· Web viewThe development side has stated that physical model tests have now been commissioned and will be completed within three months. Modelling of harbours and estuaries is

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

PL27.EF2016PL27.CF2022

Wicklow County Council.

Nature of Application: Approval under Section 175 and

Compulsory Purchase Order

Location of Development: Greystones Harbour and North Beach,

Rathdown Upper and Lower.

Nature of Development: New Harbour, Marina, Residential,

Commercial, club facilities, public open

space, access and off-street car parking.

Inspector: James Carroll

PL27.EF2016 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 239

CONTENTS Pages

Introduction 3-4

Format of Oral Hearing 4

Background to Proposed Development 5-7

Site Location and Description 7-13

The Harbour 13-14

North Beach 14-15

The Cliff Walk 16-17

Proposed Development 17-18

Proposed Harbour 18-20

Site Layout 21-23

Open Space Provision 23-24

Residential Types 24-25

Commercial Floorspace 27-28

Environmental Impact Statement 28-29

Compulsory Purchase Order 29-31

Objections to Proposed Development 31-33

Oral Hearing 33-182

Assessment 182-233

Recommendation 233-239

Appendix 1-21


INTRODUCTION

This is an application for approval under Section 175 of the Planning and

Development Act 2000 for a public private partnership project development, at

Greystones Harbour and the North Beach Area in Greystones.

The application letter submitted to An Bord Pleanala on 22/12/2005 refers to the

Local Authority, Wicklow County Council, applying for approval of the proposed

development which is detailed in a submitted Environmental Impact Statement.

The proposal is a Public Private Partnership comprising Wicklow County Council and

Sispar.

Sispar is a joint venture consortium of Park Developments and John Sisk and Sons

Limited.

Included in the proposal is;

Construction of a new harbour containing a marina basin for circa 230

yachting berths and associated facilities;

Leisure harbour.

Coastal protection and beach nourishment works.

Rubble mounted groyne, at north end of proposed harbour.

Marine based community club facilities.

Public park and other public open space.

A 375 residential units.


6,500 square metres of mixed use commercial floorspace.

Prior to the approval of An Bord Pleanala being sought for the proposed development,

a Compulsory Purchase Order was made by Wicklow County Council on 21st

December 2004. This was lodged with An Bord Pleanala on 23 rd December 2004,

Ref. 27.CF2002. The compulsory purchase order application was put in abeyance

pending the receipt of the application for approval for the development.

I have read the contents of both 27.EF2016, the application for approval, and

27.CF2002, the compulsory purchase order.

I have inspected the site, on a number of occasions.

I have held an oral hearing relating to both the compulsory purchase order and the

application for approval.

The oral hearing was held in the Royal Hotel, Bray commencing on Thursday 30 th

March 2006 and continuing on the 31st March, the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th April and

concluded on Friday 7th April 2006.

A transcript of the proceedings constitutes part of both files.

Format of Oral Hearing

The oral hearing initially dealt with the objections and submissions made in relation

to the compulsory purchase order and the proposed extinguishments of public rights

of way. Evidence was taken from objectors and observers. It was also taken from

Wicklow County Council.

The application made to An Bord Pleanala under Section 175 of the 2000 Planning

and Development Act constituted the bulk of the proceedings of the oral hearing.

This directly followed the completion of the taking of evidence in relation to the

compulsory purchase order.


Background to Proposed Development

There is a reasonably prolonged planning history to what eventually evolved into the

current application for approval, including the compulsory purchase order.

Apart from the sea, the two main physical elements constituting the area encompassed

by the proposal are Greystones Harbour and the North Beach and the land

immediately to the west of the beach, generally between it and the Dublin/Wexford

railway line.

Almost 20 years ago the Planning Authority sponsored a number of planning studies

of the area. By 1999 the County Development Plan, in the Greystones/Delgany

section of the plan, Section 6 contained Action Area Plan Z2, Greystones Harbour and

North Beach.

Although the Wicklow County Development Plan of 1999 was replaced by the plan of

2004-2010, the Greystones/Delgany Plan was not included as part of the 2004-2010

County Development Plan. At present the effective plan for Greystones/Delgany is

that of 1999.

Map No. 3 of the Greystones/Delgany Plan is titled Greystones Harbour and North

Beach Action Plan. It contains nine separate zoning designations, each of which are

referred to in the written submission. In overall terms the 1999 Plan proposed the

reconstruction and enlargement of Greystones Harbour. This incorporated a 290 berth

yachting marina.

Another major element of the Action Area Plan was the provision of approximately

250, two-storey and four-storey two-bedroom apartment. Further development

included the provision of 20,000 square feet (1,860 square metres) of commercial

floorspace.

The plan also provided community facilities, and public open space.


By 2001 the Planning Authority had appointed consultants to assist them with the

preparation of a self financing public private partnership (PPP).

A feasibility study resulted from the earlier investigations. The major finding was

that the initial project was not sustainable financially and that a significantly increased

level of public sector subvention would be required to make the project economically

viable. As a result, in early 2002 the Planning Authority requested the study team to

significantly improve the business case for drawing greater value at the location. As a

result a master plan was developed. This concentrates buildings around the proposed

harbour and marina.

A reference Design for the proposal resulted from public consultation with the various

users of the existing harbour, a liaison group and the Greystones Harbour think tank.

As a result of the studies and the public consultation, a variation of the County

Development Plan resulted. The variation was put on public display in

August/September 2003. It was adopted by the Council on 3rd November 2003.

The variation of the County Development Plan is a framework within which the

instant proposal was brought forward.

Following the variation a competition was held to choose a private sector partner to

work in conjunction with the Planning Authority.

The successful competition entrants, Sispar, in conjunction with Wicklow County

Council, prepared the Environmental Impact Statement for submission to An Bord

Pleanala in order to obtain approval for the proposed development.

Legal Procedures

In a letter dated 4th June 2004, submitted to An Bord Pleanala on 8th June 2004,

Wicklow County Council made a request under Section 173(3)(a) of the Planning and

Development Act 2000, for provision of a scoping document for the Environmental

Impact Statement requirement, having regard to the scale of the development. By


letter of 22nd October 2004 An Bord Pleanala informed Wicklow County Council of

its scoping requirements (Ref. 27.ES2016).

The reason the scoping document was requested resulted from the scale of the project

exceeding the Environmental Impact Assessment threshold as required by the

Planning and Development Regulations 2001, Schedule 5, Part 2, 10. Additionally

the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

The Environmental Impact Statement was submitted to An Bord Pleanala for approval

pursuant to Section 226(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

As part of the development is proposed to be carried out on the foreshore, the overall

proposal evolves within the scope of Section 226 of the 2000 Act with sub-section (1)

of this section requiring the approval of An Bord Pleanala to carry out the project.

Wicklow County Council is not required to obtain a foreshore licence under the

Foreshore Act 1933 in order to be able to implement the project. Section 227(8) of

the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides that the Foreshore Act 1933 does

not apply to an application to An Bord Pleanala for approval of a development on the

foreshore under Section 226 of the 2000 Act or for confirmation of a compulsory

purchase of the foreshore, under Section 227 of the Act.

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The site of the development lies within Greystones, which is a town containing a

population of approximately 12,000. The town is located approximately 25

kilometres to the South Dublin City and approximately 20 kilometres north of

Wicklow town.

Bray is located approximately 6 kilometres to the north.

The N11 national primary route is located approximately 4 kilometres to the west.

Approximately 3 kilometres west of the location is the village of Delgany. This lies


on the R762 Regional Route which connects the N11 eastwards to Greystones. The

other main road connection into Greystones is southwards, directly from Bray by the

R761 Regional Route. At its nearest point the R761 is located approximately 1.5

kilometres to the west of the subject site, at Blacklion.

Prior to the coming of the railway in the mid 1850’s, Greystones was a small coastal

settlement of little significance. The medieval town of Rathdown, which will be

discussed elsewhere in this report, had long since disappeared.

With the coming of the railway came considerable development mainly residential in

nature. A small service function also arose mainly centred on Main Street, close to

the railway station. The Burnaby estate was developed towards the end of the 19th

century and into the 20th century.

Greystones Harbour was built in the late 1880s. It was basically a north/south

running breakwater running due north from the Greystones rocks, from which the

town derives its name.

The harbour was used for the importation of coal mainly. There was also a fishing

function as the Irish sea, was a vibrant fishery at the turn of the 19 th century. It would

appear that commercial activity in the harbour declined greatly following a storm in

1912. As a result of the storm three ships were damaged beyond repair.

The harbour continued to be used for fishing for a number of decades however the

level of activity would not have been significant.

In 1961 the northern end of the pier was changed significantly by the sinking of the

original base for the Kish Lighthouse adjoining the northern end of the pier. This was

to provide shelter from northerly, north-easterly winds.

The structure originally intended as the base for the new Kish Lighthouse was being

constructed in Dun-Laoghaire Harbour adjoining St. Michael’s Wharf. The structure

was being built within a coffer dam. The reinforced concrete structure cracked

significantly and could not be used for its intended purpose. It was surplus to


requirements. It was floated from Dun Laoghaire Harbour and deposited at the

northern end of Greystones Harbour approximately 45 years ago. A considerable

amount of rock armouring was also deposited around and adjoining the circular

structure to integrate it with the northern end of the quayside. The resultant structure

is quite unedifying if not ugly. It is completely out of character with the existing

harbour wall/quayside and constitutes a visually incongruous feature. It is not a

particularly efficient breakwater, being partially below water level at high tide.

Apart from the inner harbour, the remaining element in Greystones Harbour is the

northern breakwater. This runs eastwards from the Shingle Beach towards the

harbour wall. It is a reinforced concrete structure which is presently inaccessible to

the public due to damage. Adjoining it on its southern side is a slipway providing

access into the harbour.

The inner harbour is at the southern end of the original pier. It is completely

silted/sanded up and in fact contains the beginnings of a dune system with various

vegetation. Most of it is not tidal at this stage.

The remainder of the harbour consists of an arced shingle beach backed by a grassed

area used mainly for the storage of upturned boats.

There is a flat roofed structure used for the storage of materials used for boating and

fishing.

Greystones Harbour is bounded on its southern side by Cliff Road. To the south-west

is Beach Road. A roadway runs northwards immediately to the west of the harbour,

for a distance of approximately 2 kilometres where it terminates at a turning area at

Darcys Field, presently a reasonably large flat grassed area used as two soccer

pitches. This use will discontinue shortly as the users of the pitches are moving to

another location.

A total of eight houses face northwards onto Cliff Road. Four of these are in a terrace

of two-storey houses set back several metres from Cliff Road and separated from it by

a 1 metre high wall. Shared vehicular access and parking arrangement are located


between the terrace and the northern boundary. This is Bayswater Terrace. Table 8

of the Greystones/Delgany Development Plan contains buildings and structures for

preservation. The four dwellings constituting Bayswater Terrace are on the

preservation list in Table 8. Also included are five houses on Cliff Road. All of the

listed houses are of considerable age and in residential usage.

Table 10 of the Development Plan contains buildings and structures for protection.

Included in the table are two buildings located across Beach Road from the harbour.

The first of these is the Beach House, a public house. The other is a largely two-

storey structure in residential and commercial use.

The difference between Table 8 and Table 10 is that with Table 8 it is the intention to

secure the preservation of the buildings.

In Table 10 it is an objective to consider the preservation of the buildings, in dealing

with applications for their alteration or demolition.

There are several other buildings which face directly onto Greystones Harbour.

Northwards from Beach Road is the access road to the playing fields, referred to

above. The building closest to the junction is the old coastguard station. This is a

quite low single-storey structure which has been radically altered in external

appearance. It is an old stone building white painted with its fenestration blocked up.

At its southern end there is an even lower single-storey extension which is used as a

fast food take-away. The old coast guard building is accessed through the take-away

food shop and is used for leisure purposes with various games and gaming machines.

Immediately to the west of the old coast guard station there is a recently completed

two-storey building containing eight apartments. This is on the northern side of

Beach Road. It accesses onto the roadway to the east at a position immediately to the

north of the old coast guard station.

To the north of the apartments there is a recently constructed two-storey

dwellinghouse. Immediately adjoining this to the north there is an old two-storey

dwellinghouse. Both dwellings are of a similar design although separated in age by in


excess of 60 years. Both of these dwellings are owned and occupied by objectors

(Bertram).

There are two further drawings, both two-storey and of considerable age, located to

the north on immediately adjoining sites. All of these dwellings are accessed

northwards from Beach Road along what is known locally as North Beach or Coast

Road.

Immediately to the north of the northern most dwelling, which is also occupied by an

objector, are lands owned by Greystones Sailing Club. The reference of this site,

which is part of the compulsory acquisition proposal is No. 12, the area being 0.099

hectares. The site is fully enclosed, on the west and north by walling and by a railing

and wall eastwards onto North Beach. The site contains a flat roofed two-storey

building, floor area approximately 100 square metres, which is used as a club house.

The remainder of the site is largely used for the storage of boats.

Immediately to the north of the sailing club is the land owned by Greystones Ridge

Angling Club, map reference no. 13 containing an area of 0.037 hectare. This site

contains a flat roofed single-storey structure used as a clubhouse, floor area

approximately 60m2.

Immediately to the north of the angling club site are lands occupied by J.J. Burke and

Sons, who operate a food distribution business. There are two map references, No. 14

and 15. 14 contains an area of 0.23 hectares, 15 contains an area of 0.072 hectares

and consists of part of a roadway, leading onto the site of map reference 14. Map

reference 14 itself contains a number of temporary buildings used as offices. These

buildings would not contain a floorspace in excess of 50/60 square metres. The major

part of reference 14 is fully enclosed by a concrete block wall to a height of

approximately 2.5 metres. This encloses what is effectively a yard area containing the

temporary buildings and is also used as an open storage area for trucks and freezing

equipment. J.J. Burke and Sons are objectors to a compulsory acquisition of the

lands.


The land to the north of the Burke site consists mainly of a now disused Local

Authority dump. Use of this was discontinued in the early 1980s and the land capped

with topsoil. The site is overgrown with weed and scrub. It is generally at a level

approximately 2 metres above original ground level. The North Beach access way

runs around the western extremity of the old landfill to the turning area at Darcys

Field described above. The landfill adjoins the beach at its eastern side. There is a

pathway directly northwards through the landfill and this has resulted from usage

rather than design. This is part of the Cliff Walk, a pedestrian route connecting

Greystones Harbour northwards to Bray Head and Bray town.

The turning area at the playing fields is a hardcore rectangle of approximately 0.2

hectares. There are several metal containers located on the western part of this area.

These are used as players changing facilities.

The lands comprising the former landfill, and the playing fields and associated turning

area are referenced as 17 on the CPO map. To the east these lands adjoin the beach.

To the west they adjoin the railway embankment. To the north they adjoin Ref. 17(b),

which is a small area of land 0.065 hectare comprising part of a former Local

Authority sewage treatment plant which has long been removed from the site. To the

north the lands are undeveloped, overgrown and disused. Part of these lands form the

major area of land previously used by Wicklow County Council as a sewage

treatment plant. Adjoining these lands on the northern side is Ennis Lane, a

pedestrian way running westwards from the coast at the Gap Bridge, and crossing the

railway line at a level crossing. Immediately to the west of the railway line are three

pairs of old semi-detached dwellings. To the south across the access roadway is the

curtilage of Captain Tarrants House, an old two-storey L-shaped structure presently

disused. Approximately 60 metres to the south of this are the ruins of St. Crispins

Cell, a small ruined church.

To the north of Ennis Lane there are agricultural lands stretching northwards for a

considerable distance, to the lower reaches of the southern section of Bray Head.

A considerable amount of residential development has taken place on the lands

immediately adjoining the railway embankment, on its western side. There are


several housing estates and small culs-de-sac of houses, the gardens of a number of

which back directly on to the embankment.

The only dwellings immediately adjoining the embankment on its eastern side are

those at the Bawn, a terrace of 10 very small single-storey cottages nestled into the

embankment immediately adjoining the railway line. Access to these is from Beach

Road immediately to the east of the point at which Beach Road/Victoria Road, passes

under the railway line. Access to the dwellings is a narrow, 3 metre wide roadway

which does not contain a turning area at its northern end. The northern section of the

Bawn immediately adjoins the sailing club curtilage to the east and the J.J. Burke yard

enclosure to the north.

By far the largest area covered by the proposed CPO is contained within map

reference no. 18. This consists of 13.746 hectares of foreshore. The length of

foreshore affected by the proposed CPO is almost 0.9 kilometres.

The southern sector of Ref. 18 consists mainly of water, outside the low water mark.

The average width of the proposed take is 110 metres maximising at 130 metres, at

the southern end and minimising at approximately 45 metres at the northern end. This

accounts for the vast bulk of the 13 hectares. At the northern end of the take what is

proposed to be acquired is a long narrow strip of land measuring on average 20 metres

in width east/west and containing a length of approximately 360 metres.

The Harbour

While Greystones Harbour has not been changed since the sinking of the original

Kish Base at the northern end of the pier, it is nonetheless quite heavily used by a

number of groups. The harbour itself contains approximately 20 moorings however

all boats are removed in the winter period. There would seem to be only one

permanent fishing boat operating from the harbour. This is a small halfdecker used

for shellfishing.

There is on average 20 boats beached, above high water mark, on a grassed area.


The harbour is heavily used by Greystones Sailing Club with the slipway adjoining

the north breakwater being the main point of access to the water. The pier is used for

angling. The general harbour area is used for both passive and active leisure

activities. There is a public car park immediately to the east of the junction of Beach

Road and the North Coast Road with provision for approximately 30 cars.

The beach within the harbour area is stony. It is basically a shingle storm beach.

However the inner harbour is, as noted earlier, the subject of sand deposition at

present. Inspection on the shingle beach within the harbour revealed the presence of

sea kale, close to the slipway at the inner harbour.

North Beach

To the north of the northern breakwater a shingle storm beach stretches northwards to

Cable Rock, at the southern end of the Bray Head promontory, a distance of

approximately 3 kilometres to the north of the harbour. The southern section of the

beach runs generally in a north/north-westerly direction however at its northern sector

it curves on a north/south axis up to Cable Rock.

When the railway line was built it was located well to the east of its present

alignment.

The North Beach slopes quite steeply down to low water mark. While the major part

of the beach is covered in rounded small boulder/stone/shingle, there are a number of

sectors of coarse sand. The character of the beach is subject to pocket change

resulting from storm conditions.

Calm high tide conditions results in a high water mark within metres of land. At the

southern end land level is at an average of 1 metre above beach level. This rises to

approximately 3 metres in the vicinity of the old landfill. It rises again as one travels

northwards, to the northern end of the proposed CPO area, which is approximately

220 metres to the north of the Gap Bridge.


Within the vicinity of the old landfill rock armouring consisting of concrete blocks,

have, in the past, been placed as an abutment to the landfill, to prevent erosion.

To the north of the landfill the typical edge to the land consists of what can best be

described as a crumbling soil cliff face, typically containing grassed areas

immediately at the cliff, where it is receding.

It would appear that erosion at the rate of approximately 1 metre per year is generally

occurring to the cliff face. Judging from available evidence it would appear that cliff

edge slippage occurs directly as a result of the erosion of the cliff toe. This results in

slippage/slumping onto the beach, at the foot of the cliff. The material is generally

moved by subsequent storms. An exception to this cliff face erosion occurs at the

Gap Bridge. This results from the presence of the bridge itself. It has by reason of its

arched abutment largely halted cliff face erosion within its immediate vicinity

however as erosion has occurred inland on both its northern and southern sides, the

structure is now beginning to constitute a promontory which, at high tide and in

storm, is being undermined. On the seaward side I consider that the structure, by

reason of undermining, is, in sections, in danger of collapse.

At the Gap Bridge the Rathdown Water, a local river, enters the sea. Beach level is

now approximately 1 metre below the stream bed, which is basically culverted at this

section. There is therefore a waterfall onto the beach immediately at the culvert.

On the landward side of the bridge, an area has been fenced off to prevent the public

accessing the immediate vicinity of the bridge. It is only, in my opinion, a matter of

several years before the structure is lost to erosion by undermining. It is the original

bridging point of the Rathdown Water, built for the railway line. The structure is

made up of granite blocks and brick. While it was the original intention of the

developers to retain the structure, it is not now proposed to so do having regard to its

somewhat perilous condition.


The Cliff Walk

As one progresses northwards from the harbour on the western extremity of the beach,

the land rises slowly upwards in a northerly direction. At the southern end of the

beach, adjoining the northern breakwater, the North Beach Road is at much the same

level as the beach itself. This level continues for approximately 150 metres until one

reaches the beginning of the old landfill. The land rises quite steeply, the rise being

accounted for by the landfill. At the highest point of the landfill there is a variation

between the beach level, and the landfill of approximately 4 metres. The landfill

continues northwards to within a short distance of the Gap Bridge. The landfill itself

is traversed by two pedestrian ways. The western one is a continuation northwards of

the North Beach Road vehicular access way. This is a popular, heavily pot holed,

walkway averaging 4 metres in width. It runs through the former landfill and is at a

lower level than the landfill itself, by approximately 2 metres.

The other walkway runs on top of the landfill in a position close to the beach/cliff face

which adjoins the eastern extremity of the landfill. This section of the cliff walk is

approximately 2 metres in width and consists of compacted soil.

The walkway continues northwards to the Gap Bridge. It would have traversed across

the bridge in the past however the bridge is now closed. There is therefore a diversion

inland for approximately 30 metres where the path crosses the Rathdown Water, in

the culvert/small ravine. It descends by several metres and ascends northwards from

the stream. It re-emerges from the ravine close to the cliff face, approximately 40

metres to the north of the Gap Bridge.

