerbate and prolong flooding. The area is prone to flooding as officially identified on the OPW flood hazard and known to be susceptible to flooding prior to the quarry ever existing. • Impossible for the quarry extraction area to flood first and for floodwaters to then overflow from the quarry extraction area onto adjacent lands. • Review of the aerial photos illustrates how the flooding developed in Carnmore and Carnmore East and that the water levels in the quarry extraction area were lower than at surrounding areas.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 35 • The quarry extraction area provided flood relief for the houses at Carnmore East following the November rain, which was two to three times the norm since Met Eireann records began. As rainfall continued and flood levels increased, floodwaters migrated south towards the quarry and the western areas of the quarry eventually draining into the quarry excavation area. • No karst conduit features exist at the quarry and prior to the development of the quarry rock outcrop was exposed, which provided surface water access to the bedrock and its high percolation rates. When the groundwater table rises above the depth of the quarry extraction floor, groundwaters only enter via primary permeability. Deep karst conduits are more likely to become saturated and overflow at turloughs. No such feature exists at the quarry. Excavations at the quarry do not extend below the water table and no significant dewatering is required in the extraction hole. The quarry excavation area floor sits approximately 54 metres above the karst groundwater supply. Examination of well cards in the vicinity of the quarry found that ground water can be found at significantly deep depths of –122mOD in the area. The area is not identified as prone to flooding in the N6 Carriageway EIS. • Prior to quarry development, the southern end of the site had deposits of glacial tills. Fast percolation rates are inherent to the glacial tills and the underlying karst bedrock is often described as free draining. • The conclusion of the ‘Effects due to Floods in Cashla, Athenry, Co. Galway’ Report does not attribute the flooding at Carnmore East and Carnmore to the operation at Coshla Quarries nor does it in any way associate the effects of the floods with the quarry. The report fails to identify that the quarry has a fully functional water hazard protection and mitigation plan. • N6 Construction Ltd was leasing the northwest section of the site, which flooded during the recent flood event, and they commenced pumping onto adjacent lands without Coshla Quarries consent, but were stopped when it was apparent what was going on. • Groundwater test results indicate that there have been no significant or chronic breaches of groundwater quality. Monitoring results are included. • Not responsible for any perceived quality impact on the appellants well. The chemical characteristics of the appellant well are the same as prior to development at the quarry. Borehole groundwater samples around the quarry perimeter have been taken and tested on a quarterly basis and indicate that there is no chronic pollution of the groundwater. Highly probable the appellants own discharge of wastewater is contaminating his private well water. • Significant mitigation measures are in place to prevent contamination of the groundwaters with oils or other substances. An on site machinery maintenance shed has significant oil control measures. • The wheel wash is a closed system, which recycles water. Should any water become contaminated it can be over pumped to one of the two on site oil and silt interceptors prior to discharge. Alternatively the contaminated water may be removed directly from any or all of the settlement and water retention lagoons. The silt which builds up in the lagoons is not classified under EPA or other regulations as hazardous to the environment or the water table.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 35 Emissions and Monitoring • Only one discharge chimney from the asphalt batching plant, which discharges water vapour and condensates upon dispersal. Prevailing winds are southwesterly and will not impact on motorway traffic. An Air Emissions Licence is in place and a copy of the air discharge licence is submitted. The discharges pose no threat to human health. • Various quarterly monitoring programmes are carried out by independent consultants. Have not indicated any prolonged or significant breaches of noise, air quality (dust) or ground water quality at the perimeter of the quarry site. Noise, dust, groundwater and ground vibration testing is carried out at five separate sample site locations around the quarry and at vibration /noise sensitive locations proximal to the quarry and the reports forwarded to the Council every two to three months. All assessments found that there would be no impact at the nearest houses, within 500 metres. Full monitoring records since September 2007 for noise, dust, vibration and groundwater are submitted with this submission. • Monthly monitoring since September 2007 shows that noise levels from the quarry have never exceeded set limits. • Monthly monitoring since September 2007 shows that dust levels from the quarry have only occasionally exceeded set limits.

Traffic • No negative impacts to any future infrastructural projects. The maximum delivery distance is 15 to 20 km. The roads are adequate and there is no embargo on any type of heavy good vehicles in Galway. • Two haulage routes; the country road to the R339 and the L7109 to the R348. • All assumptions regarding traffic movements are incorrect and unfounded. • The Traffic Assessment concluded the site access priority junction will operate within capacity in the design year of 2024; the Monivea Road/Cashla Road priority junction will operate within capacity in the design year of 2024; the existing road network can accommodate the proposed development; visibility of 2.4 x120m to the north and 2.4 x 70m to the south of the site access junction is required and available. • Two separate Traffic Assessments have been carried out and indicated that proposed and current traffic volumes are acceptable and safe. All traffic assessments are based on recent local counts of traffic on the relevant roads and are cumulative. Copy of C& F Tooling factory expansion Traffic and Transport Assessment and Safety Audit Report submitted. • Since July 2009 Coshla quarries have upgraded the entire road, which connects the quarry to the R339. The road has been designed to support the movement of heavy traffic. Levies have been paid to carry out road improvement works along Coshla Road as per planning conditions relating to 06/4125. • Trucks travel within speed limits. The movement of lorries along the country road is during daytime working hours and within acceptable standards. • The M6 project is complete ant that demand source and associated traffic is no longer present. The operation has an allowance for 400 two-way moments per day (2 way) from the quarry to the country road, which connects to the R339. The quarry is operating below this threshold.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 35 • Condition 2 – lorry movements are monitored by records from the quarry weighbridge provided to the Council on request. Average movements for the last three months are averaging out as 50 movements each way per day.

• Visual Impact – Landscape Character Assessment Maps indicate the locality is not rated as sensitive to visual change nor is it of any significant landscape character value, or contain a focal point/scenic view. Therefore there will be no consequent tourist impact. • Aviation Traffic – poses no threat to aviation traffic. Have contacted the IAA who have confirmed that the quarry does not require assessment. Have contacted the Galway Airport Manager who is content that the operation does not raise any safety issues. The flora and fauna surveys found no flocks of birds consistently or intermittently present at the quarry or the general locality.

Miscellaneous • Grievances represented without scientific assessment. • Planning due to run out in under one year. The business is economically viable and the planning process can extend for significantly long durations. • The restoration plan is in the context of the exploitation of the initial application as per P06/4125. An extensive environmental exit audit will be conducted. • A failing economy is the controlling factor in the value of house properties. • The area has several large-scale developments and is within the Infrastructural and Transport corridor, the economic engine and economic corridor, and the strategic economic corridor as per the Development Plan. • The site is below the 25 ha. threshold for registration under PRTR regulations. • Geotechnical Assessment carried out by BM GeoServices submitted.