The pedestrian way continues northwards towards Cable Rock, approximately 2

kilometres to the north of the Gap Bridge. North of the Gap Bridge, for a distance of

approximately 1 kilometre it runs through what would have previously been

agricultural land, in permanent pastures. As this section of the coast line is subject to

severe coastal erosion, the path has continuously moved inland over the last 15/20

years, to provide a safe passage, away from the eroding cliff face.


This section of the cliff walk was closed during 2004 and reopened in 2005. Closure

resulted from the dangerous condition of the then path alignment. Following

realignment, further inland, the path was reopened.

Approximately half a kilometre to the south of Cable Rock, the cliff path ascends in a

northerly direction towards the rocky promontory at Cable Rock. It continues around

the southern, mid and northern sections of Bray Head before descending down to the

southern extremity of Bray Beach, at the southern end of the esplanade.

Cliff erosion impacts upon the nesting areas of sand martins, which nest in the cliff

face several metres above beach level, in the soft clay. Evidence of past nesting is

clearly visible. A breeding colony uses various nesting areas along the cliff face.

Within the recent past it would appear that these nesting areas are to the north of the

Gap Bridge.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is a very comprehensive building project covering a large area of land

and water.

There are several basic elements in the proposed development. The first of these is

the removal of the existing harbour and its replacement with a new and considerably

larger harbour.

The second major element is the reclamation, from the sea, of several hectares.

The third major element is the construction of buildings. This involves the provision

of residential accommodation, commercial floorspace and clubhouse and sea rescue

facilities.

The fourth major element is the provision of a large area of public open space at the

northern end of the overall site. The fifth and final element is the provision of coastal

protection works to the North Beach area.


The developers propose that the works be carried out in 10 phases. The first three

phases would provide the harbour and marina and associated buildings such as the

marina control building, coastguard station and the relocated clubhouses. Also

included in this are the coastal protection works proposed.

The following six phases would be given over to the construction of the residential

and commercial buildings proposed.

The final phase would involve the provision of the public park at the northern end of

the site.

While distinct phases of work are proposed there would be overlapping of certain

phases. However it is generally proposed that on-land development would take place

initially at the southern end of the site moving northwards.

Proposed Harbour

Initial works in the provision of the harbour involve the demolition of the existing

harbour. It also involves the reuse of material in the existing harbour, in the provision

of a new harbour.

Dredging of approximately 22,000 cubic metres of material is proposed. This would

be done following the initial provision of the harbour breakwaters, north and south of

the proposed harbour entrance. The breakwaters consist basically of large pre-cast

solid concrete blocks each of approximately 40 tonnes. These would be cast in a

casting yard in the vicinity of Darcys field.

These pre-cast blocks would form the basis of the two harbour arms. They would be

laid, one upon the other in nine layers. The other major element relating to the

breakwater provision is the random placement of concrete armour units on the

outward, seaward, face of the breakwater.


The harbour entrance would be approximately 25 metres in width. The length of the

north pier, including a proposed groyne is approximately 240 metres. The length of

the south pier is approximately 80 metres.

Enclosed within the harbour would be the southern section consisting of the harbour

entrance, and three slipways at the southern section. The northern section would

contain a 230 berth marina further sheltered by two small breakwaters, one running

westwards from the shore and containing the marina control building. The other

would run westwards from the end of the northern breakwater. A 20 metre wide

access way is proposed into the marina.

The main pontoon proposed in the marina would run north/south for approximately

100 metres. Attached to this would be subsidiary pontoons totalling approximately

200 metres in length. Each would contain berths to either side.

The northern and southern breakwaters would be fully accessible to the public. The

marina would not be publicly assessed.

At the southern end of the proposed harbour a new coastguard building, two-storey, is

proposed. This would be located immediately to the west of the south pier.

A further two-storey building providing for the relocated sailing club, angling

clubhouse, sea scouts and divers and rowers is proposed. Surrounding this, on its

northern and western side, would be an enclosed boat yard area.

The western edge of the harbour would be defined by a boardwalk, running

north/south for a distance of almost 250 metres from Beach Road at the southern end,

to the groyne at the northern end of the north pier.

The proposed boardwalk would contain an overall width of 12 metres. It is primarily

intended as a pedestrian access way however it would appear that it is also intended as

a vehicular access way in the quieter winter months.


Having initially provided the breakwaters and rock armouring, reclamation would be

carried out eastwards from the existing land area to provide landfill from dredged

material and from granular material from local quarries.

The other major element requiring basic construction techniques is the provision of

coastal protection. The purpose of these works is the prevention of further erosion

primarily in the area of the landfill. It is also intended to slow down further coastal

erosion on the northern part of the site.

At the southern end the costal protection works at the landfill would consist of a rock

revetment, immediately at the land, rising to a height of 4 to 5 metres above existing

beach level. Locally sourced rock is proposed. The rock armouring would be

covered by existing beach shingle.

At the cliffed section of coastline the upper sections of the cliffs would be remediated

with the removal of dangerous overhangs and some regarding to avoid slippage onto

the beach. This would also involve the reinstatement of cliff side fencing particularly

to the cliff walk.

At the toe of the cliffs rock armouring would be provided, to a height of 4/5 metres

covered in beach shingle, placed on and in front of the cliff face.

The protective elements proposed for the North Beach would require replenishment

on a yearly basis with approximately 6,000 tonnes of material being spread annually.

At the northern end of the north pier a groyne/mole is proposed. This is not only

intended as an extension of the breakwater function of the north pier but also to attract

sand into a cove area to establish a new sheltered beach.

A concrete batching plant is proposed on site. This is intended to provide for all of

the concrete requirements of the works, particularly in provision of the harbour.


Site Layout

The shape of the site generally dictates the major land uses and forms. There are

distinct physical elements which dictate the form of development. The major single

element is the new harbour. This is a distinctive land use and its associated buildings

and marina are quite distinctive.

The second major component is the blocks of buildings proposed. The layout is

predicated on the north/south site shape with the railway embankment to the west and

the harbour to the east. While the railway embankment forms the physical boundary

to the west, the harbour itself forms the physical boundary to the east, with the

proposed boardwalk providing a public access/area between the harbour and the

major site buildings.

A further basic element to the proposal is the provision of a vehicular access point to

serve the entire site. This consists of a single access point running northwards from

Beach Road for a distance of approximately 300 metres to within the vicinity of the

proposed large area of public open space. This road is generally along the alignment

of the existing North Beach Road. Beach Road, presently serves the old coastguard

station and the four dwellings and eight apartments, described earlier. It also

presently serves the sailing club and the angling club and the Burke commercial site,

and provides access to the playing fields and to the cliff walk.

The developers consider that the new North Beach Road would in visual terms

constitute a continuation of Trafalgar Road, directly to the south.

On site it is proposed to use both the boardwalk and the new North Beach Road as the

main pre determinants of what the developers indicate as a grid pattern of

development consisting basically of three separate blocks of buildings between the

boardwalk and the new North Beach Road and four separate development blocks on

lands to the west of the new North Beach Road.

Immediately adjoining the boardwalk, four-storey buildings are proposed, with semi

basement (undercroft) parking and ground floor commercial floorspace. The upper


three floors would contain apartments. Building height would be approximately 14

metres. The southernmost block would face southwards onto what has been described,

by the developers, as a square. In shape it is not actually a square. On its western

section it would contain the new North Beach Road and its junction. It would also

contain a vehicular access way to the major surface off-street car parking area

proposed between it and the boat yard and clubhouses at the southern end of the new

harbour. Also running through it would be the southern extremity of the boardwalk.

Finally a single-storey commercial building is proposed close to Beach Road,

indicated as building A, kiosk.

A total of 375 residential units are proposed. This results in a density of

approximately 56 units per hectare (22.5 units per acre).

The mix of development consists of 60% duplex or apartment units and 40% family

housing. Apartments and duplex units would be either one, two or three-bed. The

housing units would be three, four or five-bed. The developers consider that the

overall population of a fully occupied residential development on site would be of the

order of 900.

Of the proposed 375 residential units 145 would be housing units. The remaining 230

units would be apartments and duplex units. The proposed apartments would consist

of 36 one-bed units, 162 two-bed units and 34 three-bed units. The apartments are

contained in the three blocks adjoining the boardwalk. The western sectors of these

blocks would contain duplex units.

The proposed houses are mainly located to the west of the new North Beach Road.

Each house is provided with a private open space generally to the rear with a small

number of units provided with side gardens. 25 of the units would be five-bed

terraced units. These would be located at the northern end of the development

overlooking the large area of public open space and the groyne at the northern

extremity of the harbour.


Sixty four-bed units are proposed in culs de sac to the west of the new North Beach

Road. Also to the west of this road there are a further 26 three and four-bed houses

either mews houses or houses located at the ends of terraces to create enclosure.

There are a total of 34 three-bed houses on the eastern side of the new North Beach

access road.

Buildings vary in height from two to four-storey. Building heights generally rise from

west to east. On the eastern part of the site three and four-storey buildings are

proposed. The four-storey buildings are the apartments with ground floor commercial

floorspace. The two-storey structures are housing units. Three-storey units are

located at the northern sector of the site and also overlooking the basin squares.

The southernmost block, which is indicated on submitted drawings as apartment

building B, is stepped from single-storey, as it immediately adjoins the “square” at the

southern end of the site, stepping back a distance of several metres, up to four-storeys.

Open Space Provision;

Public open space provision is mainly in the 6.4 hectare park proposed at the northern

end of the site. There are also areas of incidental public open space such as the

harbour walls.

Private open space for apartments is provided in balconies, average size 10 square

metres.

The dwellings have minimum private open spaces of 60 square metres however in

many instances it exceeds this.

Separation distances between dwellings is generally at a minimum of 22 metres, back

to back however this reduces down to approximately 19 metres with the mews houses

facing the railway embankment. Direct overlooking is prevented by stepping site

levels and side lit windows.


As a significant part of the overall development it is proposed to be built on reclaimed

land, it is proposed that all construction works would be founded and executed above

high water mark. This is a level identified as plus 1.5 metres O.D.

Residential Types;

The four-storey apartment buildings, in three blocks, faces eastwards onto the

harbour/marina. Three floors of apartments would be located over ground floor retail

units. Each of the apartments is lift served with three units per core located on two

floors with two penthouse units. One-bed units contains 62 square metres floorspace

whereas two-bed units average 90 square metres. Each apartment contains a balcony

fitted with a retractable frameless glass enclosure to create a winter garden effect.

The four-storey buildings contain ground floor shop fronts with extensive glazing.

Upper floors are set back from the balconies however there are also large expanses of

glass to these.

The three-storey townhouses at the northern end of the overall development, facing

northwards are quite extensive in floor area containing approximately 220 square

metres. To provide a vertical emphasis windows and entrances are paired. Granite

cladding is used in the front elevation.

25 of this house type (A) is proposed.

The main townhouse type proposed contains a floor area of 140 square metres, is two-

storey and typically four bedrooms (type B). This house type is in several blocks in

cul-de-sac form. Each curtilage contains a rear garden, parking and is set back from

the adjoining roadway/footpath. External treatment is in brick with timber windows

and slated roofs.

17 mews type houses (type D) are proposed. These four-bed units contain 125 square

metres floorspace. They face west towards the railway embankment with similar

external finish to the 60 type B houses.


34 two-storey houses are proposed on the eastern side of the new North Beach access

road. Floorspace is at 125 square metres. Living rooms and kitchen are at ground

floor level with three bedrooms above. Finishes include sand coloured brick, slated

roofs and aluminium framed windows. (Type E)

The final house type proposed is type C, 9 in no. These are three-bed, two-storey

units containing floor areas of 125 square metres. Units are located at the ends of

housing terraces and are intended to close off exposed gardens to create enclosure.

Finishes are generally in brick.

Stand Alone Buildings;

There are five individual buildings proposed throughout the site. These are outlined

as buildings A, kiosk.

Building K destination building.

Building N marina control and harbour master’s office.

Building M coastguard facility.

Building 01 and 02 club buildings.

Kiosk;

This would be located in the south-western corner of the overall site, close to the

junction of the new North Beach access road and Beach Road.

Destination Building;

At the northern end of the residential development, close to the northern extremity of

the northern pier/breakwater, a two-storey restaurant/bar is proposed. This would

contain a floor area of approximately 200 square metres and is indicated in the

developer’s submission as:


“A destination building along the cliff walk with views and aspects in all

directions.”

Marina Control Building;

The marina control room and harbour master’s building would be located at the

entrance to the marina on the sea wall overlooking the entrance to the marina basin.

The two-storey structure is intended for administration purposes and also as a control

point into the marina. Ground floor accommodation would consist of offices and

water closets. First floor accommodation would provide a café in the commercial

area.

Coastguard Building;

The coastguard building is proposed to be located in the south-eastern corner of the

new harbour in as sheltered a position as possible. A dedicated slip way is proposed

immediately adjoining the building. This is to provide for the launching of sea rescue

boats.

Clubhouse Building;

A building housing a number of clubs which use the existing harbour is proposed to

the west of the coastguard building. The two-storey structure provides changing areas

at ground floor level with the upper levels providing meeting areas and recreational

facilities. The building would cater for Greystones Sailing Club, Greystones Rowing

club, Ridge Angler’s club, Wicklow aqua diving club and Greystones sea scouts.

Both the coastguard station and the clubs building are set approximately 3 metres

below the level of the adjoining public road to the south, Cliff Road. Visually from

Cliff Road they would read as single-storey structures.

A large area of boat storage contained within an enclosed compound is proposed

adjoining the club buildings.


Commercial Floorspace;

The main area of commercial floorspace proposed is at ground floor level within the

four-storey blocks facing eastwards onto the harbour/marina. The other commercial

floorspace proposed is in the two-storey restaurant/public house, located at the

northern end of the development. A very limited floorpsace is proposed in the kiosk

building in the south-western corner.

The commercial floorspace proposed is 6,500 square metres. Most of this floorspace

is at ground floor level in the three blocks facing the marina/harbour. The uses

proposed are not entirely commercial as there would be community involvement with

crèche and a small tourist element.

A breakdown of the overall 6,500 square metres of floorspace is provided in the

Environmental Impact Statement.

1,000 square metres is indicated as a local supermarket.

700m2 is indicated as ancillary shops and services, a pharmacy, florist, hairdresser.

900 square metres, made up of ships chandlers 250 square metres, marine related

stores, 250 square metres, specialist clothing, 200 square metres, book shop/art

gallery/c.d, 200 square metres.

A public house of 1,000 square metres gross is indicated. Two restaurants and two

cafes were also indicated. This total is 1,700 square metres.

A crèche of 500 square metres is also proposed as well as a fitness/health club of 500

square metres.

Car Parking;

The total off-street car parking provision in the development is 1,057 spaces. Of these

735 are for residential units, 315 for public parking, and 7 for the coastguard station.


Over 400 of these spaces are located at basement level beneath the three apartment

blocks.

A large area of public parking is proposed adjoining the square area. The 735

residential parking spaces, are either at basement, 400, as noted above or 335,

curtilage parking to individual residential units.

Piped Services;

There are existing public piped water and sewerage facilities serving the area to which

it is proposed to connect. A foul sewer runs southwards to the Greystones sewage

treatment plant, at Charlesland, approximately 2 kilometres from the site. Existing

capacity exists in the plant.

It is proposed to connect to existing public piped water facilities serving the area.

Environmental Impact Statement;

A very comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement was submitted consisting of a

number of volumes and appendices. The Environmental Impact Statement is

supplemented by very extensive and detailed drawings, tables, graphs, photographs

and photomontages. There is also a scaled model of the proposal, set in its physical

context.

The Environmental Impact Statement includes an introduction and background

information to the proposal. Section 1.

Section 2 provides a description of the development outlining alternatives which were

considered.

Section 2.4 outlines the proposed development.

Section 2.5 outlines the construction stage of development.


Section 2.6 outlines the operational aspects of the proposal.

Section 3 deals with the receiving environment with the various sub-sections dealing

with human beings, traffic, ecology, soils and geology, water resources, dredged and

waste material, air quality and climate, noise and vibration, landscape, material assets,

cultural heritage including archaeology and architecture, daylight and sunlight, wind,

odours and difficulties in compiling information.

The appendices, 9 in no., include the variation to the Wicklow County Development

Plan 1999, made by the Planning Authority on 3rd November 2003.

Appendix 2 contains a Construction Management Plan.

Appendix 3 contains the traffic survey data.

Appendix 4 consists of a Construction Management Plan.

Appendix 5 contains a Flora and Fauna Report.

Appendix 6 contains a Coastal Modelling Report.

Appendix 7 contains an archaeological assessment.

Appendix 8 consists of a shadow study.

Finally Appendix 9 contains the references used in compiling the Environmental

Impact Statement.

Compulsory Purchase Order;

Written submissions, to An Bord Pleanala objecting to the compulsory acquisition of

land by Wicklow County Council, relate to a number of issues.


A number of boat owners oppose the acquisition of land as it will result in the loss of

moorings and boat storage facilities.

The provision of a marina will mean the payment of fees to store boats in future.

The compulsory purchase order will result in the closure of existing recreational space

in the harbour area. It will deprive the public of the use of the beach and the harbour

and restrict the area for the use of boat owners.

An area of shingle beach presently available for shore angling will be lost if the

development is carried out.

Greystones Sailing Club, object to the making of the CPO. It affects their property.

The scheme should not be confirmed until such a time as a composite agreement has

been reached providing for compensation as well as a new location for the club on the

waterfront.

The compulsory acquisition of land is not designed to serve the community. It is

solely in the interest of the proposed residential and marina development.

There is no specific Development Plan for the areas which are the subject of

compulsory purchase order. There is a general outline of permitted development

contained in the County Plan. It is not possible to assess whether the public facility is

being acquired and the rights of way being closed will be restored or replaced with

equivalent facilities. The County Plan does not specify that these must be replaced.

The vast majority of the general public are opposed to the development which the

CPO and that the closure of rights of way are intended to facilitate.

The rights of way should not be closed. If they are closed it should only be for a

temporary period.

Closure of rights of way would prevent access to the seashore, the harbour and the

cliff walk.


The proposed CPO affects only one business premises (Burke Ref. Nos. 14 and 15).

The CPO is being served for the benefit of third party private enterprise and does not

come within the required legislation.

The Local Authority have no title to any of the property contained in Ref. Nos. 14 and

15.

Objections to Development Proposed;

Several thousand individual objections to the proposal have been submitted by the

general public. Many of these take the form of a standard letter of objection.

Many individual objections have been submitted, outlining opposition to the proposal.

A number of group submissions have been made.

The written submissions, objecting to the proposal, constitute part of the overall file.

The following is an outline of the points of objection to the overall proposal;

The residential and commercial component is excessive in size. It will severely

restrict the views to the north and western harbour area and destroy the amenity of the

area.

The size and scale of the proposed buildings are completely out of keeping with the

existing buildings. This will destroy the character of the harbour area.

The development will generate volumes of traffic, both during construction and after

completion, which are well beyond the capacity of the existing road network. The

development will therefore expose Greystones to the further risk of a road across Bray

Head, which would destroy another amenity.

The scale of the marina development is well beyond what is required for the area and

its surroundings.


Greystones Harbour is the heart of the town and an important amenity for its residents

and for visitors. The community is united in wanting refurbishment of the harbour,

which enhances the character of the area. The development fails to achieve this and

precludes any such development in the future. It is therefore unsustainable.

The development involves the sale of a public beach for commercial development,

against the wishes of the community. This is undemocratic and unacceptable and sets

a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country.

There will be a loss of sea angling and current recreational activities 400 metres to the

north of the harbour on the beach. This loss is to facilitate coastal protection.

The proposed marina is not necessary infrastructure however stand alone marinas are

not commercially viable.

The Planning Authority are handing over a very valuable beach, harbour and

foreshore for commercial development, in the name of coastal protection.

The thrust of P.P.P. legislation is for necessary infrastructural projects. The necessity

to refurbish the harbour, provide a coastguard station and coastal protection does not

merit such enormous private gain at the expense of the foreshore, visual amenity and

safety. The project has therefore become development led. It will set a precedent for

development of other public resources around the coast.

What is proposed is large scale commercial development which is not sensitive to its

surroundings.

There will be a risk to public health from the proposed concrete batching plant and

casting plant.

Detail has not been submitted which would indicate a need for such an amount of

commercial floorspace.

Access to the site is very restricted.


All traffic must pass local national schools.

The access road to the site is very narrow and effectively one-way.

The road under the railway bridge into what is a cul-de-sac site contains a bend. The

proposal in the Environmental Impact Statement to widen the path and construct

railings reduces the road to one-way putting further strain on road infrastructure.

The provision of 1,000 off-street car parking spaces is inadequate. There is also an

issue as to whether the area will be paid or permit parking. If it is paid parking

employees will seek to park elsewhere thereby having a knock on effect in a far wider

area.

There are a number of listed buildings in the harbour area most of them Victorian.

The new development which is modern in appearance will not be in character with the

listed buildings.

The proposal will have a significant and profound impact due to the visual intrusion

and obstruction to views along this stretch of coastline. This has been admitted in the

Environmental Impact Statement (page 134, Volume 2).

Many listed views will change with the proposed development. The view from Beach

Road and Cliff Road will be particularly badly impacted.

Oral Hearing

In opening the hearing the Inspector stated that the purpose of the hearing was for An

Bord Pleanala to be fully appraised of both the compulsory purchase order detail and

the development proposal, the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Initially the hearing would take evidence in relation to the compulsory purchase order.

Having done that the substantive issue of the development proposal, the subject of an

application for approval to An Bord Pleanala would be dealt with.


In relation to the CPO the Local Authority outlined the overall proposal commencing

with a description of the general area.

Mr. Dermot Flanagan for the Local Authority stated that Part 14 and 15 of the

Planning and Development Act 2000 provide for the compulsory acquisition of lands

where those lands include the foreshore.

Section 212 of the 2000 Act deals with development by Planning Authorities and

provides that an Authority with a developer can secure or facilitate the development

of land. It may enter into arrangements or agreements with any person or body for the

development or management of lands. Sub-section 4 provides a Planning Authority

with powers to compulsorily acquire land in relation to its functions with particular

reference to the assembly of sites for the orderly development of land.

Section 13 of the 2000 Act permits the acquisition of land either permanently or

temporarily, by a Local Authority either by agreement or by compulsory acquisition.

Section 214 of the 2000 Act doesn’t only provide for the acquisition of land but also

entitles a Local Authority to require an easement, wayleave, water right or other right

in or in respect of land or water or any substratum of land.

The function in relation to the confirmation or otherwise of the compulsory purchase

order lies with An Bord Pleanala.

In the compulsory acquisition of land three general principles apply. The first is that

there is a public need in the community sense of the common good in respect of

which the Local Authority is exercising its compulsory purchase powers.

The second requires that the lands to which the CPO, relates, are necessary and

sufficient to meet the public need which was identified. The third requires that the

proposal be in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan for the area

and in accordance with the proper and sustainable development of the area.


For the Planning Authority Ms. S. Walsh stated that she would set the planning

context for the project in particular the compulsory purchase order.

In relation to the National Spatial Strategy 200-2020, County Wicklow is one of seven

counties which comprised the Greater Dublin Area. Greystones and Delgany lie

within the Metropolitan area. Within this area Local Authorities should be pro active

in using their powers to facilitate the assembly of fragmented sites.

The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016 points to

the need to consolidate future growth in the region. A primary aim is the

consolidation of urban centres located within the Metropolitan area of which

Greystones is one. A further one is the development of brownfield sites especially

those in public transportation corridors.

In the Wicklow County Development Plan 1999 Greystones was identified as a

primary growth centre. The importance of Greystones Harbour and the North Beach

was recognised in the plan by according it action area status.

A new County Development Plan was adopted in 2004.

In 2003 a variation was made to the Greystones/Delgany Development Plan in

relation to Greystones Harbour. The variation was made to better conform with the

Regional Planning Guidelines and take cognisance of the Residential Density

Guidelines.

The compulsory purchase order which issued from the Local Authority conforms with

the strategic guidelines contained in the various plans. The compulsory purchase

order including the extinguishments of certain rights of way are required to fulfil the

objectives of the variation made to the Greystones Development Plan.

Mr. S. Mason referring to the CPO lands stated that they were suitable, sufficient and

necessary for the construction of the works as detailed within the application for

approval.


For the Planning Authority Mr. S. Quirke detailed the rights-of-way. The first one is

A1/A1 to A2/A2. This runs from the pier at the harbour around the harbour,

northwards along the beach to the northern end of the CPO boundary.

B1/B1 to B2/B2 is the slipway at the breakwater, on the western side of the harbour.

C1/C1 to C2/C2 extends approximately 300 metres north of Grove Lane along the

edge of the cliff top above the North Beach turning inland along the southern edge of

the playing field (Darcys Field) and then in a southerly direction towards the beach.

D1/D1 to D2/D2 is a path which extends over the former landfill site at high level.

E1/E2 to E2/E2 is a path from the beach which joins the path described at C1.

F1/F1 is a very short path which extends from the playing fields back to the

unsurfaced roadway.

G1/G1 to G2/G2 is a path extending from the eastern edge of Grove Lane past the

Gap Bridge and terminating at the beach. It goes under the bridge. This is currently

closed because of danger to pedestrians.

H1/H1 to H2/H2 is off the local Cliff Road. This extends in front of the sailing club

southwards to Beach Road.

I1/I1 to I2/I2 is a footpath which extends from the Bawn to the local Cliff Road and

comes around the back of the sailing club compound.

Evidence was then taken from the objectors to the CPO.

On behalf of J.J. Buke, Mr. C. Bain stated that his clients lands would be severely

affected by the proposal as it would require the total acquisition of property occupied

by his clients. It will also result in the loss of moorings enjoyed by his clients.


True assessment of the impact of the development and its affect on the property

owned by his clients is limited without a practical timescale proposed for the project.

The property affected is the plot of ground located on the North Beach adjacent to the

Greystones Sailing Club. The property is a distribution centre for the business carried

out by J.J. Burke and Sons. On the property there are offices, refrigeration units, store

rooms and parking facilities. Objection was taken on the basis that the CPO should

not be permitted to adversely affect the environmental integrity of the area which is of

considerable value to the local community.

The acquisition of the site would render the business inoperable. There has been no

undertaking given by the Planning Authority to relocate the business.

There has been no proper provision made in respect of continued access to the area

considering the major traffic increase which will result from the development.

Mr. K. Dillon stated that he owned a fisherman’s hut at the harbour and also a

mooring in the harbour. He has objected to the proposed CPO. There would be very

heavy traffic resulting from the development. Visual amenity would be affected. The

Cliff Walk would be affected.

Two objections were then heard in relation to the extinguishments of rights-of-way in

the area.

Councillor T. Fortune stated that he objected to the compulsory acquisition and the

extinguishments of rights-of-way for a number of reasons. These generally revolved

around the oversized scale of the development.

E. Cawley stated that she objected to the extinguishments of rights-of-way. The

population of the area is increasing greatly. It is important to maintain existing

amenities. Rights-of-way are a vital and integral part of the movement network of

Greystones.


E. Singleton stated that it was difficult to establish which closures of rights-of-way

are permanent and which may be temporary. It is important that people should have

rights of way maintained.

The proposed CPO impacts upon the Rathdown Archaeological monument.

Other objectors to the extinguishments of rights-of-way made submissions, including

Councillor M. O’Callaghan.

Even if rights-of-way are reinstated there will be a very large building site impacting

upon local residents for a considerable period of time.

If a compulsory purchase order is confirmed for the cliff walk it would lost to the

public.

The submission from the Greystones Protection and Development Association

relating to the compulsory purchase order was made to the hearing by Mr. J. Fox.

The size of the proposed CPO is 37 acres of the foreshore.

There are a number of rights-of-way associated with the development.

The owner of the foreshore is the Minister for Finance who holds the foreshore in

trust of the people of Ireland. This is a very important issue as regards representation

of the public interest.

It would be appropriate that the Minister for Finance should be represented at the oral

hearing.

There is a very important area of public interest in relation to this issue.

Sustainable development is a fundamental principle of Local Government policy.

Care of the environment is central to sustaining future generations. The sale of the

foreshore to facilitate private residential and commercial development is not


consistent with that policy. It is inappropriate to use the CPO legislation for the

proposed development. The purpose of this legislation is to facilitate essential

infrastructure. The proposed development cannot be regarded as essential

infrastructure.

If permitted the proposal will be a precedent to other foreshore developments. The

proposed development is the first of its kind in the country. It is the first time the

public foreshore has been subject to compulsory purchase order to facilitate a private

developer. It is therefore a matter of national importance and critical that all aspects

of the process be transparent.

The foreshore has a significant value. The public is entitled to understand how the

fair value consideration will be then applied, to how much will be paid and whether or

not it will be used to subsidise a private residential and commercial development.

An Bord Pleanala should defer adjudication on the compulsory purchase order until

the process by which the valuation of the foreshore is assessed and open for public

scrutiny.

Relative to the population of Greystones the number of objectors to the development

at several thousand is very significant.

Nowhere in the proposal has it been outlined where there is a public need for the

development.

The only aspect of development required by local people is the maintenance of the

harbour and perhaps the construction of a proper harbour wall.

Mr. P. Walsh representing the Bertram family, stated that it is questionable as to

whether it is legal or indeed constitutional for a state authority to compulsorily

acquire land and hand it over to a private developer for profit not for the public good.

In concluding this section of the oral hearing relating to the compulsory purchase

order proposal, Mr. D. Flanagan for the Planning Authority, stated that the elected


members of Wicklow County Council democratically varied the Development Plan to

specifically provide for the proposed development. There is considerable detail in the

variations. The proposed development seeks to secure the policy objectives contained

in the Development Plan. That is the background to the compulsory purchase order.

The policy framework and the legal framework and the exercise of the powers

provided by the legislation is still a decision for An Bord Pleanala, to say in this

particular instance whether it is an appropriate and reasonable exercise of the powers

of compulsory acquisition.

The test to be undertaken by An Bord Pleanala relates to the reasonableness of the

exercise of powers having regard to proper planning considerations.

In objecting to the making of a compulsory purchase order Councillor T. Fortune

stated that the members of Wicklow County Council did not consult the public in

relation to the overall proposal. A lot of the Councillors would change their view now

that they know that the public outcry is against the particular development.

Mr. C. Baine representing J.J. Burke (plot ref. 14, 15 and 18), stated that the land

registry had been notified. Due application had been made in respect of ownership of

the land in the references.

At this stage the Inspector stated that this concluded the consideration of the

compulsory acquisition of land and objections to the extinguishment of rights of way.

In relation to that the CPO order was originally made in 2004. An Bord Pleanala

decided that it would hold a joint oral hearing in relation to the CPO and also in

relation to the development proposal by Wicklow County Council the subject of an

approval application to An Bord Pleanala.

The Inspector informed the hearing that the procedure was now moving into

consideration of the approval of the project sought by Wicklow County Council. As

with the compulsory purchase order hearing, evidence would be taken initially from

the Local Authority, and the private public partner, Sispar.


Direct evidence would then be taken from objectors to the proposal.

Evidence would then be taken from supporters of the proposal.

Following this cross-questioning of both sides would follow.

For the Planning Authority Mr. D. Flanagan states that the application for approval

before An Bord Pleanala is governed by Section 175 of the Planning and

Development Act 2000. That act and associated regulations transposes into Irish law

the requirements for Environmental Impact Assessment identified firstly in the 1985

Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment which emanates from the European

Community. The 1985 Directive was subsequently amended in 1997.

Section 175 of the 2000 Planning and Development Act requires public consultation

initially with the publication of the Environmental Impact Statement. Sub-section 4

of Section 175 requires an application to An Bord Pleanala for approval of the

Environmental Impact Statement.

The E.I.S. must be sent to certain prescribed bodies. An Bord Pleanala itself has an

unfettered discretion to seek additional information.

Prior to making its decision sub-section 6 of Section 175 makes it clear that An Bord

Pleanala must consider the Environmental Impact Statement. They also must

consider the submissions and observations made by third parties and any responses it

received in relation to requests for additional information. It is also obliged to

consider the report and recommendation of the person conducting the oral hearing.

Sub-section 7 of Section 175 provides that the person conducting the oral hearing is

entitled to hear evidence in relation to the likely effects on the environment of the

proposal and also the likely consequences for proper planning and sustainable

development.

Sub-section 12 of Section 175 imposes an obligation on An Bord Pleanala to consider

all the information put before it and to have regard to the provisions of the


Development Plan for the area, the provisions of any special amenity area order

relating to the area, relevant policies relating to European sites and Government

requirements in relation to such sites.

Giving evidence on behalf of Wicklow County Council/Sispar Mr. S. Mason stated

that in terms of traffic and transportation the site was in an appropriate location for

development of medium to high density residential and retail/commercial/community

facilities.

The site is centrally located within walking distance of the town centre and available

services.

It is within walking distance of schools.

It is within walking distance of the train station. It is served by main line train and

Dart. Dublin Bus services at the site stop at the site entrance.

The site is located off the main commuter routes through the town.

The predicted traffic impact of the development during operation is within the

capacity of the existing road network. Mitigation measures in the form of adjustments

to key junctions are proposed to reduce impacts. There would be measures

implemented to minimise the construction traffic.

The cliffs along the North Beach are a product of severe coastal erosion.

The landfill site was studied in some detail. Over the past 20 years since it was

closed, it has stabilised with degradation of organic materials effectively complete. In

its existing state it causes no environmental risks with no leachate detected, no

methane gas and minor emissions of carbon dioxide. No high hazardous materials

were encountered with the landfill.

It is proposed to move a section of the landfill from the lower end because it is

proposed that some housing units be built in this area. In a controlled manner the


material would be moved and replaced at the northern end of the landfill keeping

within the overall landfill site.

All landfill material will be capped and landscaped.

If suitable soils such as sands and gravels are encountered on site these could be

reused as engineering fill to reduce the amount of engineering fill required to be

imported to the site. Details on such a borrow pit will be presented as a mitigation

measure.

The cliff along the North Beach has been steadily receding for many years due

primarily to coastal erosion. The original railway line constructed in the mid 1880’s,

has been realigned inland on more than one occasion due to damage or threatened

damage from coastal erosion.

The old stone arch bridge, known locally as the Gap Bridge, is in a state of partial

collapse and marks the previous location of the railway line. The original railway line

built in the 1880’s at this location was over an earlier bridge further out onto the

existing beach. This has long since disappeared.

Storms which hit Greystones in 1930 effectively destroyed a line of houses which

existed along a coast road which ran behind the North Beach to the north of the

remaining houses fronting onto the beach.

Various coastal protection measures placed along the North Beach going back over

100 years have all failed to halt erosion.

Surface water attenuation tanks and petrol interceptors are provided to a number of

new surface outfalls. These structures are capable of holding surface water run-off in

the event of a storm when it is coincident with a high tide in order to be able to

accommodate a storm event without backing up of surface water.

Foul effluent from the development will be collected and discharged to a new foul

pumping station located within the development. This will discharge to the existing


Wicklow County Council foul pumping station off Victoria Road and ultimately to

the treatment plant at Charlesland.

The dredging of sea bed materials both at construction and during operation as

maintenance dredging, will require a permit from the Department of the Marine and

natural resources.

It is proposed to reuse all dredged material for construction work within the site either

as engineering fill or for landscaping.

Elevated levels of chromium were detected on site however these were well below

international limits.

If contaminated soils were encountered they would be removed off site to a licensed

facility.

Clon Ulrick stated that he would deal with the marine work proposals. His company

consisted of a highly skilled team which had a detailed working knowledge of the

coastline.

The initial works would consist of the provision of the two breakwaters. The main

elements would be 38 tonne concrete blocks forming the walls. The seaward face

would consist of a rubble mound structure to help break up wave energy.

The approach channel to the harbour would be dredged to 6 metres O.D. There would

be a width of 30 metres at this depth. The mouth at the harbour would be 25 metres

wide in order to restrict the amount of wave energy getting into the harbour.

The harbour would contain 17 moorings which is representing the 17 existing

registered moorings in the old harbour. Space would be provided for boats which are

currently registered with moorings.

The existing shingle forming the beach of the harbour and immediately to the north of

it would be reused in the new beaches.


There would be a length of 80 metres of rock revetment along and in front of the

landfill site.

During construction it is intended to import approximately 30,000 cubic metres of

shingle rock or stone.

It is planned to import up to 6,000 cubic metres per year of additional shingle and

place it along the coastline in order to control the rate of erosion of the shoreline.

This beach nourishment would extend well to the north of the compulsory purchase

order area. Trucks would deliver the material along the beach and deposit it at the

point of need. While the E.I.S. indicates beach nourishment partially by barge, it is

currently intended to bring all the shingle in by truck.

The shingle would be sourced from a local quarry.

In relation to erosion the coast has receded between half a metre to a metre per annum

however this varies considerably.

The intention is to hold a line by preventing any further erosion by putting in a solid

form of defence. Between the north end of the landfill up to a point approximately

250 metres north of the Gap Bridge, what is proposed is a managed retreat. This

would be achieved by importing shingle which would allow erosion to continue, but

in a controlled and managed way. At the northern end of the bay it is not proposed to

do anything.

In the vicinity of the old landfill a revetment would be provided for fixed protection

against all extreme conditions. The impact of the development would be to cause

accretion in the vicinity of the landfill.

North of the landfill and northwards up to the limit of the CPO boundary, the area

tends to erode faster. The maximum rate of erosion is at the Gap Bridge. Imported

shingle will control the erosion rate.


The further north one goes the rate of erosion reduces. At the northern end it is

expected that there would be no significant changes in the coast due to erosion.

In the vicinity of the harbour while there will be loss of existing beach, due to

reclamation, there will be a gain of a new beach at two locations, one inside the

harbour and one to the north of it.

In relation to wave overtopping, in extremely rough seas, there will be overtopping.

As a result buildings have to be kept well back from the harbour. Also there are no

moorings along the edge of the breakwater.

There is also a secondary wall along the inside of the breakwater to catch

overtopping, to break it up and reduce disturbance in the marina.

Fine tuning would be carried out to minimise overtopping. This is based on

numerical modelling which is currently being revised.

If no coastal defences and beach nourishment proposals are implemented, the

coastline is expected to erode by approximately 18 metres over the next 30 years.

This would be increased by approximately 3 metres due to global warming.

With the proposed development there would be a considerable deposition/accretion of

new material. There will be a substantial improvement over the existing situation.

It is intended to truck in approximately 6,000 cubic metres of shingle each year to

manage the rate of erosion of the cliffs.

Where there is a solid revetment running along the beach to the north of the Gap

Bridge, there is no erosion.

The revetment consists of rock embedded into the toe of the beach which is dug. On

the dug area there is an under layer of geo-textile material with some fine rock on top.

The larger rocks are then placed above. These would be of the order of 10 tonnes

each.


It is basically rock armouring dug into the beach because one of the features of

putting in a revetment is that it tends to encourage erosion at the toe of the cliff.

Mr. Ulrick stated that the shoreline to the north of the harbour was receding. There

are three options in relation to such shorelines. The first is land use restrictions, the

second is managed retreat and third is to do nothing. What is proposed by the

developers is managed retreat.

This will be achieved by protection and nourishment over a 30 year period. This will

be managed by the concession company, Sispar. Each year the beach will be

resurveyed to ensure that protection objectives are being met.

The proposal to nourish the beach with 6,000 cubic metres of shingle per year should

be more than adequate as the modelling indicates a requirement for 4,000 cubic

metres. There is therefore a safety factor.

In relation to the modelling carried out by the developers, it is very robust and takes

account of the best information available, over a long period of time. The model is

however an approximation in a highly complex ongoing process.

The model demonstrated the coastal processes effectively.

While Section 6.18 of the Wicklow County Development Plan states that the Local

Authority will protect private investments by limiting any new building or

development within 50 metres of a soft shoreline, indicated on map 35B, this is not at

issue with the proposed development. Where development occurs the new scheme

will be protected by breakwaters and the sea wall. This will halt any further erosion.

This section of coastline would therefore no longer be a soft shoreline. The proposed

development therefore does not contradict Development Plan policies.

At the existing harbour there is a hard coastline consisting of harbour and rocks. At

the northern end of the bay there is Bray Head which is also a hard shoreline. In

between there is a soft area which is eroding at the shoreline. What the development

proposes is extending the hard area and allowing the soft processes to continue. What


is proposed is an extension of the existing hard coastline rather than building in an

area which is eroding.

It is not planned to abstract material from the Codling Bank, at present.

In relation to global warming and impact on sea level rise, what the developers have

done is taken the most conservative of the range of values for rates of sea level rise.

The upper values were taken and an additional tolerance of ground levels above that

for the next 100 years was added. This provides a robust and acceptable approach for

dealing with global warming and sea level rise.

For Sispar, Dr. I. Shanahan gave evidence in relation to the proposed concrete

batching plant and casting yard. Environmental Impact would be minimised.

Construction would be phased to minimise disruption.

The batching plant would be on site for a period of approximately 21 months, at the

beginning of the construction programme.

Concrete will be manufactured in the batching plant and poured or cast into moulds in

the casting yard. When the concrete is dry the blocks would be placed where they are

required using a crane.

An estimated 4,500, blocks of 38 tonnes and 7,500, blocks of 11 tonnes, will be cast

for the marine engineering works. The batching plant would operate continuously

throughout each day from 7.00a.m. to 7.00p.m. Monday to Friday. It would cease at

about 5.00p.m. on Saturday. Only minimal work, if any, would be completed on

Sundays or bank holidays.

The use of the concrete batching plant on site will minimise traffic disruption and

traffic generation.

Importing ready mixed concrete would have resulted in 25% more heavy goods

vehicles accessing the site. Importing pre cast breakwater blocks would have resulted

in a requirement to use articulated transport vehicles with significantly greater


impacts than the much smaller HGVs used to import raw materials for on-site

concrete mixing.

A further mitigating measure is the possibility of providing a borrow pit in Darcys

Field. This would further minimise the requirement for transport of raw materials.

Dr. T. Curtin gave evidence in relation to habitats and flora. The evidence is based

on a survey conducted in the summer of 2004.

The general environment consists of coastal habitats, waste ground, clay cliffs,

amenity grassland, scrub and two small streams. There is also a small area of rock

outcropping on the south side of the existing harbour.

A shingle beach extends from the harbour to the north of the study area.

At the Harbour,

there is a presence of sea kale, crab maritime, which is a Red Data Book listed

species, within the rare to endangered category of flora. The colony represents an

important site for the plant along the east coast where it is very rare. From the

harbour at Greystones the next location is in County Cork. There is the possibility

that spring vetch, vicia lathyroides, occurs on the rock outcrop behind the beach in the

harbour, however this requires conformation in spring time. This is potentially an

important record as it is listed in the Red Data Book as rare.

The remainder of the habitats within the site are of little conservation value.

In the area north of the Gap Bridge, part of the proposed development area is within

the Bray Head Candidate Special Amenity Area for Conservation. The Candidate

Special Area of Conservation has been selected for vegetated sea cliffs. Whilst the

area of clay cliff within the study area is relatively small it is part of a continuum of

cliff habitat which is of international importance. This section of cliff is also within

the Bray Head Proposed Natural Heritage Area.