11.0 FURTHER RESPONSES RECEIVED

A number of further responses were received in relation to the aforementioned First Party Response submitted to An Bord Pleanála. The response received largely reiterated the issues previously raised by the appellants/observer and are briefly summarised as follows:-

• Do not consider the applicant’s response to be persuasive given the clear adverse effect, which this quarry development has on amenity. • Inaccurate statements in the First Party Response. • Lack of proper procedure employed in the communications with the Irish Aviation Authority and Galway Airport. • The danger to traffic using the M6 Motorway while exploisions take place by travelling through a danger zone has not bee assessed. • Imperative that a flood risk assessment should be included as per the guidelines. • The marketing of Galway and the west will be damaged. • An anomaly created in relation to roads/traffic and cumulative assessment of future traffic flows.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 35 • An addendum to the Report prepared on ‘Effects due to Flooding’ submitted with the original observation submission has been submitted. A map is attached from SRTM1 data. It is stated that if part of the R339 road has a high risk of flooding, the Coshla quarry has a high flood risk, as it is similar to a recorded flood area and has similar ground levels. That the EIS of the N6 has not identified this particular area as prone to flooding might be an oversight. It is necessary to carry out a site specific flood risk assessment for the area from which it can be ascertained the flood depths, and flood probability taking into account the likely impacts of climate change. • A hand drawn illustration of flight path / bird strikes has been submitted from the Civil Aviation Authority Safety Regulation Group / Irish Aviation Authority / International Bird Strike Committee. • Details of large flocking birds and a study on international conflict between conservation and air safety have been submitted. • Policy on Consultation by planning authorities in relation to the Irish Aviation Authority has been submitted. • Guidance on the safe use of explosives in quarries has been submitted.

12.0 ASSESSMENT

I am satisfied that the key planning issues in this appeal are as follows: -

1. Validity of application 2. Principle of the Development 3. Traffic Issues 4. Motorway Safety 5. Flooding 6. Groundwater and Surface Water 7. Visual Impact 8. Residential Amenity Impact 9. Archaeological Impact 10. Aviation and Air Safety 11. Health Concerns 12. PRTR Regulations 13. Conditions

I will deal with each of these issues in turn: -

1. Validity of application

Upon examination of the newspaper notice pertaining to the subject application I note that this describes the development as follows: ‘permission is sought for permission to continue quarrying at Coshla Quarries Ltd with associated roads and ancillary services and to operate a concrete batching plant and a bitumen batching plant within the quarry. The 13-hectare extraction area and the 27.5-hectare site boundary remains identical to that outlined in the existing quarry planning permission for Coshla Quarried Ltd (P06/4125). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be submitted to the planning authority with the application…’.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 35

The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC) requires that certain developments be assessed for likely environmental effects by means of an Environmental Impact Assessment before planning permission can be granted. Projects requiring EIA are listed in Annex I and Annex II of the Directive and are also listed in Schedule 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. As per Schedule 5, Part 2, Section 2(b) in relation to Extractive Industry, the ‘extraction of stone, gravel, sand or clay, where the area of extraction would be greater than 5 hectares’ is identified. As the proposed development consists of an extraction area of 13 hectares, an EIA is therefore required.

As such the quarry development is a class of development that requires the submission of an EIA under the directive. One of the implications of the ECJ Judgement of 3 rd July 2008 is that an application for retention of a development that falls within the classes of development requiring EIA under the EIA Directive can no longer be considered by the competent authority. I note that said ECJ ruling related to retention of EIA projects, which are unauthorised. However I note that the existing quarry on the site was permitted initially for a limited period of 5 years until June 2012, as per P06/4125. It is indicated in the EIS submitted that the 13-hectare extraction area and the 27.5-hectare site boundary remains the same to that outlined in the existing quarry planning permission as per P06/4125. However upon examination of the relevant maps, I note that there is a slight variation in the extraction area previously permitted. In the subject case the extraction area appears slightly smaller than that permitted as per P06/4125, which included a larger area in the northwest portion (see rural place map, scale 1:2500). However as subject to minor variation the extraction area is largely the same, I do not consider that this is a significant issue for concern.

The development description also refers to permission ‘to operate a concrete batching plant and a bitumen batching plant within the quarry’ . While I note that An Bord Pleanála have previously granted permission for retention of the asphalt batching plant as per PL 07. 234608 and the retention of the concrete batching plant as per PL 07. 233579, I also note that said retention permission was also of limited duration (in the case of the concrete batching plant also until 25 th June 2012, while in the case of the asphalt batching plant permission has already expired as condition no. 1 of PL 07.234608 stated that ‘permission shall expire upon completion of the N6 project road’. The subject development will allow for the operation of same for a further 10 years.

In the subject proposal I note that the word ‘retention’ has not been referred to, but rather the words ‘permission to continue quarrying’ have been used. Concerns have been expressed that the proposed development has been inaccurately described, as notwithstanding the public notices it is essentially a retention permission and as such an invalid application, subject to the ruling of the ECJ of 3 rd July 2008. However in this regard, I consider that with the exception of the asphalt batching plant which as per condition no. 1 of PL 07. 234608 was conditioned to expire upon completion of the N6 project road, and which upon site inspection had been removed, the remainder of existing structures and quarrying and ancillary activities on site have permission. As such I do not consider that it is strictly appropriate to apply for ‘retention’ permission in this case, but rather permission for extension of duration of permission of the relevant structures and permission for the asphalt plant, which essentially is the case in

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 35 the subject proposal. As such I do not consider that the proposed development is invalid in relation to its development description or in light of the aforementioned ECJ ruling. I also note that in An Bord Pleanala in its previous consideration of retention permission for the concrete batching plant as per PL 07. 233579 and the asphalt plant as per PL 07. 234608 did not consider the ECJ ruling as relevant.

2. Principle of the Development

In relation to the principle of the development, I note that the site currently has planning for a quarry operation until June 2012 as per P06/4125. A time limitation was placed on the use of the quarry by condition no. 1 of permission granted as per P06/4125. In the interests of proper planning and sustainable development, condition no. 1 of permission granted as per P06/4125 stated that ‘this permission is for a period of five years from the date of this decision. The site shall then be restored unless, prior to the end of the period, planning permission shall have been granted for the retention for a further period’. While permission was granted for a quarry use at this site until 2012 as per 06/4125, a memo from the Director of Services, who issued a direction in relation to this development, stated the following:

‘Please issue a grant of permission for the above application 06/4125 subject to a five year duration and the limitation of movement onto the R339 to 400 movements per day two way. A special contribution of 82,830 euros is to be levied, the purpose of which is to strengthen the county road leading up to the R339. The reason for this decision; This is a critical infrastructure needed for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and wider region’.

In the subject case however it is now proposed to continue quarrying and associated activities at the site beyond 2012. It is stated in the EIS submitted that the application consists of the same extraction area and same site boundary as initially outlined in the original 2006 application as per P06/4125. However upon examination of the relevant maps, I note that there is a slight variation in the extraction area previously permitted. In the subject case the extraction area appears slightly smaller than that permitted as per P06/4125, which included a larger area in the northwest portion (see rural place map, scale 1:2500). However as subject to minor variation the extraction area is largely the same, I do not consider that this is a significant issue for concern.

It is indicated that significant rock resources remain for extraction within the original area granted planning, and that due to the decrease in demand associated with the economic downturn it is expected that the rock resource at the quarry will require a longer time to excavate, the planning will therefore be required to quarry this extraction area beyond 2012. The 2006 EIS (P06/4125) outlined that the quarry has a rock resource of 30 million tonnes before the site would require significant reinstatement. The proposed extraction was to be 8 million tonnes and to date approximately 2.5 million tonnes of this volume has been extracted. 5.5. million tonnes therefore remains within the original extraction area previously given planning as per P06/4125. It is indicated that while demand for construction products has slowed, the quarry is still economically viable and significant resources remain at this site. It is proposed to ensure the operation continues until the initial extraction area is

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 35 fully exploited (8 million tonnes) and therefore proposed to operate for a further 10 years.