The development will result in the loss of all existing habitats in the harbour area and

in the area to the north where housing is proposed.

A further area of habitat will be lost and disturbed due to the proposed coastal

protection works.

The principal habitat of conservation importance which will be lost is the area of

shingle in the immediate harbour. The value of the shingle in this area is increased by

the associated presence of embryonic dunes and drift line vegetation as well as some

maritime grassland which could support the rare spring vetch. The shingle embryonic

dunes and drift line vegetation are habitats listed on Annex 1 of the Habitats

Directive.

The loss of this area, although small, is considered a negative impact of profound

significance and of permanent duration. If however the sea kale colony is retained in

the area, the significance of the impact can be lessened. Translocation of plant

population to another area is not easily achieved.

The loss by disturbance of other habitats in the area of the proposed development is

not significant.

Mr. D. McDaid stated that he intended to provide evidence in relation to transport.

This included parking provision, access arrangements, the local road and pedestrian

network and the size of the proposal.

The Framework Plan for Land Use and Transport (IFPLUT) 2004 study, prepared for

Wicklow County Council, supports redevelopment proposals at the harbour including

residential, commercial, retail and services.

375 residential units, comprising 232 apartments/duplex units and 143 dwelling units

are proposed. 6,500 square metres of retail/commercial floorspace are proposed.

Public open space is also proposed.


Vehicular access and pedestrian access to the site would be from an upgraded

harbour/marine junction off Beach Road.

The Development Plan off-street car parking requirement varies from 1005/1380

depending on the interpretation of the parking standards.

A total of 1,045 parking spaces is proposed.

Three basement/undercroft car parks are located beneath the apartment blocks.

Houses would be provided with surface parking.

The site is located close to good public transport including buses and trains.

A total of 350 public parking spaces are proposed. Of these 150 would be located

next to the park area at the northern end of the residential development. 86 would be

adjacent to the inner basins in the vicinity of the retail component. 114 would be

located in proximity to Trafalgar Road, at the southern end of the site.

It is proposed that marina users and water sports club members would be allocated

designated parking within the Trafalgar Road public parking area. Retail customers

could use the remaining parking spaces on the inner basins and parking at the northern

end of the site (Parkside).

There are currently 40 public car parking spaces at the harbour.

The primary vehicular access routes through Greystones are the R761 and the R762

regional routes. The R761 links Bray to the north and Wicklow town to the south.

The R761 links to the R762 at the Rathdown/Blacklion Road junction (located

approximately 1.5 kilometres to the west of the subject site).

Existing traffic volumes in the general area were obtained from survey work. From

this date the a.m. midday and p.m. peak hours at the intersections in the local area

were identified to be 9.00a.m./10.00a.m, 11.00 a.m./12.00a.m. and 5.00p.m./6.00p.m.


The Saturday peak occurs between 10.00a.m. and 11.00a.m.

Trip generation calculations for the marina, boat club, bar/restaurant and local shop

components were obtained by use of TRICS database.

Trip generation rates for apartments and houses were based on information obtained

following surveys of the Malahide Marina apartments in Fingal and Corbawn Drive

residences in Shankhill/Dun Laoghaire Rathdown.

Based on TRICS the development is expected to generate 106 and 127, a.m., 231 and

256 mid-day and 303/302p.m. peak period inbound and outbound trips. On Saturdays

the development would be expected to generate 352 and 307 inbound and outbound

trips during the afternoon peak.

Trip distribution is assumed to be 50% north and 50% south away from the site.

Trips are assumed to be split 90% to and from Victoria Road to the west and 10% to

and from Trafalgar Road, La Touché Place, to the south.

The traffic circulation pattern in Greystones will alter considerably when the

Kilpedder Interchange links Greystones to the N11. (This partial interchange has been

provided from early June 2006).

The timeframe for the full interchange is not established however the temporary

interchange provides for traffic travelling south along the N11 to turn left into the new

access road and for traffic travelling onto the N11 also to make a left turn onto the

N11.

Locally the Blacklion Link Road will divert traffic away from the R761 Chapel Road

Junction. This will reduce delays in queuing along this corridor. There is no definite

timeframe for this link road as it is development led.

In an urban environment it is generally junctions rather than link roads which

determine capacity constraints and traffic characteristics. The E.I.S. analysed


junctions in the vicinity of the harbour. This analysis, demonstrated that even with

the additional traffic volumes resulting from the proposal the upgraded local road

network and junctions cope with the additional traffic demands up to a 2020 horizon

year. The critical junctions in proximity to the site also operate satisfactorily up to the

design year of 2020.

Improvements would however be required at junctions by way of sign posting.

Optimising of traffic signal timing and new pedestrian crossing is also required.

At Beach Road/Victoria Road pedestrian improvements are proposed to provide a

safer pedestrian environment. It is proposed to provide two new raised pedestrian

crossings on either side of railway bridge, one to the southern side and one to the

northern side coinciding with the entrance into the school. A wide pedestrian footpath

with railings and painted raised kerbs underneath the railway bridge is also proposed.

The intention is to widen that pathway to 1.3 metres.

The proposed pedestrian improvement would reduce the potential for conflict between

pedestrians and vehicles. The overall impact would be to slow down vehicle speed,

provide a wider footpath, introduce pedestrian guard rails, increase driver awareness

of pedestrian activity and provide formal pedestrian crossing points.

The improvement would be implemented prior to the commencement of construction.

The primary access route for vehicles to the site would be from the north via the

R761.

Road traffic could be reduced by the delivery of materials by sea. This is being

investigated by the developers.

The majority of new development in the Greystones/Delgany area will be to the west

and south of the town. It is unlikely therefore that there will be significant increase in

traffic volumes on the road network immediately adjacent to the proposed marina

development during the morning and evening peaks. There is very limited space for


further development in the immediate vicinity. There is also a significant long-term

public transport improvement proposal with more frequent rail and local bus services.

The trip generation rates indicated in the E.I.S. are robust and on the high side. The

IFPLUT study predicts that by 2016 car based trips will reduce from 50% in 2002 to

40% with the advent of improved public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure

in the town.

Trip distribution indicates that the majority of traffic in the a.m. and peak p.m. periods

travels in excess of 10 miles to a work place or educational institution. Victoria

Road/Beach Road carries existing two-way peak hourly flows with approximately 300

vehicles.

The junction onto the site at Beach Road, indicated as the proposed marina access

junction, indicates a worst case degree of saturation of approximately 70%. This

indicates residual capacity being available.

The Victoria Road Bridge contains a carriageway width of 6.3 metres. This has been

shown to be sufficient for accommodating normal vehicular traffic for example a 10

metre rigid truck and large car.

The single access point to the site from Beach Road has been raised in a number of

submissions. There is sufficient capacity at the access to cater for anticipated levels

of traffic generated.

The reason beach nourishment material is proposed to be brought in by road relates to

the location of the quarries providing the material. Both of these would require the

transportation of material by road as opposed to shipping the material to the site.

Mr. D. Kelly gave evidence in relation to noise and vibration.

The majority of work will take place on site between 7.00a.m. and 7.00p.m. Monday

to Friday. However due to the tidal nature of the works the harbour and marine


development may require work to continue into the evening and sometimes into night

time periods. In such instances the proposed noise limits would apply.

Typically only dredging works would be carried out at night.

The daytime maximum noise proposed is from the NRA Guidance document and is at

70 decibels Laeq, 1 hour.

The maximum increase in noise will result from traffic. It is typically less than 3dB at

all locations assessed. This is imperceptible and the associated noise impact is not

significant.

Monitoring of noise and vibration would be carried out during construction. All

measures possible would be taken to mitigate noise and vibration.

During construction there will be some impact on nearby residential properties due to

noise emissions. All impacts are however within the relevant construction criteria.

The application of noise limits and hours of operation, together with implementation

of appropriate noise control measures will ensure that noise impact is kept to a

minimum.

Vibration during construction will not be significant.

Giving evidence in relation to air and climate Dr. E. Collins stated that a detailed

appraisal of air quality and climate impact associated with the construction and

operation of the proposal had been carried out.

There is at present a good air quality in the area. The proposed air quality would not

be impacted.

While there would be some small increase in pollutant levels this is not significant.

Dust would be possibly generated by the development however this will be mitigated

by control measures.


The concrete batching plant will not impact upon air quality.

Giving evidence on behalf of Sispar Dr. N. Brady stated that his expertise was in the

area of archaeology. He had carried out the archaeological work associated with the

E.I.S. This consisted of a desk study, field inspection and an underwater dive survey.

The works will have a direct impact on the existing pier and associated areas of sea

bed and coastline. The existing pier at the harbour will be subject to large scale

redevelopment. While a series of buildings of historic and architectural importance

lie to the west and south of the harbour they are outside the proposed development

area.

An archaeological monitoring licence by the Department of the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government, National Monuments Section, is proposed during

any coastal protection works along the North Beach. A further detailed programme of

monitoring is proposed for the harbour area. Such work will recommend the retention

of cut stone work from the pier for reuse in future developments within the harbour.

In the event of archaeological material being uncovered in the course of monitoring,

measures would be put in place to resolve the features in accordance with standard

requirements.

The area of archaeological potential associated with the Rathdown Castle site is

extensive however most of the earlier remains have been uncovered to the west of the

present day railway line.

No archaeological levels have been exposed in the cliff face, however the eastern

perimeter of the larger Rathdown castle site is reducing as a result of active erosion.

The construction of the railway in the 19th century would have cut through what was

originally the castle precinct. This would have removed archaeological levels within

its footprint. The Gap Bridge is itself being eroded and the railway line to the south

of the bridge is gone.


Indications suggest that the medieval settlement at Rathdown was to the north of the

stream in Rathdown Upper.

It is not proposed to carry out any regrading works along the cliff face in the vicinity

of the Rathdown Castle site. There will therefore be no impact of possible levels

associated with the archaeological complex at this location.

The batching plant and possible borrow pit should avoid a northerly location in

Darcys Field to reduce the possibility of encountering archaeological levels. The

location of these works should also be subject to an archaeological geo-physical

survey.

The Gap Bridge is now under severe threat from erosion and is fenced off because it

has become an unsafe structure. It is proposed to dismantle the bridge as part of the

current works before it falls onto the beach. It would be necessary to survey and

record the structure in advance of dismantling. Given the unstable condition a laser

scan survey may be the safest method. Dismantling would be carried out under

archaeological direction. Cut stonework would be retained for reuse.

Providing evidence on behalf of Sispar, Mr. J. Brophy stated that the proposed

harbour development does not fall within a nature designation area. The coastal

protection however extends into the Bray Head Candidate Special Area of

Conservation site code 000714. This site is mainly designated for good examples of

two Annex 1 habitats, sea cliffs and dry heath. There are a number of plant species

and the area is of ornithological importance.

The survey of the entire site was quite extensive both above and below water. During

the construction phase of the development, there would be a loss of littoral and

sublittoral habitats as a consequence of the harbour and North Beach development.

The species and habitats recorded during the survey are all commonly found around

the Irish coast. The impact therefore would be slight. Despite this a comprehensive

survey will be carried out following construction.


As a question had arisen as to the intention regarding the Gap Bridge Mr. S. Mason

for Sispar stated that because of the unsafe nature of the bridge Sispar would

recommend that it be removed as part of the works.

Giving evidence on behalf of Sispar, Dr. B. Madden stated that he prepared a report

on the terrestrial fauna aspect, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles.

The habitats support a range of common mammal species such as fox, brown rat and

hedgehog.

The site supports a range of bird species mainly wetland.

In winter the harbour area and the North Beach are frequented regularly by oyster

catchers, turn stones and other common species.

The clay cliffs are a traditional nesting location for sand martin. This is a localised

species and one that is amber listed in that it is of medium conservation concern due

to recent decline in parts of Europe. Sand martins have increased in Ireland in recent

years. In 2004 the colony was situated approximately 600 metres to the north of

Rathdown Castle/Gap Bridge. In some years, as in 2001, low cliffs to the south are

used.

The Bray Head Cliffs proposed Special Protection Area, which will be designated

under the EU Birds Directive, includes the rocky cliffs to the north of the study area

which is important for a range of breeding sea birds.

It is unlikely that the proposal will have any significant adverse impacts. The loss of

a section of low cliffs for potential future nesting by sand martins is an impact of only

slight significance.

The proposal is not expected to have any impacts on the interests associated with the

proposed Bray Head Cliffs Special Protection Area as the southern boundary of that

site is approximately 1.5 kilometres north of the Gap Bridge.


The key mitigating measure for sand martins, as required under the Wildlife Acts, is

that construction works will not take place during the nesting season at the location of

the colony. Early in the season the nesting areas would be checked. If birds are

present there would be no construction until at least August.

The qualifying interest in relation to the candidate SAC is the clay cliffs. The beach

nourishment plan and the development generally would have no impact on the clay

cliffs.

Mr. E. DeBuitlear stated that not all ornithologists would agree that there has been

an increase in the population of sand martins in this area.

For Sispar, Mr. J. O’Mahony stated that he would deal with the urban design aspect

of the proposal.

Following the extension of the railway to Greystones in 1854 and up to 1890 the La

Touche estate created a Victorian village core adjoining the harbour. This was

followed in the first half of the 20th century by a considerable amount of low density

residential expansion to the west of the town.

To the south the recent extension of Charlesland has grown rapidly with higher

density residential development.

The towns evolution will come full circle with the opportunity to reconnect the

neglected harbour area to the commercial heart of the town and to consolidate the core

following years of dispersed settlement.

The site is located at the northern end of the town centre and is the gateway to the sea.

It is a likely location for the purpose of providing the town with meaningful maritime

amenities. It is low-lying, sheltered and contained. It is directly connected to both the

rural hinterland on the coastline and to the heart of Greystones via Trafalgar Road.

The site has a strong north/south emphasis. Containment to the west is provided by

the railway embankment.


There are open and impressive views northwards across the bay towards Bray Head.

Within the views are the remnants of a crumbling harbour, a haphazard beach and the

backlands squeezed between the eroding coastline and a continuous rail embankment.

The area possesses the characteristics of a curiosity on the periphery of Greystones

that have been separated and abandoned.

It is proposed to create a new relationship with the neglected coastline. The proposal

will enhance and change the character of the town in a positive and sustainable

fashion. What is proposed is a new neighbourhood.

Included in the development is a larger and enhanced harbour, a coastal walk, new

slips, controlled parking, additional community club facilities, a vibrant public

boardwalk and south facing deck areas overlooking the marina basin. A large urban

square engaging existing buildings will be provided. New walks and viewing areas

are also proposed along the sea walls. As well as this a new beach adjacent to the

parking and viewing areas at the northern end of the development is proposed

overlooking a large public park incorporating the coastal walk.

The urban strategy is to extend the alignment of the road northwards to the end of the

proposed breakwater, at its northern end. This would describe an edge which would

contain virtually all of the proposed building development to the western side of the

site and critically retain the open views to Bray Head, available across the marina, the

harbour and the sea to the east. This would preserve the open character of the site and

the sea views. It clearly connects back to the centre of Greystones.

What is proposed is a hierarchy of spaces. Squares, courts, streets, avenues and lanes

are all forms which will be present in the development.

The new development would provide two principal north/south connecting axies.

These would be a boardwalk and the new road running northwards through the site,

serving the development.


Focal buildings are strategically placed within the development. The storage areas in

front of the community buildings at the harbour would consist of a storage area for

boats which would not be open to the public.

Vehicular traffic accesses the development from the new public spine at the Victoria

Road/Trafalgar Road Intersection. The main access road is a formal avenue

continuing the character of Trafalgar Road northwards through the site to the public

park. At either side there will be terraces of two and three-storey houses.

The main pedestrian route follows the water edge along the marina boardwalk.

Building heights are a response to the context in which the proposed buildings are

situated. Four-storey are located in just two specific areas along the boardwalk and

overlooking the square at the southern end of the site. They respond specifically to

the scale of the space they overlook and the proximity of adjoining structures.

The boardwalk is intended to be a civic thoroughfare of immense significance as

important as any Main Street in the town. A promenade of this scale being almost 12

metres wide and 400 metres long will rely on a strong and defined building edge to

counter balance the essential openness of the marina on the seaward side.

Four-storey buildings are an appropriate scale to create the required sense of

enclosure.

The proposed three-storey edge building at the entrance square, on its northern side, is

located 130 metres from Bayswater Terrace, 45 metres from the Beach House public

house and 25 metres from the edge of the existing Harbour View apartment building

on Victoria Road.

The defining building to the north side of the entrance square has been designed with

an extended single-storey ground floor edge to create a better mediation of scale

between the existing harbour buildings and the proposal.


Some existing views out of the site will be impacted by the development. Towards

Bray Head the community buildings adjoining Cliff Road are set down below road

level to reduce their visual impact.

The proposed residential development site generally amounts to 6.7 hectares. The

proposal for 375 units therefore produces a density of 50 units per hectare (22.5 per

acre).

The density proposed is low in scale and capacity.

For Sispar, Mr. M. Hussey stated that the proposed pedestrian way at the boardwalk

would be the main point of reference along the sea front organising the layout of

streets and squares and locating and orientating buildings.

At the southern end of the site a new square containing sides 50 metres in length, is

proposed. It would be a meeting place or crossing point for virtually all activities in

the marina. It will be predominantly pedestrian in character but will contain and

control all traffic routes also. It is the only access point into the site.

It is also proposed to provide new pedestrian walks along the sea walls and the

breakwater.

The proposal envisages public access to all quaysides, boardwalk, the shoreline and

piers. It is proposed that continuity would be provided in the coastal cliff walk to the

north.

The proposal provides amenity areas and facilities in excess of what currently exists

at Greystones Harbour.

For Sispar Mr. P. Dijkhuis stated that the design of the proposal was not a product

but a process drawing on the experience and expertise of a wide range of professions.

Only major investment would be able to restore a harbour function. The proposed

development addresses not only the harbour but also other physical issues.


Fundamental to the proposal is the setting back of the urban form behind the

boardwalk line to ensure that views are maintained and enjoyed. Gaps between the

apartment buildings at the inner basins, allow for long distant views towards the

surrounding landscape.

The Master Plan recognises that there is a scaled difference between the Victorian

houses to the south at Bayswater Terrace and what is proposed on the site at its

southern end. An extensive public square is proposed which incorporates the

surrounding buildings. This frames the space and allows for a transition in scale and

detail. The square allows for long views back towards the town so that the public can

appreciate existing buildings.

For Sispar Mr. B. Hastings stated that he prepared photomontages to illustrate the

potential visibility and the visual impact. His company carried out an analysis of the

potential visibility of the proposed development and provided shadow analysis.

Analysis of the potential visibility were taken from a number of specified locations

indicated both by local residents and by An Bord Pleanala. Photographs were taken at

all specified locations and analysis of potential visibility from each of the locations

was carried out by means of on-site electronic survey and subsequent digital

modelling.

Where the proposed development was found by analysis not to be visible, its location

is indicated in the photographs by means of a red line. Where parts of the proposed

development were found to be visible, the location of the development, its extent of

visibility and its general appearance are represented by means of photomontage.

The photomontages do not purport to provide a definitive representation of the

appearance of the development.

The appearance will change with lighting and weather conditions and the appearance

of the buildings nearest the sea, because of their extensive glazing, will be

significantly dependent on interior furnishings.


A digital model of the proposed harbour development was constructed. The

dimensional accuracy of the scaling and positioning of the image within each view is

better than plus or minus 1%. While it is possible to produce panoramic

photomontages which provide an impression of what the development would be, this

is not to any great degree of accuracy.

For Sispar, Mr. E. Hall stated that he would provide evidence considering the likely

impacts of the development on its landscape context and views.

In reply to a question from the Inspector in relation to the boardwalk Mr. J.

O’Mahony stated that it was intended that it should be used for emergency vehicles.

It can take vehicular traffic for instance in the winter or in bad weather. It was

intended that limited vehicular access might be allowed onto the boardwalk in bad

weather to get easier access to buildings. In summer it would be pedestrian only

however this is something that is open to negotiation. The intention is that it would

remain the main pedestrian route while at the same time being capable of taking

vehicular traffic which it is proposed to limit.

Continuing Mr. Hall stated that the development provides an opportunity to enhance

the sea front environment of Greystones.

The reconstruction of the harbour will reflect what exists at present.

The coastal defences will impact on the character of the shoreline however such work

would be required in any event with or without the proposed harbour development.

Existing views will be impacted upon however new views would be created.

It is accepted that for a number of individuals their view will be profoundly affected.

However the scheme will offer benefits to the wider community in terms of the

diversification of visual experiences in addition to the creation of new views. Views

of the sea, beach and surrounding hills will change significantly for some areas.

However the familiar features will still be there.


The proposed development will not be apparent in detail from the R761 (Greystones

to Bray regional road) due to the distance from the site.

In a distant view from Bray Head the development forms an almost imperceptible

integral part of the existing built-up area of Greystones.

The view from North Beach towards the harbour shows the beach and coastal

defences proposed. It also indicates the terrace of three-storey buildings at the

northern end of the proposed residential development.

The presented photomontage of the site taken from the sea shows the existing rural

backdrop and the skyline of hills beyond not being affected by the development. The

new built development would be seen in the context of the existing built-up area of

Greystones. Although this and the new harbour walls would be rather more

prominent than the existing northern area of the town they are less intrusive than

existing prominent sea front development to the south of the harbour. Although there

is some impact this is only slight.

The development will inevitably result in the substantial and permanent alteration of

the existing character of the landscape within the footprint of the development.

However the overall changes will result in a significant positive impact on the

landscape character of the site. In terms of views the full or partial loss of existing

views from a number of individual houses in the vicinity of the harbour will be the

most significant adverse visual affect. However looking at the scheme as a whole it

will enhance visual diversity, frame some key views and add drama to both existing

and new views of the maritime environment.

For Sispar Mr. C. Crimmins stated that he was a conservation architect. His

evidence would consist of a description of the existing architectural heritage including

protected structures and other structures relating directly to the harbour.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government recommend

that the proposed four-storey blocks L and B be replaced with two-storey residential

accommodation. They also consider that a full survey of the pier should be carried


out and that masonry in the pier should be reused in the new development. They also

consider that there should be no construction impact on protected structures.

While Rockport is not a listed structure it should be.

The four-storey building at the northern side of the proposed square would help to

form that space quite well.

For Sispar, Mr. T. Durney stated that the proposal fully accords with the proper

planning and sustainable development of the area. The site is ideally located to meet

the demand placed on land use arising from the growth of the population of

Greystones. The proposal will consolidate the town centre. It fully complies with

national, regional, and county plan requirements. It fully complies with the

Residential Density Guidelines. In fact the density proposed is on the low side.

The site is well served by public transport. The proposal will deliver a well designed

urban environment. It would provide a much improved harbour to a town which is

expanding rapidly.

The proposal fully complies with the Greystones Integrated Framework Plan for land

use and transportation which supports the consolidation of development with higher

residential density.

While the residential density proposed is informed by Residential Density Guidelines

of 1999 the proposal is below the densities being pursued in the Dublin region by

neighbouring authorities.

A very large area of public open space will be available to serve the development. A

private amenity open space is provided to all of the residential units either by way of

ground level space or balconies.

The proposal will not have any adverse impact on the amenities of existing or future

adjoining neighbours in terms of overshadowing or overlooking. The main impact

will be the loss of sea views available to the four individual houses along North Beach


Road. The site is very close to all existing services and there is therefore no necessity

for anyone in the area to use a car to access the facilities of the town. It is rare that

such accessibility is available to development in any town in Ireland.

The proposed development was chosen after an open competition. The proposed

design was considered to be the best available.

The harbour walls and the boardwalk will become a major new amenity on a par with

the Dun Laoghaire Harbour front.

While public private partnerships are quite new the majority of the development in the

Dublin docklands has been achieved by public private partnerships with individual

developers. The development in the docklands had provided public walkways and a

lot of public space and many other amenities which could not have been provided

without a public private partnership.

In relation to the boardwalk the key thing which the developers are trying to achieve

is animation. In summer there would be sufficient pedestrian activity to animate the

boardwalk. However in the winter it may be necessary to allow cars or other vehicles

on the boardwalk to increase the animation.

The proposal at ground floor to the three four-storey blocks would be mainly retail. It

will also contain a crèche and provision would be made for a leisure centre.

A public house is proposed as a stand-alone block at the northern end of the harbour.

Providing evidence on behalf of Sispar Mr. B. Gallagher stated that he had been

involved in the marine industry for over 30 years. He was chairman of the Irish

Marine Federation for 12 years and was a Director of the Irish Marine Federation. He

was chairman of the National Marine Leisure Plan for Ireland 2000/2006, which

became Government policy for that period. He had extensive experience in the

development and operation of marinas.


There is a serious need for marina berths on the east coast of Ireland. Ireland has

fallen seriously behind the rest of Europe in the provision of marina berths for both

Irish and visitors alike.

This is an opportunity to develop Greystones as a fully integrated marina and harbour.

Providing evidence on behalf of Sispar Mr. P. Keogh stated that he was a Director of

John Sisk and Son, one of the companies which make up Sispar, the other being Park

Developments.

Both of the companies have previously been involved in public private partnership

projects such as Hanover Quay in the Dublin docklands and at Cedarbrook with

Dublin City Council. Both companies have extensive commercial and residential

development experience.

Mr. B. Sheehy stated that he was contract manager with John Sisk and Son Limited.

The entire project has been planned and programmed to minimise disruption, in as

short a period as possible. The new breakwater harbour and coastline works will be

carried out as priority elements before the landscape development takes place.

Following this the concentration would be on the provision of new facilities for the

local clubs and the coast guard station.

Public access to the cliff walk will be available at all times by means of a dedicated

and protected route along the perimeter of the construction site.

While access to the harbour will be maintained for harbour users and the public, this

will be limited throughout the first 21 months of the project. This results from the

harbour being completely rebuilt during this phase.

Given evidence on behalf of Sispar Mr. O. Thorup stated that he was the chief

engineer with John Sisk and Sons Limited. Prior to that he spent almost 30 years with

a marine contractor, Christiani and Neilsen who among other things built the

lighthouse on the Kish Bank.


The proposed block breakwater design results from the fact that Irish quarries could

not meet the demand for the large amour rocks within the time period of construction.

While the size of rocks required could have been sourced over seas, this could only

have been done during the summer months. It was decided that the concrete blocks

would be cast in situ.

While it would have been preferable to bring material in by sea, it is not feasible for a

number of reasons.

The hearing then moved on to objections, to the proposal.

In commencing Ms. D. Fallon stated that she lived at the harbour. She was a poet

who had taken a lot of inspiration from the surrounding countryside and the sea. She

lived in the house where Samuel Beckett summered (Rockport).

Beckett said of the view at Greystones;

“The sea, moon, stones, washing the countless tolls turned up, the mountains swarthy.

The loveliest little lap of earth you ever saw”.

There is also a quote about the sea at Greystones as follows;

“The moon on the job, the sea tossing in her dreams and panting and the hills

observing their attic vigil in the background.”.

The scene is both classical and romantic.

The scene at the harbour is regularly painted and photographed. People are regularly

inspired by the scenery in all directions from the harbour. No one would paint

apartment blocks. No one will photograph apartment blocks. No one would be

inspired by them.

Mr. R. Fallon stated that he was Chair of the Greystones Harbour Residents

Association.


There was very little public demand for the development.

The residential development proposed is private. The marina is private.

There is no public need for housing at the site.

The Local Authority should address the issues of coastal erosion. They have always

had a mandate to rebuild the harbour and retain it.

The development has been put forward by the Local Authority as the only one

feasible. The development would set a precedent for every coastal community in the

country.

Properties will be unsellable in the next five to six years. After that there would be a

thirty to forty per cent decrease in value.

The new public square is not a square at all. It is a pedestrianised area which has a

kiosk in the middle of it.

View 5 from Cliff Road, which is a protected view, will be obliterated.

The development will result in on-street parking. It will also result in commuting.

The only point of access onto the site is under the railway bridge. In passing under

the bridge one takes the middle of the road for safety purposes.

The reason the harbour has fallen into such disrepair is due to the inaction of the

Local Authority.

There is no need for the amount of retail floorspace proposed.

Mr. J. Carty stated that he was a resident of Greystones and secretary of the

Greystones Harbour Residents Association.

The proposed development is insensitive. It does not concern the landscape, open

space, architectural or cultural heritage protection in the area. The proposal contrasts


with the sustainable development policies set out in the variation to the County

Development Plan of 2001.

Of 47 protected structures outlined in the Greystones/Delgany Development Plan, 15

are located in the immediate vicinity of the harbour.

While there are many fine examples of period architecture in Greystones nowhere else

can one find such a well preserved and dense settlement of protected structures.

The harbour should have been designated as an architectural conservation area. There

is a definite case by which the harbour structure and beach area should be considered

within the boundaries of the attendant grounds of the protected structure. The

protected structures should be considered collectively and not as individual units. The

harbour area is imperative to both the setting and appreciation of the listed structures.

The submission of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government

to An Bord Pleanala raises the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines. It is

stated in that submission that the area possesses a particular architectural heritage

character. It also mentions that the protection of architectural heritage is best

achieved by controlling and guiding on a wider scale rather than focussing on

individual structures.

The Departmental submission also advises that building development should be

appropriate to the general scale rather than to that of the biggest building. The La

Touche Hotel should not be used as a reference point. It is the highest building in the

area however it is at a distance from the site. It is also the largest building in the

vicinity and not an average structure of the harbour area.

The area outlined by the developers as being a public square, at the entrance to the

site includes areas outside the boundary of the site. A large proportion of this public

square appears to be road and car parking spaces. It is also proposed to provide a

kiosk which would seriously impede views from the bay window of the protected

public house (Beach House).

The new clubhouse facility represents a major lasting negative impact on Cliff Road.


Photomontages of the development are in some instances misleading. View 17 in the

E.I.S. is completely misleading. A revised view has now been submitted. Serious

concern must be voiced over the checking procedures involved with the

photomontages.

Of the 18 photomontages submitted there has been serious concern raised over certain

aspects and it has been shown that misleading information was submitted in certain

cases.

The demand for marina space in Greystones is minimal. A refurbished harbour would

enhance the area while not placing the financial burden of a 230 berth marina on a

developer thereby greatly reducing any residential or commercial development which

would be needed to fund the operation.

One of the principal ideas behind the project was coastal protection. This seems to

have taken a back seat in terms of priority. The E.I.S. states that erosion, which will

take place without the development, is almost identical to that which will take place

with the development at the north end of the Clay Cliffs.

Over the 30 year life of the developer’s involvement the beach will need constant

renourishment. Questions arise as to the ability of the Planning Authority to maintain

the replenishment schedule. As a result accelerated erosion to the north will more

than likely be the danger.

The public safety of pedestrians in the square, at the access to the development will be

compromised as every single car or truck entering or exiting the development will go

through this space.

Ms. M. O’Callaghan stated that she was a Town Councillor in Greystones. She was

also a member of the Greystones Protection and Development Association.

Her basic objection to the proposal was the scale and the impact.


The community wants a sensitive refurbishment of the harbour which enhances the

character of the area however the proposal fails to achieve this and precludes any such

development in the future. It is therefore unsustainable.

The residential and commercial component is excessive in size. It will severely

restrict views to the north and west of the harbour area and destroy the amenity of the

area.

The proposed height of buildings at four storeys is too high. It is completely out of

keeping with the existing Victorian buildings and fails to take account of the fact that

many of the existing buildings are structures designated for preservation. The

proposal will destroy the character of the harbour area. The scale of the marina is

well beyond what is required for the area.

The area lying between the railway line and the sea is quite small with only two

narrow access routes, one over a hump backed railway bridge and the other on a

narrow railway bridge.

The construction of 375 residential units on the site, together with the construction of

96 apartments on the site of the former La Touche hotel (located approximately 100

metres to the south of the site) represents an excessive residential density level.

The scale of commercial development proposed is unwarranted. There is a lack of

demand for floorspace in the existing town centre.

The volume of traffic during construction and after completion is well beyond the

capacity of the existing road network.

If the development is permitted it is inevitable that pressure will mount to construct a

new access road. The only road for such an access would be over Bray Head which

will destroy another amenity. The exiting public transport network serving the area is

inadequate.


Inadequate consultation with the public took place prior to the submission of the

proposal to An Bord Pleanala.

The development involves the sale of a public beach for commercial development

against the wishes of the community. This is undemocratic and unacceptable and sets

a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country.

The level of opposition to the proposal is unprecedented in Greystones.

Opposing the development Ms. C. Connelly stated that the cliff walk should be

retained. All rights of way should be kept open.

The proposal will affect views in the area.

Objecting to the proposal Mr. S. Harris stated that little or no consultation took place

on the development which is out of context with the current scale of housing. The

proposed scale of development is to permit the subsidisation of a marina to be used by

a select group containing many non local boat owners.

The existing public transport services serving the area are substandard.

Inadequate funding has been given to coastal erosion protection.

Opposing the proposal Ms. C. Boothman stated that the proposals for the harbour are

invalid as a plan because of the democratic deficit which surrounds the development.

The Planning Authority is clearly not fulfilling its own remit in terms of planning for

the benefit of the community.

The proposal should be stopped because it is clear that shops, parking spaces and so

on can be put anywhere back from the coast, but the coast cannot be put anywhere

else. It must be left, preserved and access should be facilitated to it.

The plan fails artistically as it is a generic design which could be anywhere.


Objecting to the proposal Mr. A. McKenna stated that he was concerned about the

levels of traffic generated by the development and the danger resulting on the road

system.

The proposal because of its location will add dramatically to the growth of road

traffic. The R761 is one of the most dangerous roads in the area.

There are many children who live in the area and use the local road network for

various reasons but mainly going to and from school.

While the harbour is quite a mess at present one does not solve the problem by

creating a greater problem.

Objecting to the proposal Ms. S Byrne stated that she was a local resident and a

mother of four. The family sailed out of the harbour three or four times a week

during the summer, between April and November. She walks the area on a daily

basis. She is anxious for harbour improvement, would like a marina but not any cost.

Construction of the development will take a considerable period of time. The traffic

generation will be excessive and dangerous to children.

No social/affordable housing element is proposed in the development.

The proposal will result in the obliteration of views from the harbour area.

Development of the harbour could be funded by building elsewhere. It does not have

to be at the harbour which compromises the village and views which are enjoyed by

residents and visitors alike.

Granting permission for this PPP will effectively open the foreshore for sale under the

guise of coastal protection and essential infrastructure. The project has become

development lead. The provision of a new harbour is not essential infrastructure

therefore should not be the subject of public private partnership.


There are huge risks to the proposal particularly given the lack of experience of the

developers in Marine Engineering. There is therefore a risk/return pay off and the

public are paying this risk premium with public amenities. The costs in the loss of

amenities are disproportionately high even though an economic value cannot be

applied to them.

Value for money and risk transfer are key pivots on which a PPP are assessed. The

PPP bid process and project assessment has escaped public scrutiny. This is entirely

at odds with the espoused objectives of fiscal responsibility and accountability. As a

result there is no transparency.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Coastal Resources, in commenting

on the E.I.S., requested clarification, redesign and a resubmission. It also refers to a

high level of caution and some modelling being highly questionable.

The financial implications of the development have not been publicly aired. The

assets, the beach, the environment, the roads infrastructure, are being sold. People

who live in Greystones and those who visit are not allowed to scrutinise the financial

implications of such PPP developments.

Objecting to the proposal Ms. N. Egan stated that she lived at 1 Triton House, the

Harbour, which is right at the centre of the development. She was a long-term

resident of Greystones.

The proposal does not meet the guidelines set out for best practice for PPP. Such a

process should include proper and inclusive consultation of all stakeholders which

includes the community. The wider community of Greystones has not been involved

in the consultation process in relation to the development.

There was no proper consultation relating to design, layout and timeframe or the

needs of the community.


Following a two day consultation process in October 2005 a number of minor tweaks

to the design were carried out. These modifications did not however address the

concerns of the large number of people present.

The development is in an area of much natural beauty. The design, scale and size of

the proposal is incongruent with the natural beauty of the area. The development will

have a permanent impact on the landscape at Greystones and north County Wicklow

including vistas of Bray Head, the Sugar Loaf and the scope of the bay. For a small

number of householders their views of the bay would be totally obstructed.

The development is in conflict with the Greystones and Delgany 1997 planning study

which states “protect the view northwards of Bray Head. Any significant building

proposal should be the subject of a detailed Visual Impact Assessment to ensure that

their scale, location and character will not impact on this listed view.”

“The coastal zone includes two significant and listed views. One is northwards from

the harbour to Bray Head and the other eastwards from Cliff Walk and Marine Road.

Any development should not detract from the essential quality of these views”.

The Environmental Impact Study submitted states;

“The development will have a long-term negative impact on some of the

scenic views in the area. Housing to the rear of the development will lose

their views of the harbour and of Bray Head. The landside development will

be both intrusive and obstructive in relation to how they impact upon the

views. The impact will vary from imperceptible to profound, depending on

whether the development is intrusive or obstructive.”

The objector stated that she lived in a house which was a listed structure as are most

of the houses within the harbour area. The listing is to preserve the sense and

presence of the natural Victorian Harbour. The proposal will seriously impact on and

is seriously incongruent with the Victorian Harbour. Renovations were carried out to

the objector’s home in 2004. She was very surprised at the kind of demands made by

the Planning Authority as to what could and could not be done in the house. One of


the things which the Planning Authority asked her to do was not to put a sink at the

kitchen window. She wanted to put an old Belfast sink in the window so that when

washing up one could look out on the harbour. The Planning Authority stated it

would interfere with the line of the window. It is difficult to understand the rationale

in terms of telling one what to do within a building and then to permit so many

buildings in the harbour area itself.

The road infrastructure close to the site is totally inadequate to sustain the level of

construction traffic. Mitigating measures such as road signage and traffic lights

would have a minimum or no impact on this disruption. The two entrances to the east

of the railway line at Victoria Road and Trafalgar Road cannot sustain the level of

traffic created by the new development.

Placing such a large number of recreational clubs so close to residential properties

would be too much for the residents to sustain. Increased noise levels arising out of

club activities, increased traffic in the area and late night noise levels arising out of

social activities of the clubs would be disruptive.

Objecting to the proposal A. Doyle stated that she was a resident of Greystones. She

and a number of other residents had recently seen otters at the south beach shore.

M. DeLacey Staunton in objecting to the proposal stated that she was a resident of a

dwelling very close to the harbour. While it was accepted that the harbour needs

refurbishment this does not justify development of the scale proposed. The

infrastructure is not adequate for the level of traffic.

Objecting to the proposal Mr. S. Rocket stated that most local people are opposed to

the development.

M. Scudden stated that he was a resident of Charlesland. He considered the proposal

to be vulgar.


Public private partnerships were intended to be for essential needs. The proposal does

not meet the needs of anyone other than the developers and 30 or 40 water sport

enthusiasts. It would not serve any purpose for the people of Greystones.

Mr. F. Etchingham stated that he was Chair of the Greystones Protection

Development Association. He was a former Town Councillor in Greystones.

The protection association was formed in 1996. The objectives of the association is to

try and ensure that there is a community based solution to the harbour with the

emphasis on restoration not replacing it. In 1999 he ran for Greystones Town Council

and was elected very much on the ticket of opposition to the plans for large scale

harbour development. Of public representatives in the area T. Fortune and M.

O’Callaghan are currently Town Councillors who oppose the development. E.

Cawley is a former Councillor who opposes the development. Therefore while not all

public representatives in the area are opposed to the development those who are

opposed have popular support.

The submission of over 6,000 objections to the development and the tiny number of

submissions supporting it leave no doubt where the community stands on the issue.

The E.I.S. states that the harbour is “relatively intact and in need of restoration”. This

is precisely how the community sees it. Wicklow County Council however do not

propose to run with that. They intend to completely demolish it and replace it with a

commercial development and a housing estate.

Public consultation did not occur.

In the late 1980s Wicklow County Council committed itself to a marina project for

Greystones. Since then there have been at least four occasions when the Council have

sought or have made available to them the views of the community on the project. On

each occasion the results have been the same, overwhelming rejection of the concept

of large scale development.

While it might reasonably have been expected that the Council would acknowledge

opposition but might have argued that while it existed they were going to proceed


with the project for some common good or greater purpose, however they have not

actually done that. They have denied the existence of the opposition and this is

evident in the report by the County Manager to the elected representatives and

submissions received in connection with the 2003 variation to the plan. The wording

of the Manager’s Report was deliberately misleading in trying to suggest that in fact

the majority of submissions received from the public were actually supportive, when

they were not.

The development site would be served by a single access route which seems totally

unrealistic. This contention is supported by the Dublin Transportation Office.

The road network in the area is very restricted. There are obvious inadequacies at the

railway bridge. The area in general is not suited to the kind of traffic associated with

the development.

The traffic associated with construction is dangerous, noisy and will cause pollution.

It is unreasonable to allow traffic to pass by residential areas and schools.

The negative impact of the development on the landscape is huge. The character of

the area would be destroyed. It would be incompatible with the existing buildings.

The Greystones Protection and Development Association requested Mos Art

landscape architects to review the photomontages submitted as part of the E.I.S. They

conclude that the work is seriously flawed and misleading. A number of views are

taken with wide angle lens rather than the normal 50mm lens. This has the effect of

distorting or diminishing the negative impact of development.

Inappropriate lighting has been used. In some cases the new development appears

relatively dark in a very bright environment. In other views the location and angle

seem to be chosen to avoid the new development in the wider context of the harbour

area. A significant example of this has appeared during the hearing.


One very important viewpoint has been completely omitted. There is no

photomontage which shows a close up view of the new development beside the

existing harbour structures.

There is considerable value to the setting of Victorian buildings around the harbour.

Their beauty will be seriously diminished by the proposed housing scheme.

The area fulfils the criteria for designation as an architectural conservation area as set

out in the County Development Plan. It should be treated as such. To allow the

development to proceed would seriously undermine its quality as an architectural

conservation area.

The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government supports this line

and rejects the scale of the development for the reason of its imposition on existing

heritage buildings.

The old pier and dock should be preserved for historic reasons.

The Environmental Impact Statement is deficient in a number of ways. It

underestimates the impact of the development on flora and fauna. It underestimates

the impacts of erosion arising from a failure to address the increased erosion which

will take place north of the development area.

There is inadequate assessment of impacts arising from the removal, storage and

disposal of shingle, dredged and other materials.

Submissions by the Department of the Marine support many of the assertions made by

the Greystones Development Protection Association in relation to the E.I.S.

Given evidence on behalf of the Greystones Protection and Development Association

Mr. D. Flynn stated that he was a professional engineer involved in the design and

construction business for over 30 years mainly in major project design and

construction.


The coastal protection works comprise three elements. Other elements include the

harbour, which protects the marina, the boat users, and their facilities, the commercial

and residential development. To the north of the harbour the groyne and the

revetments will protect the new beach and the partially old and partially new landfill.