The need for the proposed development is outlined in section 2.1 of the EIS submitted. In this section it is indicated that the Coshla quarry lies adjacent to the CPO line of the M6 road project and it presently supplies rock to this road project, but that the supply of construction materials to the M6 construction site is due to finish shortly. It is indicated that the quarry has matured and the operation is now a viable quarry supplying construction materials to the surrounding area, and that all necessary facilities are in place and a trained workforce has been developed. It is indicated that the original area outlined for extraction still provides a significant resource beyond the 2012 planning deadline, and that the owners wish to exploit the extraction area originally outlined in the P06/4125 2006 application, which expires in 2012. With the exception of the haul road, the subject development proposes to maintain the remainder of the assets within the site boundaries and continue quarry operations at the site for the foreseeable future or until the originally outlined rock resource is extracted. In this regard permission to continue the operation for a further 10 years is sought.

The only material changes to the site infrastructure is the removal of the temporary haul road to the N6 site, which previously exited as a temporary haul route to supply construction materials to the N6 construction project, but as this is now complete has been subsequently reinstated to agricultural land. This application does not include any proposal to keep this road open. This would be in accordance with the previous conditions of the An Bord Pleanala decision’s pertaining to the temporary retention of the concrete batching plant on this site as per PL 07. 233579 (09/230) and also in relation to the temporary retention of the asphalt batching plant on the site as per PL 07. 234608 (09/1143), whereby condition no. 3 of both permissions stipulated that in the interest of traffic safety and appropriate operation of the national road that ‘the temporary haulage road to the N6 shall be decommissioned on completion of the roads project and prior to the operation of the national road’ .

While there are a number of permissions relating to the site, they are all temporary in nature. In this regard I note that as per 09/610 permission was granted on 31/8/09 for retention for a maintenance shed for quarry machinery (gross floor space 394 sq.m.), which was limited to two years duration. In relation to the retention of the concrete batching plant as per PL 07. 233579, I also note that said retention permission was also of limited duration until 25 th June 2012, and in accordance with the primary permission for the quarry use on the site as per P06/4125. Furthermore while I note that An Bord Pleanála have previously granted permission for retention of the asphalt batching plant as per PL 07. 234608 (09/1143), as per condition no. 1 it was stipulated that ‘this permission shall expire upon completion of the N6 project road’. As this was linked with the construction of the proximate N6 road project to the south, I consider that as this has now been completed that there is no requirement for such a plant.

The premise for the quarry use permitted as per P06/4125 related to the construction of the adjacent CPO M6 road, with a temporary permission until 2012 being permitted. Similarly I also note that the asphalt and concrete batching plants previously granted retention permission by An Bord Pleanála as per PL 07. 234608 and PL 07. 233579 respectively were also linked directly to the construction of the adjoining M6 motorway. While the previously permitted quarry activity as per 06/4125 did allow for

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 35 400 traffic movements (2 way) along the R339 it was also previously facilitated by the construction of a temporary access haul road directly onto the M6 in order to facilitate the transportation of material. In this regard I note Policy ED 19 which states that ‘the Planning Authority shall be favourably disposed towards planning applications for the use of temporary borrow pits for aggregates or materials that are located adjacent to or adjoining major public roads or infrastructure projects servicing the county where the need to haul along public roads is eliminated. All normal planning considerations shall apply’. However I note that the completion of the M6 road project is now complete, and upon site inspection that the temporary access haul road with direct access onto the M6 motorway route has been removed. As such I do not consider that the need for the quarry and associated activities can be adequately demonstrated.

It is also indicated as per section 4.8 of the EIS submitted that other future road schemes in the vicinity of the site include the N18 Oranmore to Gort dual carriageway scheme, the M17 Galway (Rathmorrissey) to Tuam road scheme and the Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme. It is submitted that it is possible that the existing quarry and the batching plants will be utilized in the construction of these schemes. It is further submitted in the First Party Response that the maximum delivery distance offered is a 15 to 20 km radius. However I consider that said projects are a considerable distance from the subject site, and contrary to the proximity principle would result in considerable traffic movements on a substandard road network. In this regard I note that ‘DM Standard 35: Extractive Development’ states that ‘it is desirable that such materials would be sourced close to the location of new development to minimise the need for long haul routes and potential interference with traffic flows and amenity’. I do not consider that the subject proposal would be in accordance with this standard, as there appear to be other quarries in closer proximity to such up and coming road projects. Furthermore I do not consider that the EIS submitted has adequately considered the alternative sources, which could possibly supply such road projects.

I also note that while condition no. 2 of permission granting use of the quarry until June 2010 in the interests of traffic safety stated that ‘the movements for the proposed quarry to the R339 Regional Road shall be restricted to a maximum of 400 movements per day (2way) , I note that the concept of a quarry with a movement in the region of fifty heavy goods vehicles along the L7109 ‘Coshla’ county road has already been previously refused by An Bord Pleanála as per PL07.130534, as is outlined in more detail in the following section.

3. Traffic Issues

Section 4 of the EIS submitted deals with the issue of traffic. As per section 4.9.2 in relation to ‘Trip Distribution’ it is proposed that all quarry traffic, including the batching plant operations, will turn left at the site access junction along the L7109 Coshla Road towards the R339 Monivea Road. It is proposed and conditioned as per condition no. 2 that all quarry related activity (including all batching plants) will be restricted to 400 vehicles movements (2-way) per day along the L7109 ‘Coshla Road’ and accessing the Monivea Road / Coshla Road priority junction.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 35 Previous Permitted Development: Similarly as per condition no. 2 of planning permission granted as per 06/4125, it has also been stipulated in the subject case that in the interests of traffic safety ‘the movements from the proposed quarry to the R339 Regional Road shall be restricted to a maximum of 400 movements per day (2way)’. While permission was granted for a quarry use at this site until 2012 as per 06/4125, I note that a memo from the Director of Services issued a direction in relation to this development which stated that following:

‘Please issue a grant of permission for the above application 06/4125 subject to a five year duration and the limitation of movement onto the R339 to 400 movements per day two way. A special contribution of 82,830 euros is to be levied, the purpose of which is to strengthen the county road leading up to the R339. The reason for this decision; This is a critical infrastructure needed for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and wider region’.

The previous permission which granted a quarry development at this site, albeit for a limited timescale, until 2012, also allowed for the transportation of loads via a temporary haul road with direct access onto the M6 motorway construction site. However I note that this project has now been completed and the aforementioned temporary haul road removed. I do not consider it appropriate for such a temporary haul road to be reinstated in this case, as the M6 motorway project is now complete, and furthermore it would represent a traffic hazard and would be contrary to policy to create such an entrance on a functioning motorway where the maximum speed limit of 120 kph applies. As such the quarry would be accessed via the local road to the north, the Coshla Road, where an 80-kph speed limit applies, and in turn via the R339 Regional Route.

Haul Route: As per section 4.9.2 in relation to ‘Trip Distribution’ it is proposed that all quarry traffic, including the batching plant operations, will turn left at the site access junction along the Coshla Road towards the R339 Monivea Road. However contrary to this it is submitted in the First Party Response that there are two routes from the quarry, the country road to the R339 and the L7109 to the R348. However upon site inspection I noted that at the junction of the access route to the quarry with the county road, that there is a traffic sign indicating no right turning movements for heavy vehicles. Also upon site inspection I noted that the portion of the L7109 linking to the R348 is very narrow in parts, would pass a considerable amount of residential properties, and would warrant a substantial number of traffic manoeuvres in order to access the Regional road network. As such I consider that the haul route via the country ‘Coshla’ road to the R339 is more favourable. However in relation to same I also have concerns.

It is indicated in the First Party Response that since July 2009 Coshla quarries have upgraded the entire road, which connects the quarry to the R339, with the road having been designed to support the movement of light and heavy traffic. It is also indicated that levies have previously been paid in respect to carrying out road improvement works along Coshla Road as per planning conditions relating to 06/4125. However I consider that the local road serving the quarry is substandard, and I do not consider that despite road improvements undertaken, that the local road is satisfactory to accommodate the proposed traffic. In this regard I note that the road is too narrow in

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 35 width to accommodate heavy goods traffic, particularly in relation to oncoming traffic movements. The Coshla local access road has a road width of between 5.5 metres and 6 metres along the majority of its route. I consider that the impact of the 400 two-way traffic movements will be accentuated further by C & F Tooling, which is also located along this road, adjacent to the quarry entrance, and which is a large industrial enterprise employing many workers and generating quite high traffic volumes. Taken in conjunction with the traffic movements generated by the quarry, I consider that the local county road is not of a standard to accommodate same. I also note that there are number of residential properties located along this road, which I consider the increased traffic may prove very detrimental to in terms of residential amenities by way of noise and traffic hazard. Furthermore while I note that the access road from C & F tooling to the Regional R339 Route has been upgraded to a good standard, it is still nonetheless a rural road with no footpaths or public lighting.

I also draw the Board’s attention to the Roads Report of the Local Authority, which indicated reservations in relation to the development, and recommended refusal. In said report it was stated that ‘this quarry was given a licence for a 5 year period to satisfy the construction requirements of the nearby M6. The construction works are now completed on the M6 and I recommend that the quarry be rehabilitated back to its original condition. I recommend refusal of the development as the local road infrastructure is not adequate to cope with the level of traffic as generated by the quarry and evidenced on the existing road destruction’. Accordingly I consider that permission should be refused in this regard.

It is indicated as per section 4.8 of the EIS submitted that other future road schemes in the vicinity of the site include the N18 Oranmore to Gort dual carriageway scheme, the M17 Galway (Rathmorrissey) to Tuam road scheme and the Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme. It is submitted that it is possible that the existing quarry and the batching plants will be utilized in the construction of these schemes. However I consider that said projects are a considerable distance from the subject site, and contrary to the proximity principle would result in considerable traffic movements on a substandard road network.

R339 Junction: As part of the First Party response it is indicated that visibility of 2.4 x 120m to the centre of the carriageway is available to the west of the Monivea Road/Coshla Road junction, while visibility of 2.4m x 120m to the right is available for HGV’s. Notwithstanding this, in relation to the junction of the local road with the R339, I note that this is a road where the maximum speed limit applies, and as such I consider that a traffic hazard could be created by slow moving vehicles turning right (towards Monivea) or left (towards Galway), where there is no room for a slipway available.

Access Road and L7109 ‘Coshla Road’ Junction: It is indicated in the Traffic Assessment submitted that visibility of 2.4 x 120m to the north and 2.4 x 70m to the south of the site access junction is required and available. Taking account the lower category of road, I consider that this is acceptable.

Trip Generation Rates: It is stated as per section 4.5 of the EIS submitted that ‘it is proposed that, as per a condition of planning on 06/4125 all quarry-related activity (including all batching

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 35 plants) will be restricted to 400 vehicle movements (2-way) per day along Coshla Road and accessing the Monivea Road/Coshla Road Priority junction’. The Traffic Assessment concluded that the site access priority junction will operate within capacity in the design year of 2024; the Monivea Road / Coshla Road priority junction will operate within capacity in the design year of 2024; and that the existing road network can accommodate the proposed development. However in relation to the traffic generation figures submitted, I have concerns. Upon analysis of the figures submitted as part of the application, I do not consider that an accurate cumulative assessment of the possible traffic generation has been provided, in terms of the retention of the quarry itself in conjunction with both of the batching plants using the Coshla Road only as a haul route, in addition to the impact of the proposed development in relation to the traffic already generated by C & F Tooling, and its associated permitted sizable extension of 6,900 sq.m. as per reg. ref. 09/386. Specifically the impact of the existing and permitted development at C & F Tooling does not appear to have been taken into account in the junction capacity analysis of the R339 contained within the EIS pertaining to the subject development. Also upon my analysis of the trip generation rates indicated for the existing quarry this deals with quarry related HGV's accessing the Monivea Road in January 2009, and as such I do not consider that such figures are sufficiently up to date or accurate as the temporary haul road with direct access onto the M6 motorway construction site would also have been in existence at this time. This is similarly the case in relation to the junction analysis contained within the EIS. I also note that in the case of the C & F Tooling Expansion Traffic and Transport Assessment in relation to the 6,900 sq.m. extension permitted as per reg. ref. 09/386, and submitted as part of the First Party Appeal submission, that similarly this assessed current traffic levels in April 2009, and as such I do not consider that it represents sufficiently up to date figures in relation to the subject development, as the haul route to the M6 was in operation at this time. I also do not consider that it is adequate to submit separate figures indicating the traffic generation for each individual project, but consider that rather a cumulative assessment must be undertaken of the impact of all existing and permitted projects using the L7109 'Coshla Road' haul route.

Previous An Bord Pleanala Decision: While the temporary permission granted as per 06/4125 allowed that ‘the movements from the proposed quarry to the R339 Regional Road shall be restricted to a maximum of 400 movements per day (2way)’ , I note that An Bord Pleanála in their consideration of a previous appeal for a quarrying activities on the site, with lesser traffic movement were not favourably disposed to same. In this regard I note that An Bord Pleanála as per PL. 07. 130534 refused permission for quarrying activities at the subject site which would generate in the order of fifty heavy goods vehicles a day using the local L7109 ‘Coshla Road’, for reasons, which included that of the additional traffic generated, especially in relation to the junction with the R339, which would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard. It was also considered by the Board that with many residential properties along the proposed access route, that the proposed development, by reason of the nature and volume of traffic that it would generate on roads of inadequate strength and design, would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity. In said case the proposed quarry refused by the Board was indicated as generating in the order of fifty heavy goods vehicles a day using said local road.