To the north of this the nourishment programme is proposed. This will serve to

reduce the increased erosion that will take place as a result of the former two hard

engineering solutions, the provision of the harbour and the groyne.

Erosion to the north of the development will be slightly worse than at present, even

with nourishment. Without nourishment it would be substantially worse.

The beach nourishment programme is a requirement because of the development

itself. The impact of the nourishment programme is completely uncertain. Its scale

and duration is not known. A specific source of nourishment material has not been

identified. Hauling in such large volumes of material annually will have its own

ongoing environmental impact in the area and on the North Beach.

There are a number of international and national framework guidelines governing the

aspect of the development related to the beach. These are the Integrated Coastal Zone

Management Strategy which the Department of the Marine intends to adopt as a

strategic goal.

The National Spatial Strategy commits to the Integrated Coastal Management

Strategy. It emphasises the need for a thorough cost benefit analysis of hard

engineering solutions.

The Eco Pro code of practice highlights the need to implement natural processes. The

erosion study carried out in 2004, in the area, points out the risk of hard solutions

versus soft solutions and the need for certainty in modelling before designs are

implemented.

The Royal Irish Academy, Irish Committee on Climate Change, recommends that no

development occurs below 4 metres O.D. level. In the development the car parks in

the scheme are at 2.2 metres O.D. (these are at basement/undercroft level to the three

apartment blocks).


It also recommends that no development takes place within 100 metres of soft

shorelines.

The Wicklow County Development Plan 2004/2010 prohibits development within 50

metres of soft shorelines. While Mr. C. Ulrick tried to address this his logic was lost

on the speaker. Developing the soft shoreline so it becomes hard seems to be the

logic. When it is a hard shoreline one does not need to comply with the prohibition

relating to soft shorelines.

Many doubts surround the solutions offered. The net effect of the proposed coastal

protection will serve only to increase erosion in the long-term in an unsustainable

manner.

There is a single access by a single carriageway past two schools with multiple

junctions serving the site. The bridge alignment at Victoria Road reduces effective

capacity to one lane for large vehicles because of the lines of vision and because of

the turning circles of large vehicles.

The site entrance does not provide any queuing capacity. Information has not been

given by the developers in relation to the commercial viability of the project, the

operating costs or construction costs.

The proposal is a significant open sea construction project which demands a top class

internationally qualified and recognised team to fulfil the works. Wicklow County

Council’s track record in major project performance would not inspire confidence.

It is proposed to pre cast the 38 tonne blocks on the site as they cannot be brought in

under the railway bridge. They should be brought in by sea in a similar manner to the

way C.I.E. and Irish rail have executed their coastal protection works.

Mr. Etchingham stated that the alternative proposed by the Greystones Protection

and Development Association had the support of the local community. The Planning

Authority did not take it on board. Instead they rejected it out of hand.


Alternatives were never seriously considered.

When addressing the problems of the silting of the harbour and the erosion of the

coastline, the Local Authority decided some time in the 1980s that the solution was

the construction of a large marina. They never deviated from that view. As a result in

1995 they embraced the Gubay marina proposal and voted to make lands available for

housing construction at the harbour and south of the town in return for the

construction of a marina.

Subsequent to the demised of the fubay plan the harbour think tank was formed to

achieve a consensus lead solution to the harbour problems. Small scale proposals

presented by the Greystones Protection and Development Association and others were

ignored. Instead resources were used entirely to refining plans for a large marina

development.

Finally at a meeting in Greystones Rugby Club in October 2003 organised by the

Greystones Protection and Development Association, the County Manager addressed

the meeting and referred to the marina plans as the only show in town.

The Councillors of Wicklow County Council did not take a vote on the small scale

plan. They did vote in 2003 to vary the County Plan by a majority of 13 to 8.

Three out of four local representatives do not support the Greystones Protection and

Development Association proposal. However these representatives do not reflect the

views of the community.

While the E.I.S. devotes a section to discussing alternative harbour designs there is

very little information on the designs themselves. There is no financial information

on how one alternative has been chosen over another. As this is a public private

partnership all of that information should have been made available.

While the developers state that many of the alternatives were assessed through

informed public consultation there is no record of any documentation of these views,

of a balanced assessment of the detail, of how it was decided that the community


supported the choice made. It would be completely wrong to suggest that this was

done through informed public consultation.

Greystones Harbour could be restored without the destruction of the character of the

area. The most obvious and attractive method would be a variation of the

arrangement originally proposed in the Gubay plan which was to make available 23

acres of land south of Greystones for housing construction. In the current economic

climate there would appear to be adequate funds available for small scale harbour

development. However Wicklow County Council is not now and never was

interested in an alternative proposal.

Presenting evidence of half of the Greystones Protection and Development

Association Ms. M. Galvin stated that she was a planner with Grainne Mallon and

Associates, Planning Consultants.

The current proposal arises out of a variation of the County Development Plan which

attached the Greystones/North Beach Action Plan to the county plan. The action plan

sets out a blueprint for the current development which is far too prescriptive. While it

provides a framework for the current Development Plan in terms of land use, building

height, and number of units, it is considered that the nature of the Action Area Plan

attempts to give a carte blanche to the project without due regard to the detailed

planning assessment. This is regarded as prejudicial to the current approval process.

In relation to the status of the Action Plan as an attachment to the Development Plan,

there is a statement in the variation to the Plan that where discrepancies arise between

the Action Area Plan and the Development Plan, the Action Area Plan will take

precedence. This is very questionable.

The County Development Plan was made very recently. The Local Area Plan for

Greystones has not been made as yet. This is significant. There is a local issues

paper which has been prepared in advance of the Local Area Plan. That basically

contains many questions regarding the future development of the town.


The proposed development is premature pending the completion of the Local Area

Plan process dealing with all issues.

The County Council have prepared a brief for the Local Area Plan. On page 1 of the

brief there is a statement that the harbour in North Beach area, the Action Plan area,

will not be revisited in the Local Area Plan process other than to resolve issues which

may arise in relation to design. Excluding the development from the Local Area Plan

is prejudicial as it assumes only one outcome of the compulsory purchase order and

the approval process. It assumes approval subject to design details.

The current proposal and the E.I.S. do not adequately address alternative sites for the

proposal.

The PPP is based on the idea that essential work should have been carried out to

maintain the harbour. This is not so as the harbour is actually being completely

removed and replaced with a marina/mixed use development. This could be located

at ny site along the coast and a solution put in place to renovate the harbour area with

possibly a more scaled down residential development than what is currently proposed.

Other than the maritime/pier location of the development, the development is not site

specific and could realistically be built anywhere along the coast.

The development proposal is for an excessively large marina and associated mixed

use commercial development at a very sensitive location at Greystones Harbour. The

extent of the coastal reclamation, together with the harbour and marina construction,

will alter the existing coastline beyond recognition. The high density urban form of

residential/commercial development will severely impact on amenities and alter the

character of the existing settlement.

The proposal relates poorly to the existing centre at Greystones. It is located to the

north wall away from the established town centre. There is no natural linkage to the

core retail area at Greystones and this is important given the extent and range of

commercial development proposed. The development will compete rather than

compliment the town centre.


Greystones has always been acknowledged as an area of outstanding natural beauty.

The Greystones/Delgany Development Plan 1999 highlights its manmade asset when

it stated;

“Victorian Greystones east of the railway with its mature patina, terraces of

houses at the harbour, Trafalgar Road and the railway on the sea front.”

The principal objection is that the proposal is excessive in terms of scale and extent at

this location.

The proposal is at variance with the established form of development in the harbour

area. The predominantly residential area is nestled into the landscape, two-storey in

scale and takes the form of low density single houses on large sites together with

older terraces of period houses. In contrast the proposal provides for a substantial

residential/mixed use development which although two-storey to the west of the site

rises to four-storey at the seaward side. As such it is completely out of character with

the adjoining area.

The abrupt transition in scale and density with the existing town together with the

extensive coastal reclamation and harbour/marina will completely alter the character

of the harbour area.

It will remove the existing beach and pier replacing it with an altered coastline, a new

pier, harbour structures and a residential development excessive in terms of building

height and bulk.

The development will impact severely on existing property. It will obstruct sea views

at North Beach Road. It would severely impact and cause visual intrusion at

Bayswater Terrace and Cliff Road where views towards Bray Head are protected

under the County Development Plan.

The visual impact of the development will not be restricted to those living locally but

will impact on all visitors and persons using the coast for amenity and recreational

purposes. The issues are therefore not just local.


Four-storey development at the seaward side completely dominates sea views.

The scale and extent of the development is critical having regard to the sensitive

nature of the site. The extent of the proposal was increased from the original Action

Area Plan in 1990.

The development is located in close proximity to listed buildings. Such buildings

give Greystones its individual character.

In relation to the surrounding area the residential density proposed is extremely high.

The rigid layout is substandard in terms of permeability, open space provision and the

extent of parking. Traffic generation will give rise to hazard.

A number of views which are listed in the Development Plan will be obscured by

extensive coastal reclamation and reshaping which will alter the coastline. Coastal

views will be replaced by new urban style development which will dwarf existing

houses and seriously erode residential amenity at this location.

The rigid layout proposed allows for little visual interest.

The development takes the form of urban courtyards and squares.

The four-storey buildings form a barrier between activity at the seaside and the

landward side. Two-storey houses are effectively trapped between four-storey blocks

and the railway line with no real sense of place or no real attachment to the town of

Greystones.

The open space provision is inadequate for a residential development of this scale.

The absence of suitable public spaces is significant. The quality of the public realm

within the development is compromised by the extensive car parking proposed.

The development would be car based rather than promoting an emphasis on public

transport.


The single access point to the development will have implications for the proposed

square adjoining the entrance. The restricted nature of the site in the layout means

there is little or no scope for pedestrian linkage into and out of the site.

There is an over emphasis on apartment development having regard to the established

pattern of development in the area.

The number of residential units in the development was increased in the interest of

commercial viability and not in the interest of sustainable development.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association Mr. E. Reynolds stated

that he was a chartered engineer and regional director of Borehan Consulting

Engineers Ltd. He was a member of the Institution of High-ways and Transportation.

Developments which are substantially residential in nature have the most onerus

traffic impact upon the weekday a.m. commuter peak which is traditionally 8.00a.m.

to 9.00a.m. This is not necessarily the same as the local network a.m. peak which is

identified here as 9.00a.m. to 10.00a.m. in the traffic surveys. All professional

guidance for Traffic Impact Assessment requires an assessment of the commuter peak

periods. The developers have failed to do this.

The crux of the problem is new development trip generations.

Arup have used TRICS to assess the traffic volumes associated with the development.

As an expert user of this database Mr. Reynolds stated that he investigated the

methodology used by Arup to assess the traffic generated by the proposal. TRICS is

the trip rate information computer system. It is a very simple tool and a massive

database containing details of actual traffic surveys at a range of developments in the

U.K. and Ireland. It allows traffic engineers to assess the level of traffic generated by

any particular development.

Significantly the developers have based their assessment of traffic for the marina, the

boat club, the bar and restaurant and the neighbourhood centre, on the single sample

snap shot survey of individual developments for the most part from within the United

Kingdom.


There is no evidence that the sites chosen are comparable with the development in

Greystones. They are not. Comparison with a traffic survey of a single site on a day

when there could have been variances in traffic conditions does not provide for an

accurate quantification of the traffic generated. It is normal practice to include a

number of sites and take the average and for a robust assessment and 85 percentile of

these figures. The use of individual sites provides a very unreliable foundation for the

entire assessment.

For the boat club the development pulled out the Ashford Boat Club, which is also

British. This boat club is located on the southern edge of Ashford town with

approximately 250,000 people within a 5 mile catchment. Single traffic count surveys

were carried out by that marina in the TRICS database on Friday 10 th July 1998 and

Saturday 11th July 1998. This information is seven years old and out of date. A single

survey done during school holidays is statistically unreliable.

There are 21 marina and boat clubs surveys included in the database so why take just

one site. Surveys should have taken several sites elsewhere in Ireland. There are

several marinas and boat clubs. These could have been taken as an average or 85

percentile of the site.

For the bar and restaurant the developers used a pub near Notingham in the U.K. A

single pub located beside Notingham city, 250,000 people within 5 miles of the pub,

which is hardly comparable with Greystones.

For the neighbourhood centre element, out of 273 retail centres on the TRICS

database, the developers pulled out one site. This is Blanchardstown Shopping Centre

which has a Super Quinn anchor. The Greystones Scheme will not have a 30,000

square foot anchor included. While it may appear that this would give a higher trip

rate than the small local neighbourhood centre, the reality is that smaller retail outlets

generate higher trip rates per square foot than larger schemes. It is also noteworthy

that the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre was surveyed in the school holidays. The

survey was also taken in July when trip rates and traffic patterns are not the same as

on a normal day or indeed at the weekend.


Blanchardstown Shopping Centre contains a 30,000 square foot Super Quin anchor,

newsagent, pharmacy, post office, hairdressers, jewellers, dry cleaners, home

solutions, florists and bookmakers.

The trip generation rates applied to the residential elements are more likely

anticipated rates expected rather than representing a sensitivity test. To provide this

requires a robust and onerus assessment of the likely traffic volumes associated with

the scheme. This has not been provided.

Trip rates appropriate for the scheme have not been provided.

Traffic generation levels quantified by the developers are likely to be at best

unreliable and at worst represent an inaccurate assessment of the traffic generated by

the proposal.

The junction analysis carried out by the developers shows the ratio flow to capacity

volumes well below available capacity. This is considered to be 90% during the year

20 20. This is very surprising for a number of reasons. Very small junction

improvements are proposed.

Junctions are currently operating at or near capacity and 14 years traffic growth and

growth within Greystones will exacerbate this. It is difficult to see how the results

can be favourable.

A more onerus sensitivity analysis has now been undertaken within the evidence

however the junction analysis results now presented are similar to or in some cases

better than the original assessment.

The modelling software used by the developers requires use with care as the model

does not take account of the impact of queues within traffic lanes.

For the Greystones Protection and Development Association Mr. F. Etchingham

stated that the coastal protection works included the harbour, the rock revetment and

shingle beach nourishment for a 30 year period.


Coastal protection works will not stop erosion. The intention is to limit erosion only

in the area from the harbour as far north as the northern limit of the landfill site.

North of the landfill site erosion will continue and possibly increase. The proposal

will notably increase erosion north of the CPO boundary.

The proposal creates a dependence on beach nourishment. Without beach

nourishment the result expected is severely increased erosion of the cliff to the north

of the development.

The environmental impact of the proposed coastal protection works is completely

uncertain.

Coastal erosion has been a feature of the landscape for many years however the

proposal effectively creates a requirement for coastal protection as it puts a manmade

development in an erosion prone area.

The coastal protection works are primarily intended to protect the new development

itself. The harbour is intended to protect the residential and commercial development

from coastal erosion. The rock armouring north of the marina with beach

nourishment is intended to protect the former landfill. Other than the protection of the

development itself the arguments advanced in support of the coastal protection are;

Protection of the landfill from potential pollution;

Protection of the cliff walk public amenities.

Potential loss of cultural heritage site at Rathdown north of the development.

The E.I.S. states that the continuing erosion now poses a threat to exposing the old

landfill site which may lead to further pollution incidents. One must question whether

artificial coastal protection is an appropriate response to the potential pollution

problems of the former landfill site.

Mr. Etchingham stated that if the Local Authority considered the former landfill to be

a potential pollution threat it has an obligation to deal with that appropriately under


the Waste Management Acts. That obligation is independent of the current approval

process. Neglect by the Local Authority has left the former landfill as an eyesore for

over 20 years.

It appears now that material from the landfill will be excavated and redistributed on

the site. In the circumstances it would be appropriate to remove it completely.

There is no proposal to protect the coastal walk to the north of the proposed

development, where erosion is more extensive.

The E.I.S. does not acknowledge that there is a Special Area of Conservation at the

northern end of the development. A further part of the area has been proposed for a

Special Amenity Area Order. A more complete analysis of the environmental impact

of the development in this area is required.

The proposal is clearly a significant coastal project with an estimated reclamation of

28 acres from the sea.

E.U. and Irish planning framework includes a number of important studies. These are

the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy, the National Spatial Strategy,

Ecopro code of practice, erosion study, Royal Irish Academy (Irish Committee on

climate change) and the Wicklow County Development Plan 2004/2010.

The E.I.S. does not refer to E.U. or Irish planning guidelines on coastal processes

given the significance of the coastal project proposed. This omission from the E.I.S.

is serious.

Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy (ICZM) is one of the principal

recommendations of Agenda 21. This was published in 2002 for implementation by

2006.

Key principles of the recommendation include;


Modern coastal management techniques to work with rather than battle against nature.

In the past battles with the sea have sometimes ended up by aggravating problems

facing coasts rather than resolving them.

Policy makers should err on the side of caution if they are not entirely sure whether a

planned move would damage a coastal zone.

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government together with the Local

Authority have a responsibility for the landward side of high water mark. The

Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources have responsibility

for the seaward side of the high water mark.

It is a strategic objective of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural

Resources, to assist in the development of a national integrated coastal zone

management strategy.

The proposed development will have a permanent and partly unknown impact on the

local coastline.

A strategy to implement ICZM in Ireland is imminent. However until that strategy is

published it is not possible to determine whether or not the proposed development is

in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

In the absence of integrated planning, responsibility for the coastal zone is divided

between various departments.

The E.I.S. does not refer to the precautionary principal and it leaves one with serious

doubts about the sustainability of the proposal and potential for long-term negative

impacts.

The National Spatial Strategy recommends that there be a more comprehensive and

transparent assessment of the long-term costs and benefits of proposed coastal

protection works.


The code of practice on environmentally friendly coastal protection, Ecopro, which is

supported by the Department of the Marine, sets out a framework for coastal

management in particular dealing with coastal erosions.

The principle behind the code of practice is the need to maintain, as far as possible,

the protection afforded by the natural features of the coast. In the context of

Greystones Harbour, Ecopro highlights the need for cost benefit analysis and the

benefits of alternative options for public discussion.

The erosion study (2004), commissioned by the European Union Directorate General

for the environment, sets out to measure the status, and impact of coastal erosion

throughout Europe. The study was in response to evidence, that the current scale of

coastal erosion was human induced rather than natural. Human attempts to address

coastal erosion were actually making the situation worse by causing more erosion

further along the coast.

Potential damage may be caused by hard engineering solutions such as breakwaters

and beach nourishment.

In the context of the proposed development the European study is particularly relevant

because of the acknowledgement in the E.I.S. that the proposal will increase the level

of erosion to the north of the site.

The Royal Irish Academy, Irish commission on Climate Change, deals with the sea

level changes resulting from global warming. Likely implications for Ireland include

loss of low-lying coastal land and increased rates of erosion around the south and east

of the country. The recommendation state that;

“No building or development within 100 metres of soft shorelines. No further

reclamation of coastal lands. No removal of sand dunes, beach sand or gravel.

All coastal defence measures should be assessed for Environmental impacts.

Careful consideration should be given to cost/benefit analysis before hard

engineering solutions are contemplated.”


The report goes on to state that on the east coast of Ireland all structures close to the

coast should be at least 4 metres above sea level.

The site of the development is in an area which is currently a soft shoreline. The

coastal protection works will attempt to turn it into a hard shoreline in front of

residential and commercial development. The development will result in extensive

removal of beach sand or gravel. The Environmental impact of the coastal defence

measures is unknown particularly as regards beach nourishment.

The Wicklow County Development Plan at Section 6.1.18 relates to coastal zone

management. Objectives deal with development close to soft coastlines and states

that

“The Council will protect both public and private investments by prohibiting

any new building or development (including caravans and temporary

dwellings) within 50 metres of soft shorelines as defined by Map 35B”.

Map 35B entitled Coastal Areas Prone to Erosion North and South, clearly shows that

the area of the proposed development is a soft shoreline.

The developers presentation to the oral hearing states that this apparent contravention

of the Development Plan, by the developers, will be addressed because the coastal

protection work will turn this section of coast into a hard shoreline.

The requirement for ongoing beach nourishment raises a number of issues which

require further assessment. There is no Environmental Impact Assessment of this

issue.

Beach nourishment, in the long-term, can have significant disadvantages and ongoing

environmental impact.

The funding of ongoing maintenance and beach nourishment appears to be dependent

on profit originating in the marina as the major part of the profit will have been taken


immediately after the construction period when the residential and commercial

element is sold.

If the concession company cannot pay for maintenance the obligation falls back to

Wicklow County Council. In view of the fact that the Council has repeatedly stated

they do not have funds to maintain the harbour, questions have to be asked as to how

the community can be sure that necessary maintenance work will be carried out.

Giving evidence for the Greystones Protection and Development Association Mr. P.

Neary stated that he was a resident of Greystones.

The development side has stated that physical model tests have now been

commissioned and will be completed within three months.

Modelling of harbours and estuaries is not an exact science. The incredible amount of

physics involved in simulating or predicting effects of harbour developments is

significant.

The fact that physical modelling is going on after the study has been completed and

after the predictions have been made invalidates the whole process.

Questions arise as to the suitability of the harbour and its usability in stormy weather.

Questions also arise as to the accuracy of the harbour siltation study.

The developers have stated that the model being used has limitation.

It is acknowledged that only direct sea level rise is considered and that other equally

important or more important processes were considered to be outside the scope of the

hydraulic studies and coastal morphology study. Serious implications may arise for

sediment transport, tidal effects and surge or flooding effects. Such changes could

change the wave regime within the proposed harbour and lead to increased flooding.


The development will provide less space within the harbour for recreation. While

recreation will be provided to the north of the harbour at the proposed new beach it

would be more exposed to winds and less safe.