In relation to the subject development currently under consideration, it is stated as per section 4.5 of the EIS submitted that ‘it is proposed that, as per a condition of planning

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 35 on 06/4125 all quarry-related activity (including all batching plants) will be restricted to 400 vehicle movements (2-way) per day along Coshla Road and accessing the Monivea Road/Coshla Road Priority junction’. In the First Party Response it is indicated that while the quarry operation has an allowance for 400 two-way moments per day (2 way) from the quarry to the country road, which connects to the R339, the quarry is operating below this threshold, with average movements for the last three months are averaging out as 50 movements each way per day. However in the application form submitted it is indicated that the traffic generated by the operation of the quarry is 400 two-way movements. This represents a substantial increase in the number of heavy traffic movements previously refused by the Board as per PL. 07. 130534.

The concept of such a high level of movements along this county road has already been previously refused by An Bord Pleanála as per PL 07.130534. Furthermore while it is indicated in the First Party Response that average movements for the last three months are averaging out as 50 movements each way per day, I also note that An Bord Pleanála as per PL. 07. 130534 previously refused such a level of using the same haul route via the local 3 rd class county Coshla Road, and in turn the R339. I consider that in the subject case, the previous An Bord Planeala reason’s relating to PL. 07. 130534 still apply.

4. Motorway Safety

While I note that in the subject application the quarry area has not been indicated on a scaled drawing in relation to the M6 motorway directly to the south, upon examination of the EIS submitted by HDS Consultancy Services Ltd which accompanies P06/4125, it is stated that the M6 motorway is located approximately 100 metres from the quarry area. However upon examination of the GIS planning system in relation to the site boundaries indicated in the current application, I consider that the motorway is located approximately 170 metres to the south (see appendix 4).

This has raised a number of potential concerns in relation to motorway safety. Concerns have been expressed in relation to the plume from the asphalt batching plant; however it has been indicated this consists of water vapour and will condensate. While there is a difference of opinion between the Observer and the First Party in relation to the direction of the prevailing winds, I note that the NRA have not raised this as an issue in their consideration of the development. Furthermore An Bord Pleanála in their previous consideration of the retention of the asphalt and concrete batching plants as per PL 07. 234608 and PL 07. 233579 respectively, did not consider this an issue.

Concerns have also been raised in relation to blasting, and debris landing at speed on the motorway, resulting in the creation of a traffic hazard. However it is stated in the First Party Response that there is no danger to motorway traffic as a result of blasting. Technical information regarding blasting has also been provided in the Appendices attached to the First Party Response. However upon my examination of same, I did not observe a minimum separation distance in relation to motorway developments. However I note that the NRA has not raised this as an issue or concern. I also note that in terms of on site safety and blasting safety, the site was visited by a Mines &

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 35 Quarries Inspector for the Health & Safety Authority who signed off in August 2008 to allow blasting on site.

5. Flooding

Upon my examination of the EIS submitted, the specific issue of flooding did not appear to be addressed. However section 7.4.2 of the EIS submitted addresses the issue of surface water, which is further detailed in the following section. Upon examination of the OPW website www.floodmaps.ie , I noted that there was no record of a flood at the subject site. There was however a record of 1 no. flood event to the north of the site, at Carnmore east, 1 no. record at Carnmore West to the northwest, and 1 no. record at Lisheenkyle east to the south of the site. In relation to the closest of the aforementioned flood records on the website, Carnmore East, it was indicated that the ‘R339 can be prone to flash flooding after heavy rain. The road is in the bottom of a valley’ . Said flood event referred to 2005 data, which I note was prior to the existence of quarrying activities at the subject site. However I also note that said records may not be fully conclusive of all flood events in the record and should only be used as a guide. In this regard I note that while not recorded on the website, flooding has occurred in the area as evidenced upon examination of the aerial photographs submitted as part of the planning appeals and observations lodged, which were taken in November 2009, which indicate flooding in the quarry site and surrounding land. The level of flooding present indicated appeared to be very extensive. While it is indicated that the area is not identified as prone to flooding in the N6 Carriageway EIS, this is clearly not the case as is evidenced from the aerial photographs submitted as part of the appeal submissions, which show extensive flooding of the site and surrounding lands.

In relation to the recent flood events of November 2009, it is indicated in the First Party Response that flooding started and became quite severe at Carnmore East several days prior to any flooding being experienced at the Coshla quarry area, and that the quarry extraction area provided flood relief for the houses at Carnmore East following the November 2009 rain, which was two to three times the norm since Met Eireann records began. It is indicated that as rainfall continued and flood levels increased, floodwaters migrated south towards the quarry, eventually draining into the quarry excavation area, with the quarry providing flood relief for the general area due to the water retention area provided. Upon examination of the photos submitted I cannot ascertain whether the water levels in the quarry extraction areas are lower than surrounding areas. It is also submitted that it is impossible for the quarry extraction area to flood first and for floodwaters to then overflow from the quarry extraction areas and onto adjacent lands. I would concur with this. However I do note that it is indicated that N6 Construction Ltd was leasing the northwest section of the site, which flooded during the recent flood event, and that said company subsequently commenced pumping onto adjacent lands without Coshla Quarries consent, but were stopped by Coshla Management when it became apparent what was going on. I do not consider that this was acceptable and contributed to the further displacement of floodwaters. As such I consider that the development should contain measures to adequately address same should it occur again. Such measures have not been included.

I also consider that a comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment should have been submitted/ included within the EIS. Furthermore I consider that details to mitigate the

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 35 risk of flooding to adjacent properties should have been included. As such I do not consider that sufficient has been submitted to prove that the subject site and accordingly the proposed development will not be subject to repeat extensive flooding. On the basis of the available information, it is my opinion that there is an onus of proof on the applicant in such instances to prove that the proposed development is acceptable notwithstanding the evident flood risk. I note the proposed policies contained in the Ministerial Guidelines ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management, November 2009’. These guidelines advocate a precautionary approach. In particular I note section 5.2 of said guidelines which state that ‘where flood risk may be an issue for any proposed development, a more detailed flood risk assessment should be carried out appropriate to the scale and nature of the development and the risks arising. The detailed site specific Flood Risk Assessment should quantify the risks and the effects of any necessary mitigation, together with the measures needed or proposed to manage residual risks.. .’ Accordingly I consider that in the absence of same, that permission should be refused in this regard.

6. Groundwater and Surface Water Disposal

Section 7.4.2 of the EIS submitted addresses the issue of surface water. It is indicated that rainfall on the subject site will drain as normal to ground waters, and that surface water draining to groundwaters does not pose any suspended solids thread to groundwaters, as all suspended solids will be filtered out by the natural orthogonal type drainage which exists. It is indicated that there will be no surface water discharges on site and that no surface water exists on site. It is also indicated that there are no significant surface water features within the Coshla quarry, nor are there any proximal to the site. The nearest surface water feature is indicated as being the Clare River located over 4 kilometres to the northwest. It is indicated that surface water run off from precipitation migrates directly into the ground and there are no drains at or surrounding the site. It is indicated that the proposed site represents no hazard to any surface water resources, as none exist in the area. It is also indicated that no karst conduit features exists at the quarry, and that surface water has access to the bedrock and its high percolation rates. However upon examination of the OSI map I note that to the west of the site is a karst feature in the form of a cave and to the northeast a cave. Such deep karst conduits are more likely to become saturated and overflow at turloughs. While no such feature exists at the quarry, I have noted the presence of two features in the vicinity.