Extreme weather results should provide for a 150 year storm.

Continuing for the objectors Mr. Etchingham stated that the proposed development

provides limited coastal protection. The primary purpose of the coastal protection is

to protect the residential and commercial development itself. The E.I.S. does not

address the extensive planning framework for coastal protection. It is therefore

incomplete and inadequate.

The proposal creates a dependence on beach nourishment. This has significant and

environmental impacts which have not been addressed.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources have raised

significant concerns about the project. These do not appear to have been answered in

full.

Permission should be refused on the grounds that the proposal is not in accordance

with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area because of the

significant negative impact on the environment of the proposal.

In objecting to the proposal Ms. E. Cawley stated that she was a member of the

Greystones Protection and Development Association.

She has been a resident for 13 years in Greystones. She was a member of the Town

Council in Greystones for five years.

The interests of the community and the country are not being served with this type of

proposal. The Local Authority has chosen to step back from its responsibility to

provide services to the community. It is now proposing to hand over essential

amenities to private enterprise to counter its own inefficiency and ineffectiveness.

The Council is acting outside its remit.


The foreshore belongs to the state and is vested in the Department of Marine and

Natural Resources. The Local Authority also has a role in looking after the coastline.

However in this particular instance it is both poacher and gamekeeper.

There are 15 other Irish counties with coasts. They can all say, if this proposal goes

ahead, that the only way they can deal with coastal erosion is to build onto the

foreshore.

Experts are agreed that it is difficult but not impossible to predict the outcome of any

coastal scheme in relation to how it will effect erosion.

All coastal solutions are temporary.

The Local Authority have contained an objective for over 20 years in the

Development Plan that a special amenity area order will be sought for Bray Head.

Such an order would require a buffer zone. The provision of such a zone is to

minimise the intended development pressure that would be on an area of outstanding

natural beauty and special recreational value requiring conservation.

Existing development at the harbour is set into an almost rural background.

Large scale developments as proposed will not result in walking or cycling to services

and shopping within the area. People will more likely drive.

The National Spatial Strategy refers to;

“Avoiding adverse impacts on environmental features such as landscape,

habitats and protected species, river catchments, the environment and the

cultural heritage.”

The proposers of the development have used the National Spatial Strategy as a carte

blanche to impose urban development on areas which are sensitive, green and contain

very important bio-diversity.


The National Development Plan states;

“The emphasis should be placed on dealing with causes rather than the results

of environmental damage. Where significant evidence of environmental risk

exists appropriate precautionary action should be taken, even in the absence of

conclusive scientific proof of causes. “

The Environmental Impact Statement does not take into consideration the impact the

development will have on views either from Bray Head south to the harbour area or

north.

There are two points of entry across the railway line providing access to the site. The

development will create a precedent which would adversely affect the use of the local

roads in the area.

It was decided, by the Local Authority to provide for the redevelopment of the

harbour by permitting a maximum of 200 houses. There is always a local fear that the

Local Authority would tend to take a maximum rather than either a minimum or

medium approach to the scale of the development.

The proposed development is over dependent on the financial perspective. Building

communities requires the area to be capable of taking increased population. The lands

in the area does not facilitate the type of development proposed.

The development is out of proportion, size and scale within the area. It will be very

visible and will have a major negative impact on the area.

There is no balance in the development. The traffic congestion would be horrendous.

The environment would be disimproved.

In relation to funding it is unlikely that the Local Authority will keep this

development to the standard which the developers propose in view of the fact that

they cannot secure funding for the upkeep of the harbour.


The Environmental Impact Statement does not look at the issues of public private

partnership as they relate to the public foreshore.

There is no need for an apartment style development in Greystones. Such a

development would be an extremely expensive area to buy housing in.

Opposing the development Mr. E. DeBuitlear stated that he had lived in the county

since the 1930s and had been making television programmes in the county for a

considerable period of time.

The proposed Greystones Harbour development involving Wicklow County Council

and John Sisk and Park Developments is another example of bad planning and one

that has no regard for the consequences.

Many would welcome a well planned marina of reasonable size but not at the cost of

ruining the visual landscape and the environment.

The handing over of part of the foreshore to a developer is a part of the project which

is particularly worrying. The size and scale of the proposal is way beyond what

Greystones actually needs. The roads cannot cope with the amount of traffic which

the development will generate.

The clay cliffs and the North Beach are an outstanding amenity.

The sand martin is in the amber list of species of medium conservation concern. The

species is listed by Bird Life International as a species of European Conservation

concern. This is Category 3, a species with an unfavourable conservation status in

Europe.

There has been a measured decline of 25% in the Irish breeding population over a 25

year period.


Statements that the breeding population in Ireland is recovering are difficult to verify

or substantiate. Bird Watch Ireland and the National Parks and Wildlife service seem

unable to support the view that the numbers are increasing.

It is not clear if the physical structures on or along the shore and associated coastal

protection works will impinge on the most southerly parts of the sand martin colony.

It is possible that changes to the harbour structures at Greystones would change the

erosion patterns of the soft cliffs to the north by interfering with currents and tidal

flows. These soft cliffs are subject to severe erosion by way of action during winter

storms. Sand martins change the location of their colonies according to how the

winter erosion exposes lenses of sand in which the birds can burrow. In some years

greatly diminished numbers of birds, or none at all, breed when suitable, sandy areas

are not exposed.

It is impossible to predict how future changes in erosion patterns might affect the

breeding numbers and the distribution of the Greystones sand martins. The sand

martins have just arrived from Africa. They were flying close to the cliffs as they

normally do when prospecting.

Objecting to the proposal Dr. C. Smal stated that Rathdown is known principally as

the lost medieval village of Rathdown. There has been continuous settlement there

from at least the early Neolithic and through the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age and

Iron Age and to the late medieval periods.

At the time of the Norman invasion Rathdown was the strong hold of Donal MacGilla

Mo/Cholomoc. He was the ruler of the region known as Cuala. It is compromised of

the territories in south County Dublin and north Wicklow.

Rathdown Castle was probably built soon after the Normans arrived. It survived the

early 1600s and was the subject of occasional raids by Gaelic tribes. However by

1657 at the time of the Down survey, the castle was ruinous.


Rathdown gave its name to the barony of Rathdown which extended from near

Kilcoole to Merrion Gates in Dublin. By the formation of County Wicklow the

barony was divided into two, one half in County Wicklow and the other in County

Dublin. The administrative area of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown does of course take its

name from the medieval settlement of Rathdown.

The lands changed hands several times. 20 acres were required by Captain Charles

Tarrant in 1771. He was a significant figure in recent Irish history involved in the

construction of the Grand Canal and the Wide Streets Commission of Dublin.

Greystones developers in the mid 1880’s and grew with the coming of the railway in

1854.

Rathdown is also associated with J.M. Synge, the painter Jack B. Yeats and Samuel

Beckett.

There are a number of listed sites in the area. St. Crispins Cell is a listed site as is

Rathdown Castle.

The Gap Bridge and the old culvert of the Water of Rathdown are historical structures

located within a site of a registered historic monument. That may not have been clear

from any of the earlier representations. The granite from Rathdown Castle may have

been incorporated into the bridge. When the railway line was being built stones in the

castle were incorporated into various structures along the railway line.

There is a total of approximately 20 field studies and archaeological reports relating to

the area.

Most of the archaeological site is in the ownership of Wicklow County Council.

There is an unparalleled amount of information relating to the area.

An ariel photograph indicates the enclosure of the Rathdown Castle. This photograph

was taken in the early 1970s and there has been a considerable amount of coastal

erosion since then.


There would appear to be a ring feature in Darcys Field. Without archaeological

investigation it is hard to prove that it is a ring fort however if it is the case it is an

extremely large feature of very considerable importance as it might be the original

residence and the castle site.

St. Crispins Cell was restored approximately three years ago. The Church is early or

mid 17th century on foundations of an earlier church of larger size. It is located within

an early Christian enclosure.

Captain Tarrants farmhouse is located close to the Church.

The farmhouse could serve as an educational/visitor resource.

As a result of various people digging looking for remains in the past with metal

detectors, lead weights, harp tuners, charcoal, slag, pottery, medieval pottery and a

corn drying kiln of the medieval period have been found. Pre-historic habitation has

been noted. Flints have been found.

The Rathdown hoard was also found.

The archaeological site, which was subsequently registered by the OPW in 1992,

takes in part of Darcys field. There is also an existing fence lying to the south which

is the old sewage works compound (this is located immediately to the south-west of

the Gap Bridge, on the southern side of the Rathdown Water).

The National Museum holds numerous and various artefacts from Rathdown

representative of all periods of human settlement in Ireland. The Rathdown hoard

comprises of about 400 silver coins.

Over 2,000 items have been found.


In 1989 an application for 91 houses to the west of the railway line was refused by An

Bord Pleanala on the grounds of prematurity in relation to archaeology. This is 1991.

At that time the site was not registered.

An Bord Pleanala made its judgement on the basis of archaeological evidence

submitted. The entire site was subsequently registered in 1992.

In 1992 permission was also refused by An Bord Pleanala for 65 houses on the

grounds of prematurity in relation to archaeology.

An Bord Pleanala subsequently granted permission for 35 houses subject to

archaeological monitoring. This monitoring was carried out. The most significant

statement resulting from the monitoring was as follows;

“There is evidence of a continuum of occupation from at least early Neolithic,

late Neolithic/early Bronze Age/Iron Age and early through late medieval.”

The E.I.S. did not sufficiently address the archaeological potential of Darcys Field

and the castle bawn area believed to be to the south.

Darcys Field is part of the Rathdown historical landscape. The linear public park

proposed in the development is a most inappropriate design. It detracts from the

proposed heritage park. No building or tree planting should be permitted in the

heritage park.

It would appear that the proposed concrete batching plant would be moved to Darcys

Field. There would be great concern that the current heritage park area, which is a

registered monument site could be used as a concrete batching plant.

The lack of detailed plans for construction are of serious concern to the friends of

Historic Rathdown. Without them expert consultants are unable to comment.

Because there is only one access to the site, through the harbour area, health and

safety requirements might require an emergency exit. There is concern that this could


be provided through the Rathdown site and this could significantly impact on

archaeology.

Despite undertakings by all parties that there would be no road at Bray Head, one fails

to see how the proposed development can be achieved without it.

The CPO area does not include the registered monument site other than the strip along

the eastern side along the cliff walk by the Gap Bridge.

The current proposal should be considered premature in relation to archaeology.

Given the scale of the proposal and its negative impact on the visual amenity of the

Rathdown site, the proposal is unacceptable. Rathdown is a site and landscape of

national importance and it should be preserved.

Objecting to the proposal Councillor T. Fortune stated that there was a considerable

democratic deficit in the decision making process which lead to the adoption of the

plan for the harbour.

The scheme contravenes objectives of the Government with regard to national

planning policy and in particular in relation to the provision of social and affordable

housing in mixed communities.

The scheme is in excess of compulsory purchase powers.

It has not been demonstrated that public private partnership is the appropriate vehicle

to rely on for the provision of social and community services or for the protection of

the common good.

Wicklow County Council has a serious conflict of interest in the scheme. The

Council’s reliance on development levies for funding is against the common good and

the achievement of sustainable development.

This issue is driven in part by a lack of proper funding for local Government.


The proposed scheme seems to be evolving all of the time. Even the Local Authority

itself and its private partners are not sure of the details. There is some confusion as to

what is going to happen with the Gap Bridge.

The public would be paying far too much for the scheme. Wicklow County Council

is going to give 35 acres approximately of the foreshore to its partner.

The development of the foreshore by private developers in partnership with Local

Authorities is possible throughout the country.

There has been no public debate about this policy.

The success of the project depends on the details contained in the public private

partnership contract.

The area should be designated as one of natural conservation to preserve its rich

natural heritage and landscape.

Over the years Wicklow County Council has failed in its duty to protect and maintain

the harbour walls. It has also failed to take any action in respect of the old dump.

The compulsory acquisition of land is to facilitate a private developer.

Public private partnerships do not represent value for the taxpayer.

Wicklow County Council has a serious conflict of interest in the scheme. This

conflict cannot be resolved by An Bord Pleanala adjudicating on the application for

approval, as the Board will have no ongoing function in monitoring the development

or enforcing compliance with conditions. This is a major flaw in the planning system.

There is no incentive for the Local Authority to enforce compliance.

Greystones Harbour could be brought up to standard specification quite easily. There

is land, not far from the harbour, which is owed by Wicklow County Council, 20

acres which could be used by a public private partnership in refurbishing the harbour


and then developing the land. This would be a win win situation instead of the

confrontational type situation which has arisen.

In addressing the oral hearing Councillor D. Mitchell stated that he was a member of

Wicklow County Council representing the Greystones area. He was also Deputy

Mayor of Greystones.

The intention with the scheme is to put the use of the sea for leisure at a focal point in

the town in an inclusive way.

He would prefer to see a lesser number of apartments however a compromise has to

be arrived at to solve a 100 year old problem of the harbour.

Certain conditions, certain changes should be made to the scheme. If the scheme is

scaled back it would have much less impact on the existing Victorian Harbour.

The preferred option is to scale back the scheme.

Block B should be deleted to lessen the visual effect on the current harbour. The

southern façade of Block C could be altered to provide a blending façade which starts

roughly where it is. This would put the modern apartment buildings outside the area

of the current harbour. Some small number of quite restricted houses could be built in

the southern part of the proposed park. This would also reduce the number of

commercial units required. This would significantly change the effect of the

development on the harbour.

Public land to the south of Greystones could also be used to provide a number of

apartments as part of the public private partnership.

Public access should be provided without charge to the boardwalk, the piers, the new

beach etc. A condition should clearly stipulate this.

During construction a large amount of material would be brought through the town.

For any harbour reconstruction that would be the case however the roads are not very


suitable. The developer should be encouraged to bring as much material to the site as

possible by sea.

A traffic liaison committee should be set up.

10% of the marina berths should be reserved for visitors.

The smaller harbour option, put forward by the Greystones Protection and

Development Association, was reviewed by three different sets of consultants. Their

verdict was that the harbour would be silted up. The major requirement for the new

harbour is a depth of water for boats. It also has to be secure in inclement weather.

International experience would suggest that 230 berths is the minimum size to cover

the staff, repair and dredging costs of the harbour.

There is a significant demand for berths by residents of Greystones. There is a

waiting list of 140 in Dun Laoghaire.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources suggested that

the coastal protection would be set to nought by the nourishment and replenishment

materials. However erosion would be greatly reduced from the do nothing scenario

which has been practiced for a century. Most of the North Beach, in 30 years time,

would have 15 metres of extra land compared to the do nothing scenario.

It would be far better if the scheme had the apartments 100 metres north of where they

are proposed. If not Block B should be removed.

In a submission from the Greystones and District Chamber of Commerce Mr. N.

Gerarthy and Mr. J. Hayden stated that chamber were welcoming of the tourism

inflow which would result from the development. They also welcomed the

community facilities which would be provided. There is widespread support in the

community for the plan.


Objecting to the proposal Councillor D. DeBurca stated that she was a Green party

Councillor on Wicklow County Council. She was very concerned with the public

private partnership proposed.

The proposal will largely urbanise what is currently an unspoilt and relatively

undeveloped public amenity widely used.

It will undermine the architectural heritage character of Greystones which is central to

the towns sense of identity.

The proposal does not have public support.

The use of the public private partnership model to progress the development is not

appropriate as there is little in the proposal which constitutes necessary public

infrastructure.

The coastal protection works proposed are inadequate.

The roads infrastructure will not be able to cater for the traffic generated by the

proposal. This will lead to compelling pressure for a new road over Bray Head.

Inadequate financial information has been provided in relation to the proposal.

No consideration has been given to alternatives.

As the population of Greystones increases there is a greater need to retain the harbour

and beach area as relatively undeveloped public amenities.

In the Wicklow County Development Plan 2004/2010 Section 5.11 in commenting on

development in amenity areas states;

“The Council will promote and encourage the recreational use of coastline,

rivers and lakes for activities such as game fishing, boat sailing etc. Where

such recreational uses involve the development of structures or facilities the


Council will ensure that the proposals will respect the natural amenity and

character of the area and listed views and prospects onto and from the area in

question. Where possible such structures should be set back an appropriate

distance from the actual amenity itself and should not adversely affect the

unique sustainable quality of these resources.”

While the degraded state of the harbour is accepted and the desirability of improved

club facilities for harbour users, the decision to urbanise a large part of the area to

fund the necessary harbour restoration works is a disproportionate response.

The developers themselves clearly indicated that what is proposed is the urbanisation

of the existing harbour and beach area and its transformation into a new urban quarter.

This bears out some of the concerns expressed by the submission of the Department

of the Environment in relation to the E.I.S. This submission states;

“The proposal seeks to size a large scale urban development with a new

harbour and harbour related uses next to a Victorian village at the edge of a

small existing harbour”.

The submission goes on to point out that the scheme does not build upon the existing

urban design but establishes a separate character which is a wholly distinct new

quarter.

The proposed large four-storey commercial apartment block development exceeds in

scale anything in Greystones. The difference in character between the established

town and the proposed new quarter will affect the character of the town.

The Victorian and Edwardian character of Greystones architecture is central to the

sense of identity of the town. The proposed development will greatly disturb and

detract from that identity.

The site is of a very significant size being approximately 27 hectares with 28 hectares

of reclaimed land. There would be a disparity of mass and intensiveness between the

existing town and the proposed new development.


A standard marina could not be considered necessary public infrastructure. In spite of

this Wicklow County Council is using the new power conferred on Local Authorities

by Section 227 of the Planning and Development Act to compulsorily acquire the

foreshore to allow a private consortium to proceed with residential and commercial

development on reclaimed land at the harbour.

This is the first PPP of its type. If permitted it will set an undesirable precedent for

similar developments around the country. The marina is not necessary public

infrastructure as defined under the legislation for public private partnership. In the

absence of a sufficiently robust necessity test to ensure that the public good is being

served by the use of such a power by Local Authorities, there is unfortunately the

potential for the misuse of such powers.

An Bord Pleanala should consider whether the public good is being sufficiently

served by the development or whether the public private partnership mechanism is

facilitating private developers to maximise their profit by creating a development

totally out of character with the rest of the town in terms of its design and density.

The coastal protection works will provide protection to approximately 250 metres

north of the Gap Bridge. In relation to this the Department of the Marine states;

“In relation to coastal protection north of the proposed revetment it is not

possible to offer a definite view on the proposed scheme but it appears to be

minimalist and close to a do nothing scenario.”

It is therefore important to know why the Local Authority is making a significant

amount of coastal land available to developers in return for what appears to be a do

nothing or non existent benefit for the community.

The submission to An Bord Pleanala from the Dublin Transportation Office states;

“However due to the constraining aspects of the site and the lack of multiple

access points into the site, the DTO has concerns about the overall scale of the


development. The provision of just one access point, which would appear to

catering for all roads, does not seem appropriate for development of this scale

in a central location within the town. This will negatively impact on the

pedestrian and cycling environment within an area where these should be a

primary consideration. Although it is accepted that the physical constraints of

the site may limit accessibility potential, the overall scale of the development

should reflect this constraint.”

This states that a limiting access factor should be reflected in reduction of the overall

scale of the proposal.

The 1997 Buchanan Report also found that the harbour area was;

“Ill suited to significant extra volumes of traffic.”

The report stated;

“The increase in flows associated with 350 residential units is felt to be

beyond the capacity of the road network and a maximum of 200 units is

recommended. In the event of a significant larger marine development being

approved then it is recommended that access be via a suitable junction with

the R761, that is the Bray/Greystones Road north of Redford.”

The plan produced by the Greystones Protection and Development Association

provided for the redevelopment of the harbour funded by the erection of

approximately 70 residential units located further back from the harbour area than the

proposed apartments. These plans would cost around 30 million euro. This contrasts

with the estimated 300 million euro cost of the proposed development.

The harbour should be restored. A modest marina for local use should be built and

the necessary coastal protection works installed. The funds necessary to pay for this

could be obtained by way of the construction of residential development on lands

owned by Wicklow County Council elsewhere in Greystones.


Consideration could also be given to relocating the very large scale and ambitious

development proposal to a more suitable site on the east coast.

For the objectors to the proposed development Mr. B. Galvin stated that he was a

member of the National Council of An Taisce. He was particularly concerned with

the impact of the development on the cliff walk between Bray and Greystones which

runs through the area proposed for development.

The area is one of outstanding natural beauty and unique because of its proximity to

Dublin city.

Regrading of the cliffs would reduce the area of a habitat available for birds and take

away from the rugged nature of the area.

Bray Head is legally protected by a special amenity area order. It is a special area of

conservation and a natural heritage area.

A European Union Study on Bray Head entitled Sruna outlines the importance of

Bray Head.

Mr. J. Ryan stated that he was a representative of the Department of

Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The department was concerned

with the foreshore and also with marine matters.

The foreshore is owned by the estate. In the normal course a person who wishes to

develop on state foreshore must obtain either a foreshore lease or license from the

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. This did not however

apply in the case of a development in partnership with the Local Authority. That was

subject to the Planning and Development Act 2000. In such cases the role of the

department is limited to that of statutory consultees pursuant to Section 227(6) of the

Planning Act 2000.

The comments of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources

are grouped under 15 headings. These comments are reasonably self explanatory.


Mr. T. Burke for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources

stated that if there were any difficulties with a major project proposed on a foreshore,

such development must be scrutenised. Construction standards have to be applied.

Dr. T. McMahon stated that he was Section Manager in the Marine Environment and

Food Safety Services section in the Marine Institute.