It is indicated that the area has been stripped of the previously existing shallow topsoil and subsoil, and that the quarry site floor is solid limestone bedrock, with groundwater in the region principally reserved within the limestone formations. In terms of groundwater, I note that the subject site is located within a regionally important karstic conduit aquifer with a classification of Rkc with a high to extreme vulnerability classification. However it is indicated in the EIS that the draft classification of extreme vulnerability may not necessarily apply to the proposed development site because it is situated in a filled area with overburden and hard standing material, which will moderate considerably the vulnerability of the aquifer. However I consider that this is an inadequate and naeive outlook, particularly taking account the potential for flooding in this area, as demonstrated in the aerial photographs submitted as part of the appeal and observation submissions.

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 35

In relation to surface water disposal, the wheel wash is a closed system, which recycles the water it uses. It is indicated that should any water become contaminated within this system it can be over pumped to one of the two on-site oil and silt interceptors prior to discharge. Alternatively the contaminated water may be removed directly from any or all of the three settlement and water retention lagoons, which are part of the wheel wash system. It is indicated as part of the First Party Response that the silt, which builds up in the lagoons, is inert and not classified under any EPA or other regulations as hazardous to the environment or the water table. I also note that there is an on-site machinery maintenance shed, which has significant oil control measures. As such I consider that significant mitigation measures are in place to prevent contamination of the groundwaters with oils or any other substances.

Furthermore I note that the borehole groundwater samples taken around the quarry perimeter, which are tested on a quarterly basis, indicate that there is no significant or chronic pollution of groundwater. Monitoring results have been included as part of the First Party Response. Accordingly I consider that the subject development is satisfactory in this regard.

However while I consider that the issues of surface water disposal and ground water appear to be satisfactory, I consider that the possibility of repeat flooding, as previously experienced on the site in November 2009, and the impacts of same in relation to surface water and ground water could prove potentially hazardous.

7. Visual Impact

As per the Galway County Development Plan 2009-2015 the site is located in an area designated as Landscape Sensitivity Class 1 ‘Low Sensitivity’ and a Landscape Value Rating of low. In relation to the visual impact along the Regional Route R339, to the north, I consider that the site is sufficiently set back. In relation to the visual impact form the Coshla county road to the northeast, east, and southeast, although the character of the landscape is quite open, it is a semi-industrialised landscape with considerable impact from the existing C & F Tooling Company and the substantial ESB substation site, both of which dominate views in the area. I consider that the presence of same along with the set back from the county road sufficiently mitigate the visual impact of the development from aspects along the Coshla Road. It is the impact from the motorway to the south of the site however, which provides the greatest visual impact, particularly for eastbound traffic. The M6 motorway to the south is located only approximately 170 metres away. I note that this brings about an additional visual perspective since the granting of the original quarry at this location as per P06/4125, when such a motorway was not in existence, and the visual impact of the quarry was not an issue. However said motorway is now in operation, and in terms of visual impact, I consider that the quarry and associated activities, particularly the concrete and asphalt batching plants, are particularly visual in the landscape. While I note that An Bord Pleanála have previously granted permission for retention of the asphalt batching plant as per PL 07. 234608 and the retention of the concrete batching plant as per PL 07. 233579, I also note that said retention permission was also of limited duration until 25 th June 2012, and in accordance with the primary permission for the quarry use on the site as per P06/4125. The subject development however will present

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 35 a visual impact for a greater time limit of 10 years. While the subject site is not within a focal point or view, and notwithstanding the low sensitivity value of the lands, the motorway is a prime transport route, and I would have concerns in relation to the long- term visual impact of the quarrying activities and associated activities as observed from the motorway aspect to the south in this regard.

8. Residential Amenity Impact

In relation to noise, dust and vibrations, I note that the Guidelines for Planning Authorities in relation to Quarries and Ancillary Activities (DEHLG 2004) recommend that particular regard should be had to quarries located in quiet rural areas and that complaints can be expected where noise exceeds 5 to 10dB above the background noise levels. Recommendations are made on the control of blasting. In relation to dust, a total dust deposition level of 350 milligrams per square metre per day is recommended.

In relation to impact on residential amenity, there are approximately 4 no. dwellings located within 500m of the proposed development. There are also a number of dwellings located within 1.5kms of the quarry, along the haul route on the local road between the quarry entrance and the junction with the R339. There are also a number of dwellings located to the southwest, and southwest of the site. It is indicated in section 2.3.1 of the EIS submitted that based on an area of 1km in radius from the proposed site approximately 16 structures were encountered where 14 where occupied structures and 2 were either farm or unoccupied structures such as derelict buildings. C & F Tooling and the ESB substation are both located within 500 and 100 metres respectively.

I note that there is an existing dwelling located immediately outside the southern site boundary of the site, which due to its immediate adjoining location just outside the southern boundary of the site, would obviously suffer serious detrimental impact in terms of residential amenity. However I note that it has been indicated in the documents submitted that said dwelling is unoccupied and is in the ownership of Coshla Quarries. On the application form submitted John Morris and John Flaherty are indicated to the Company Directors of Coshla Quarries Ltd. However as part of the First Party Response a map has been submitted indicating the dwellings in the area, which indicates said dwelling in the ownership of John and Helen McDonagh. However no landownership maps to substantiate this have been submitted. Upon site inspection, I was unable to gain access to said dwelling, as the access route to same was padlocked. As such I assume that said dwelling is as indicated unoccupied and under the ownership of Coshla quarries. I have therefore omitted the impact of the quarry development on said dwelling. I have assessed the impact on the remaining residential developments in the general area in relation to the following: -

Air quality Section 8 of the EIS submitted specifically addresses the issue of air quality. The air quality assessment reports considered the air quality arising from the asphalt plant, concrete plant and operating quarry. It is indicated that the nearest houses are approximately 500m to the west and north, to the east are over 950 metres away, and

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 35 the house to the south of the quarry is unoccupied, is owned by Coshla Quarries Ltd and as such is not considered a sensitive location.

• Asphalt Plant: The potential air quality impact of the proposed asphalt plant has been assessed. Dispersion modelling of emissions of dust and combustion products from the asphalt plant stack and from the associated generators indicate a negligible impact on air quality at the nearest houses. Odours are localised within the site. It is submitted that allowing for the distances in excess of 750m to the nearest occupied house, and the large dilution factors, the potential for perceptible odour off-site is negligible. It is also submitted that fugitive emissions of odours from the plant can be controlled by ensuring a high standard of enclosure, which is easily obtained due to the modern design of the plant.

• Cumulative Impact of Quarry, Asphalt Plant and Concrete Batching Plant: The air quality impact of the concrete batching plant was detailed in Chapter 8 of EIA planning reference number 09/230. In relation to fine dust and combustion products, the highest concentration of fine particulate matter predicted at surrounding houses was 0.3ug/m3. Adding this value to the 0.2ug/m3 predicted for the asphalt plant, the cumulative impact is 0.5ug/m3. It is indicated that this is negligible compared with the PM 10-limit value of 40ug/m3. It is indicated that there is no cumulative impact on air quality.

Thus I consider that the proposed development is unlikely to result in a significant increase in injury to residential amenity, provided that any mitigation measures identified in the EIS are implemented. I also note that An Bord Pleanála in their consideration of the retention of the asphalt batching plant as per PL 07. 234608 and the retention of the concrete batching plant as per PL. 07. 233579 had no concerns in relation to air quality or dust. It is also indicated in the First Party Response that monthly monitoring since September 2007 shows that dust levels from the quarry have only occasionally exceeded set limits.

Specifically in relation to concerns expressed in relation to a plume from the batching plants traversing the motorway, I note that this was not a concern in the Board’s previous consideration of the retention of the asphalt or concrete batching plants at this location as per PL 07. 234608 and PL 07. 233579 respectively. Also as the subject development presents an extension of the use of the quarry permitted upon that previously permitted as per 06/4125, with no extension to the previously permitted extraction area in said permission, I do not consider that this is an issue.

Noise Section 9 of the EIS submitted specifically addresses the issue of noise. It is indicated that a noise impact assessment of the asphalt plant and concrete plant located in the existing Coshla quarry site has been carried out. The quarry site in which the asphalt plant is located is subject to a daytime noise limit of 55DB(A). A survey in January 2009 determined that the existing quarry noise emanating from within the site was 50 DB(A) at the nearest house to the east, and was less than 48 Db(a) at the nearest house to the north. At the nearest houses to the asphalt plant, which are to the west and north, the predicted noise level in full production is 38 Db(A)Laeq, 1hr. At the nearest house to the east the predicted noise level is 36dbaLAeq, 1hr. Cumulative noise emissions

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 35 from the quarry site are predicted to remain comfortably within the applicable daytime noise limit of 55 dba. Noise emissions from the electrical generators at nighttime are calculated to result in less than 25 dba at the nearest houses, which is substantially below the standard nighttime noise limit of 45 dBa. I also note that An Bord Pleanála in their consideration of the retention of the asphalt batching plant as per PL 07. 234608 and the retention of the concrete batching plant as per PL. 07. 233579 had no concerns in relation to noise. It is indicated in the First Party Response that monthly monitoring since September 2007 shows that noise levels from the quarry have never exceeded set limits. However as the subject development will differ to the previously permitted development as per P06/4125 in that construction traffic will pass along the county road, along which there are a number of residential properties, I consider that this could present an issue in relation to residential amenity from the noise generated from the transportation and high level of movement of heavy goods vehicles along this road.

Blasting and Structural Concerns: Specific concerns have been raised in relation to blasting. While I note that blasting has not been specifically addressed in the EIS submitted, specific detail in relation to same has been submitted as part of the First Party response. Blasting is proposed as part of the subject proposal. As part of the First Party Response it is indicated that blasting has been ongoing at the quarry and was generally carried out on a fortnightly basis. I also note that conditions no. 9 and 10 of the temporary permission granted as per 06/4125 related to blasting. As such I consider that it is reasonable to assume that blasting was proposed as part of the initial proposal. It is indicated in the First Party Response that there have never been more than two blasts a week, and that cumulatively 43 no. blasts have been carried out since May 2008. However it is indicated that presently there is only a demand for one blast every two months or as needed.

It is indicated that blasting operations are carried out as per standard practice and in accordance with all National Roads Authority (NRA) guidance regulations. According to British safety standards, 12.7mm/second PPV at 10 to 50 Hz is defined as the level above at which cosmetic and structural damage may occur in a building. The average reading of PPV from blasts are generally below 3mm/seond PPV. A copy of the on site-basting portfolio has been submitted. Blast monitoring for air overpressure and ground vibration are put in place at several proximal or sensitive locations. No blast has ever reached or exceeded the set ground vibration limit or 12mm/second PPV. I also note that third party monitoring has taken place at a number of dwellings in the area to establish the possible impacts of blasting. Said monitoring indicated that there is no ground vibration close to or above the threshold that could indicate a possible impact, and it is submitted that increasing the zone of 500 metres to 1000 metres is only going to show even lower PPV values.

I note that condition no. 10 of the previous temporary permission granted as per 06/4125 stipulated that advance notice was to be given to occupiers of houses within 500 metres of the site. However I also note that there are relatively few occupied houses located within 500 metres of the site. It is submitted in the First Party Response that as a matter of courtesy the notification radius was extended from 500m to over 1000m in May 2009, and if it is required to extend the radius by an additional 500m, that they have no objection. While no such drawing indicating the 500m, 1000m and

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 35 1500m buffer contours was submitted as part of the subject application, I do note that this drawing is contained within the EIS prepared by HDS Consultancy Services Ltd and submitted as part of P06/4125 (CQ-PA-002). Should the area be extended to 1,500 metres this would extend to the Regional R339 Road to the north, and as such encompass a large number of residential properties. However I do not consider that such an extensive notification radius is warranted, and while I consider that the permitted area of 500m may not be sufficiently large enough, taking account the large size of the proposed extractive area (13 ha.) and the very small number of habited dwellings within said 500 metre radius, I consider that a notification radius of 1,000m is acceptable in this case. Should the Board consider that the warning area for blasting be further extended, I consider that this issue can be adequately addressed by way of appropriate condition, and that condition no. 10 of the previous permission be amended accordingly. I also note that as per section ‘3.2 Noise and Vibration’ of the ‘Quarries and Ancillary Activities: Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DOEHLG, 2004)’, it is indicated that ‘earth mounds erected around the site boundary can provide acoustic as well as visual screening’. Furthermore I also note that the Quarry Guidelines in their ‘Best practice/possible mitigation measures’ state that the ‘use of the “delayed” blasting technique, whereby the blast takes place in a series of timed small explosions rather than a single large blast, helps to minimise the vibration in the rock body’. Accordingly should the Board be mindful to grant permission for the proposed development, I consider that the development should be conditioned accordingly.

Hours of Operation It is proposed that the hours of operation for the manufacture, delivery and product dispatch would be from 07.00 hrs to 18.00 hrs Monday to Friday, and Saturdays 09.30 to 16.00. It is considered that these hours would be reasonable. However the transportation of materials in terms of noise generated from the heavy goods vehicles passing along the Coshla Road and the residential properties along this road may prove problematic.

9. Archaeological Impact

Concerns have been raised in relation to the impact of the development on archaeology. In this regard I note that section 13 of the EIS submitted in relation to ‘Cultural Heritage’ refers. It is indicated in this section that ‘the report is based on a desktop study of an original Archaeological survey carried out in November 2005 for the original quarry application. This application presents no change to the boundaries of the site outlined in granted planning 06/4125’. The study methodology used was a desktop survey and field walking. It is indicated that there are no recorded archaeological monuments in the area of the proposed development. I note that 6 no. archaeological features, which are recorded archaeological monuments, are located within 1.5 kilometres of the site. The closest recorded archaeological monument to the proposed development is an earthwork site (83:008) located 300 metres to the northwest of the boundary. It is indicated that ‘this proposed continuation of quarrying is located within the existing quarry site and there is no change to the quarry/extraction area permitted in 06/4125…No excavation of new ground will take place during this proposed development and as a result of this no further archaeological input is required’. As the subject development presents an extension of the use of the quarry permitted upon that previously permitted as per 06/4125, with

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 35 no extension to the previously permitted extraction area in said permission, I do not consider that this is an issue.

10. Aviation and Air Safety

In relation to aviation matters, I note that the proposal is within the zone of influence of Galway Airport and all buildings, structures, erections and works exceeding 45m are subject to development controls. It is submitted in the First Party response that the quarry operation poses no threat to aviation traffic, and that they have contacted the IAA who have confirmed that the quarry does not require any Irish Aviation Authority Traffic Assessment, and the Galway Airport Manager who is content that the operation does not raise any safety issues for Galway Airport. While I note that there is no written correspondence in relation to same, I also note that in the subject case no works will exceed 45m. As such I consider that the development is acceptable in this regard. I also note that the flora and fauna surveys have found that there are no flocks of birds consistently or intermittently present at the quarry or in the general locality.

11. Health Concerns

Health concerns have been expressed in relation to the discharge chimney from the asphalt plant. It is indicated as part of the First Party Response that the discharge chimney from the asphalt batching plant discharges water vapour which condensates upon dispersal, and that an air emissions licence is in place. A copy of the air discharge licence has been submitted.

12. PRTR Regulations

It is indicated in the First Party Response that the site is below the 25-hectare threshold for registration under the PRTR regulations. I consider that issues in relation to registration under the PRTR Regulations, are outside the consideration of An Bord Pleanála, and is not a subject for consideration in the subject appeal.

13. Conditions

Should the Board be mindful to grant permission for the development, specific concerns have been raised in relation to the following conditions, which are addressed accordingly: -

Condition no. 2: In relation to condition no. 2, which limits the number of traffic movements from the quarry to the R339 Regional Road to a maximum of 400 movements per day, I note that concerns have been expressed in relation to whether it is actually capable of being monitored without considerable expense to residents. However I do not consider that this is an issue as it is indicated in the First Party Response that such lorry movements are monitored by records from the quarry weighbridge and have been provided to the Council on request. I consider such a monitoring arrangement reasonable. In relation

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 35 to the concerns in relation to the number of vehicles per hour, I consider that taking account the commercial nature of the development it is more appropriate to condition the number of vehicles on a daily basis.

Condition no. 4: In relation to condition no. 4, queries have been raised as to whether it is appropriate to require vibration and water quality monitoring where neither the applicant nor the Planning Authority have yet considered the impact of existing vibration levels or have yet determined whether the existing quarrying operation has already caused groundwater pollution. However I do not consider that this is the case. In this regard I note that various quarterly monitoring programmes at the quarry are carried out by independent consultants, and have not indicated any prolonged or significant breaches of noise, air quality (dust) or ground water quality at the perimeter of the quarry site. Noise, dust, groundwater and ground vibration testing is carried out at five separate sample site locations around the quarry and at vibration /noise sensitive locations proximal to the quarry and the reports forwarded to the Council every two to three months. All assessments found that there would be no impact at the nearest houses, within 500 metres. As part of the First Party Response, full monitoring records since September 2007 for noise, dust, vibration and groundwater have been submitted, which found that there was no impact at the nearest houses, within 500 metres.

Condition no. 5: Condition no. 5 relates to an annual contribution to Galway County Council for monitoring services. Concerns are expressed that this condition breaches planning law as it relates to a payment for professional services rather than for infrastructure, and that it would also put pressure on scarce local authority resources and result in inadequate monitoring. I concur that it is unreasonable to require the developer to pay the Council to monitor the development on an annual basis. I also note that condition no. 4 requires noise, dust, vibration and waste quality monitoring to be carried out by independent consultants. Accordingly I do not consider that it is appropriate to seek a contribution for monitoring as per condition no. 5. Therefore should the Board be mindful to grant permission for the development, I consider that this condition should be omitted.

Condition no. 7: Concerns are expressed that the time limitations are insufficient to ensure a reasonable level of amenity for local residents. In particular attention is drawn to the hours of blasting. This condition limits same to between the hours of 09.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday only. I consider such hours proposed are acceptable and should not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity. However I do have concerns in relation to truck loading activity hours specified, which can be undertaken between the additional hours of 07.00-08.00 Monday to Saturday inclusive. I consider that in the interests of the protection of residential amenity, that such activities should not commence until 08.00 hours, and furthermore that the hours of operation of the quarry should be limited to 09.00 to 13.00 hours on a Saturday.

Condition no. 12, 13 and 16: Concerns are expressed in relation to condition no.’s 12, 13 and 16, whereby it is submitted that it is difficult to appreciate the purpose of these conditions which require bunding, the control of surface run off and groundwater sampling, given that the entire

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 35 site floods to a notable degree. In this regard I note that condition no. 12 relates to the adequate bunding of all hydrocarbon to chemical storage tanks; condition no. 13 relates to surface and run off; and condition no. 16 relates to groundwater monitoring conditions. I consider that should the Board be mindful to grant permission for the proposed development, that such conditions are reasonable.

Condition no. 17: Condition no. 17 relates to the event of quarrying activities having an adverse effect on the existing private wells and water supplies in the vicinity, that appropriate remedial measures be agreed in writing with the Council and undertaken by the developer. It is also specified that in the event of the activities on site interfering with the potable water supply in the area, that the developer shall make a potable water supply available to all affected households and farmsteads. Concern is expressed in relation to the type of remedial measures, which could satisfy this condition given the flood prone nature of this low-lying land. I consider that in the interest of the protection of residential amenity that should the Board be mindful to grant permission for the proposed development, that such condition is reasonable.

13.0 CONCLUSION

As outlined in the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development would not overcome previous reasons for refusal recommended by An Bord Pleanala as per PL 07.130534 for a quarry development on this site, with the same access route along the L7109 ‘Coshla Road’ to the R339 Regional Route. As such it is considered that the proposed development with a substantial number of residential properties along the proposed access route, by reason of the nature and volume of traffic that it would generate on the inadequate road network, would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development would generate considerable additional traffic, especially in relation to the junction with the R339, which would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.

I also consider that the proposed development is in an area at risk of flooding. As such having regard to the provisions of ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (OPW, 2009) , it is considered that, in the absence of adequate information relating to the risk of flooding, analysis of such risk, and appropriate mitigating measures to address any risk, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

I also have concerns in relation to the visual impact of the proposed quarry development and associated activities, by reason of its proximity to the M6 motorway to the south, and that as such it would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and detract from its rural character and attractiveness.

14.0 DECISION

In the light of the above Assessment, I recommend that permission be refused for the following reasons and considerations: -

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 35 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. The proposed development is located in an open rural landscape with many residential properties along the proposed access route. The proposed development, by reason of the nature and volume of traffic that it would generate on roads of inadequate strength and design, would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity and would therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. It is considered that the proposed development would generate considerable additional traffic, especially in relation to the junction with the R339, which would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.

3. The proposed development is in an area at risk of flooding. Having regard to the provisions of ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (OPW, 2009) , it is considered that, in the absence of adequate information relating to the risk of flooding, analysis of such risk, and appropriate mitigating measures to address any risk, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

4. The proposed quarry development and associated activities, by reason of its proximity to the M6 motorway to the south, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and detract from its rural character and attractiveness. The quarry development by its nature, location, scale and use would have a detrimental and adverse impact on the visual character of the landscape. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

______Louise Kiernan Inspector 31 st May, 2010

PL 07. 235821 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 35