There is a lack of clarity in the E.I.S. relating to levels of potential contaminants

within the sediments. One issue was raised with respect to chromium in the E.I.S. A

specialist in The Marine Institute clarified the results of a sample and was satisfied

that levels of chromium in the sample were satisfactory. There were however a

number of other samples taken and the locations of the samples were not given.

Providing evidence on the part of Sispar Mr. M. McGowan stated that he was a

chartered engineer with Arup Consulting Engineers.

Four samples were taken in the general harbour area for chromium. One of the

figures was missing from the original E.I.S. but it was provided as part of the errata.

In reply Dr. McMahon stated that he was satisfied with that clarification. If it was

the case that some material needs to be disposed of at sea formal application for a

dumping at sea permit would be required.

In a reply to a question from the Inspector, Mr. D. Flanagan stated that there was no

intention to dispose of material at sea.

At some future date if dumping at sea was required, a separate independent

environmental assessment would have to be made and the requisite licence received

from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Providing evidence for the Dublin Transportation Office Mr. O’Shinkwin stated

that the DPO had made a submission to An Bord Pleanala on 15/2/2005.


The DPO supports the development of large growth towns in the Metropolitan area,

such as Greystones/Delgany.

The provision of a mixed use development in the harbour area is complimentary to the

recommendations of the Greystones Integrated Framework Plan for Land Use and

Transportation.

The DTO however has a number of concerns in relation to the development as

proposed.

The Greystones/Delgany Integrated Framework Plan recommends that Greystones

town should be reinforced as the commercial and leisure core of the town. The

proposed development must be related closely to the existing town centre and the

wider Greystones area. It should therefore function as a physical extension to the

town.

Pedestrian and cycle links should be provided.

The provision of a route for pedestrians and cyclists from the Dart Station to the site

should be prioritised.

Due to the constraining aspects of the site and the lack of multiple access points, the

DTO has concerns about the overall scale of the development.

The provision of just one access point which would appear to be catering for all

modes does not seem appropriate for a development of this scale. It is a central

location within a town.

The single access point is likely to accentuate the traffic impact of the development on

the road network within the town centre. It will negatively impact on the pedestrian

and cycling environment in an area where this should be a primary consideration.

While it is accepted that the physical constraints of the site may limit accessibility, the

overall scale of the development should reflect this constraint.


The Environmental Impact Statement uses the National Roads Authority 2004/2040

forecast indices in obtaining traffic flows for 2010 and 2020. However these indices

do not take into account such issues as the projected rapid increase in the population

of Greystones. This is likely to have a substantial impact on the overall volume and

distribution of traffic within the town.

The DTO has a number of concerns with the current design of Victoria Road, in

particular in the vicinity of the railway bridge. As this would be one of the main

routes for pedestrians, cyclists, heavy goods vehicles, buses and cars to access the

development, the current road width and alignment and lack of provision for

pedestrian and cycle modes does not appear to be adequate for the increased volume

of traffic and to provide a safe environment for vulnerable road users. This issue

would need to be considered in informing the access arrangements to the site and the

overall scale of the development.

In the traffic section of the E.I.S. there appears to be no indication of the modal split

assumptions and what proportion of trips would be accounted for by public transport.

In reply to a number of questions from Ms. Cawley of the Greystones Protection and

Development Association, Mr. Shinkwin stated that there will be substantial growth

in Greystones.

There should be more emphasis on a locally provided bus service.

The traffic rates predicted by the developers have assumed that all trips generated by

the proposed development would be car based. This was apparently done to assess

what would have been considered the worst case scenario for 2010/2020.

In replying to questions from Mr. Flanagan Mr. Shinkwin stated that the IFPLUT

study was commissioned jointly by the Dublin Transportation Office and by Wicklow

County Council. In simple terms it represents the application of the Dublin

Transportation Strategy at a local level. It specifically provides for harbour

development and favours consolidation within the town to include a town centre


location for new development. While this is the preferred scenario the precise

quantum of development was not outlined.

There is a correlation between public transport accessibility and development density

and the issue of uses or mix of uses as the case may be.

Victoria Road, at the bridge, does not comply with the standards as set out in the

Traffic Management Guidelines.

In reply to a number of questions from the Inspector, Mr. Shinkwin stated that the

DTO concerns relating to the railway bridge and Victoria Road were expressed in the

original submission to An Bord Pleanala.

Reduced level of service can potentially relate to safety for instance in the case of a

cyclist not being specifically provided for. Part of the cycle network is under the

bridge.

In its current format the road would not be considered to be suitable.

In relation to the traffic management guidelines it would require a greater provision of

road width. This is physically constrained by the overbridge structure. In the current

situation it is not physically possible. It is not adequate. It is not adequate based on

the Traffic Management Guidelines. The space currently is not there. What is

available is provision for a 1.5 metre wide footway and a 6.5 metre wide road.

The Traffic Management Guidelines would require a footpath of minimum width 1.8

metres.

Cyclists have not been specifically provided for on the overall road width. If the route

is to be developed as a cycle route, with a view to accessibility to the site and to the

town centre and to the railway station more generally, cyclists have to be provided

for.


This raises questions as to the suitability of the road (Victoria Road) in achieving

objectives combined with the effects of additional development within the town

centre area.

In clarifying the position relating to the proposals at the railway bridge Mr. J.

McDaid stated that it is the intention of the Local Authority to provide cycle lanes for

the harbour area along Beach Road/Victoria Road. This includes the roadway under

the bridge. It is not uncommon and is a very effective traffic management measure to

provide on road advisory cycle lanes including areas of narrow road width. This has

been done in a quality bus corridor in Shankill Village where very effective on road

advisory cycle lanes have been put in place. These provide priority for cyclists on the

road and provide a traffic calming measure. The footpath would be 1.3 metres in

width with a guardrail.

Mr. Shinkwin stated that this particular section of Victoria Road does not appear to

be able to accommodate a cycle route.

The DTO has a concern relating in general terms to the use of a single access point

rather than multiple access points to the site.

It is accepted that the site is constrained by the existence of the railway line along its

western boundary. That determines the ability to provide more than one point of

access. A fairly extended platform section along the road would be provided and a

bus bay either side of the proposed access road. The objective behind this is to create

a more traffic calmed environment and increased awareness of pedestrian movement

along and across the road.

The one concern in this location would be that there is an increased frequency of bus

services operating along the road at peak periods of pedestrian activity confusion

could be likely to arise between the area in which pedestrians think they have a right

to use as distinct from other road users passing along the road either into or out of the

site or past the site. This is one of the most general concerns which have been raised.

There could be a degree of uncertainty between different road users as to who indeed


has priority in the area and this is likely to increase the potential for conflict between

different modes.

At a broader, objective level, it would have been better to have had a greater degree of

permeability into and out of the site and through the site.

A single vehicular access point is acceptable if it could be demonstrated that the

volume of trips generated does not negatively impact on the pedestrian and cycling

environment and on the ability to operate buses through the area.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. O’Reynolds, Mr. J.McDaid stated that

the Irish Roads Standard, the design manual for roads and bridges, relates specifically

to the United Kingdom design manual for roads and bridges. It has not been

transposed as part of the National Roads Authority Design Manual for roads and

bridges. It is not part of the NRA/DMRB.

The assessments carried out by the developers in relation to traffic, were validated.

Transit modelling assessments by means of comparing model queuing in the baseline

analysis, were measured against observed queuing on site through a series of visits to

the site in October 2005. The observed queuing provide robust validation.

In reply Mr. Reynolds stated that many of the design standards within the NRA

document simply refer to the design manual for roads and bridges, the U.K. standard.

This is because in Ireland structural standards are based on U.K. standards.

In reply to a number of questions from D. Flynn, Mr. J. McDaid stated that the

Buchanan report of 1997 relating to Greystones was done before the Dart served the

town.

The Dublin Transportation Office, as part of the IFPLUT study in 2004, included the

provision of 375 units.

An estimate was made of the amount of traffic which would be carried by the Dart.


There is no intention to put traffic lights at the junction with Beach Road/Victoria

Road. The analysis carried out by the developers on the worst case in terms of

morning p.m. and Saturday peak hour demonstrates that there is no need for traffic

lights at the junction.

Most of the growth in Greystones will occur to the west and south. The traffic

generated by this growth will be primarily catered for on the new southern southern

link road, to the N11.

Adequate allowance has been made for local growth in the development area and its

implications for the local road network adjacent to the site.

There are no large undeveloped areas or even medium sized sites available for

development in the general area of the proposed development.

It is accepted that Greystones has not experienced traffic growth of 2% over the last

several years. It has been greater than that.

By 2010, it is not unreasonable to assume that there would be a 50/50 split for traffic

exiting the site, with half going north and the other half going south. The half going

south would be to the town centre and to the southern part of the town.

It is proposed to upgrade the Rathdown/Blacklion junction. Part of the difficulty with

the junction at present is that there is no linkage between it and the Chapel Road

junction. The lights do not talk to each other. This exacerbates and compounds the

problem of queuing at the junction location. It is the intention to link and co-ordinate

with the traffic signals.

At present the junction is not saturated at peak times.

Traffic Management Guidelines require a 1.8 metre wide pathway. It is not possible

everywhere particularly in an existing urban environment to provide such width. It is

a level of service issue, not a capacity issue.


In reply to a number of questions from Mr. D. Flanagan, Mr. O’Reynolds stated that

the public are interested in getting to and from work for the most part. The commuter

peak hours are critical periods for the road network for the general public. The impact

of development is always assessed on commuter peak hours.

In reply Mr. Flanagan stated that the peak hour in the morning was between 9 and 10.

Mr. Reynolds stated that the traffic surveys were taken in June when a number of

schools would have been on holidays.

The levels of traffic generation quantified by the developers are likely to be at best

unreliable and at worst inaccurate.

Mr. P. Walsh stated that he represented Cannon RH Bertron and his wife Doreen and

their daughter Lynn. They own adjoining houses at the North Beach. They wish to

reinforce the views of other objectors particularly the Greystones Protection and

Development Association and Councillor deBurca.

It would appear that the proposal is intended to secure a major new public amenity for

Greystones. While this is a perfectly understandable and permissible objective the

proposal does not in fact do this. What is proposed is that the Local Authority will

compulsorily acquire over 35 acres of foreshore in the control of the state. They will

then hand over the entire land to a private company with no interest held by either the

state or the Local Authority.

They will hand over free of charge the entire compulsorily acquired land to a private

company who would be permitted to build and sell 375 residential units and over

65,000 square feet of commercial floorspace and a private marina consisting of 230

births.

While the potential for private financial gain is clear and would in fact result in

considerable gain, the extra or new public amenities for Greystones that it will secure

are modest.


The proposal is premature and no proper or indeed any cost benefit analysis has been

carried out on the project.

The proposal represents an unconstitutional and illegal use of the Compulsory

Purchase Order mechanism.

The proposal does not comply with the proper planning and sustainable development

of the area for a number of reasons.

It represents a considerable overdevelopment of the site in terms of height, size, bulk

and density of development.

The proposal is premature as existing infrastructure is not capable of coping with the

existing needs particularly sewerage.

The proposal involves high density residential development. New development

should respect the existing buildings, form, scale, character and heritage and

residential amenity of the harbour and North Beach area.

The proposal, particularly the four-storey block of apartments situated a few metres

from the homes of the people represented by Mr. Walsh, will have the effect of

serious overlooking of both properties. The development will have the effect of

lowering the value of both properties by over 30%.

Inadequate public space is provided in the development.

The development would represent a substantial loss of public and private amenities to

the Bertrams. The proposal should be rejected.

In objecting to the proposal Canon R. Bertram stated that he and his wife resided in

Glencoe, North Beach, Greystones. This is the second house on North Beach Road

on the site adjacent to that of their daughter. The house overlooks the public beach

from all three storeys. It was built in the 1900s.


The house had been occupied by the family since it was built.

The development proposed is huge and totally out of character with all the

surroundings. It would be excessively visually prominent in the wider setting. It

would seriously injure the visual and residential amenities of the area.

No effort has been made to be sensitive to the current harbour or the dwellings in the

area.

The density of housing is far greater than can be sustained. Currently there are only

about 150 dwellings on the land east of the railway line. The development proposed

would be for 375. This would swamp the current dwellings.

A new block of eight apartments, to the south of the Bertram dwellings, was denied

permission to be three-storey as it would be out of keeping with the area. On that

basis three-storey over ground floor retail would also be out of keeping.

It is a dangerous precedent to sell the beach and acres of seabed. The beach is a

public amenity which should not be sold to developers for private profit.

The beach and harbour are important amenities for the people of Greystones and for

tourists. Clubs should be facilitated in a refurbished harbour however those who will

gain from the new facilities are involved in minority sports and clubs. The marina

will be elitist.

If permitted there would be a construction site outside the objector’s property for the

next five years. Residential amenity would be seriously affected.

The access to the site is via a narrow road under the railway line. The only other

access point is over an equally narrow hump backed bridge. There would be safety

concerns both during construction and afterwards traffic will increase by more than

200%.


Listed views from Greystones Harbour and from the Bray Head cliff walk and the

main road at Wingates, will be lost.

The E.I.S. admits that views will be lost while saying that the development will have

long-term negative impact on views and that the development would be both intrusive

and obstructive. This is unacceptable. The scale of the marina and harbour is far

beyond what is required.

Sewerage problems have been experienced in the houses in the area.

The development will seriously devalue the residential properties owned by the

Bertrams. A report by a local valuer states that by the end of the construction phase

one of the houses will have fallen in value from 1.6 million euro to 1.1 million euro, a

reduction of 30%.

During the construction phase neither house will be saleable.

Mr. Walsh described both of the properties owned by the Bertrams from a report

prepared by valuers H.J. Byrne. Both properties would be seriously affected by the

proposed development. At present the older house is worth 1.6 million euros. After

the development it would be worth 1.1 million euros.

The newer house is at present worth 1.3 million euros. After the proposed

development it would be worth €900,000.

L. Bertram stated that she resided on North Beach. The three-storey house was built

in 2001.

Once she applied for permission for her dwelling she had to move it back 4 feet so

that it would be in line with the other houses on the beach.

The Local Authority had not explained how their planning laws in relation to views

and values could have changed so dramatically in such a short period of time since

2001.


The four houses on North Beach will be totally swamped by the development on the

beach and the 37 acres of reclaimed land. Views will be lost forever. The amount of

natural light would be reduced. Privacy will be compromised. Houses and

apartments will directly overlook her property and a large number of residents will be

able to look into her house.

There have been problems with the sewerage system in the area. The length of

construction is of concern as one would be virtually living on a building site for years.

The development will cause traffic problems. It will create dust, noise and nuisance.

Listed views and listed buildings will be severely impacted by the development.

The coastline should not be built upon. The proposed development could create a

precedent for such development.

Beaches and associated views should not be destroyed for any reason.

Councillor K. Kelleher stated that she was a Greystones Town Councillor and a

Wicklow County Councillor. She lives in the Greystones area.

She supports the proposal subject to technical, environmental and marine assessments.

The proposals were always publically lead and charges of them being lead by greedy

developers are not true. Apart from 5 acres the remainder of the land will remain in

public ownership.

The proposal should be considered in the context of both the National and Regional

Strategies.

Many of the charges levelled against the current proposal, traffic, lack of

infrastructure, change, noise etc. will happen anyway whenever development takes

place.


Very few people use the existing harbour on a regular basis throughout the year.

Except for some weekends, there is only a handful of people at the harbour. The

rebuilt harbour would be usable by all.

A smaller harbour would not be a wise proposition given the amount of growth that is

taking place in the town.

Dr. N. Roche stated that she had a doctorate in architecture and conservation. She

had drafted the response made on behalf of the Minister for the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government to An Bord Pleanala in relation to the proposal.

The written submission covers everything that the department wished to say. The

Minister is constrained legally for commenting except as is very specifically set out in

the Planning Act and the Regulations. The report deals specifically with architectural

heritage.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government requested An

Bord Pleanala to request the Planning Authority to;

“replace the four-storey apartment blocks in Courtyard 1, most particularly

Block B and apartment Block L, with two-storey housing in a manner which

mediates the link between the harbour and surrounding protected structures

and the remainder of the proposed development.”

The distinct character of the new development does not take sufficient account of its

immediate context, the Victorian and Edwardian village area and the harbour area.

Following questions from Mr. D. Flanagan, Dr. Roche stated that the essential issue

was the question of the mediation between the new development and existing

architectural heritage. That is really the focus.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. M. Hussey of O’Mahony Pike, Dr.

Roche stated that the block at the southern end of the development, which steps up to


four-storeys is at the start of a very long range of four-storey buildings visible from

Bayswater Terrace.

The single-storey section introduces a full height, and full width of the development

directly behind it. It is not that close in character to what is present.

The E.I.S. did not really analyse the character of this area. Maybe some further

analysis or further drawings and extrapolation of that might have helped to bridge the

gap between the established character of the area and the new development closer.

There is another point. This is the main vehicular entrance to the development.

Development here will have an impact on how the entrance to the scheme is viewed.

How it will affect its appearance in part of what has been called a square, the new

meeting the old. However it is intersected by traffic much of the time. It will

therefore not be a square in the manner of a green space, pedestrianised space, it is

therefore somewhat different.

The houses at the harbour are Edwardian in character. They will face at full hand and

the very close range, the new four-storey development. This was one of the main

concerns in relation to architectural heritage generally and not just protected

structures.

The four houses nearer to the harbour should have been taken into consideration.

This does not mean that one does not build near such houses. However one should

respect the character and try to take this into account.

The main concern of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local

Government is that at the introduction to the scheme, from the adjoining area, the

Architectural Heritage character of the village and the harbour should be respected.

The height of the proposed development would not be the sole consideration. In this

regard its mass is much greater in bulk than existing traditional structures. That is not

a bad thing of itself.


It is obvious that care was taken to limit the size of structure spacing onto the spine

road. It is also clear that the history of the design, its evolution, was not done lightly.

While it is a very long process that was gone through, nevertheless it did seem that the

end result did plant the development quite close to the existing harbour and the

character of the structures that are arranged around it. Because it is greater in size the

visual impact arising from the difference between existing and proposed will be a

definite impact.

It is quite possible to build very successful new quarters with a completely different

architectural style. It is just bridging the gap between the new and the old and how

this is done. In the opinion of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and

Local Government Block B especially had to be reconsidered.

In reply to a question from the Inspector, Dr. Roche stated that in her submission, it

is stated that Wicklow County Council might consider designating the harbour as an

architectural conservation area. This is a function for Wicklow County Council rather

than the Department of Heritage, Environment and Local Government. There is little

enough precedent in Ireland for such a designation. The legislation is new. While

there are some residential conservation areas in Dun Laoghaire and Dublin city, there

is not really the experience here of the range of areas that one might designate as

architectural conservation areas.

The Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines published by the Department of

Environment, Heritage and Local Government are quite clear to say that such areas

can be urban, rural or village. They do not have to be of a particular sort, architecture

does not have to have a particular coherence, its character might derive from its

original usage etc. It does not have to be that buildings are all similar in character and

similar in age.

If Wicklow County Council was considering drawing up a list of architectural

conservation areas, it would be one that they could consider carefully. There is quite

a distinct character to the area. It is an architectural character and one which would

fulfil the criteria that are set out, and one should take into account when designating

an architectural conservation area.


In reply to a number of questions from Mr. J. Fox, Dr. Roche stated that the existing

shape of the buildings are contoured towards the harbour. The development of new

areas, even in areas of high architectural character which may be very sensitive, does

not always have to mimic character. It can be quite distinctive and be quite modern

and add its own distinct personality to the mix. There is not a specific problem in

terms of a view.

What is proposed is quite different however it has taken a strong line using Trafalgar

Road as its starting point and bringing it north.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Walsh, Dr. Roche stated that what is

proposed is a completely different harbour however it does not necessarily mean that

it will detract from what is there. The department submission is to ensure that it does

not detract. When new meets old it can cause a fairly considerable excitement for

want of a better phrase. It can work very well.

What happens north of the harbour, further away from it, is not of concern in

architectural heritage terms. It is how the new square is handled with the new

buildings on the northern edge of it, at the vehicular entrance aspect and how the

development faces the small Edwardian houses, the single houses that are on that

road.

One is not arguing about the harbour proposal. What one is looking at is to introduce

new development well into what would be a brownfield site. Other than that the

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not have an

issue with the change of character as long as that change adds to what is there.

Greystones Harbour has been poorly maintained and repaired. The actual structure of

the harbour is not a huge issue.

A re-visitation in relation to Block L and Block B by way of introduction to the

development in a more sympathetic way would ameliorate or mitigate the impact.


In architectural heritage terms, if there is an established specific view between two

structures, for example between a country house and a church, there was a vista

between the two and if this was interrupted that would be an issue. However

interrupting a view to a natural feature like Bray Head is not part of the remit of the

Department of Environment.

Opposing the development Ms N. Cahill stated that she was a resident of Greystones.

The open space serving the development would have to be properly considered to

prevent it being used for anti-social activity.

Ms. P Parkinson stated that she was a resident at Bayswater Terrace. A number of

years ago she wanted to put in double glazing into her protected residence, however

Wicklow County Council did not permit her. She is now left with a single glaze

house and with noise starting from 7.00a.m. and continuing until 7.00p.m. at night,

the situation is unacceptable.

Ms. E. O’Driscoll stated that she was a resident of Greystones living in an estate

which backed onto the railway line at Darcys Field. The residential amenity of the

area would be severely impacted upon by the batching plant and also by the noise and

dust generated.

Strong winds affected the area because of its proximity to the sea.

Ms. G. Demery stated that she was a resident of Greystones and lived in Yarra, at the

North Beach facing directly onto the harbour. This was one of only four houses

facing the harbour, the other two being the Bertram’s to the south, and one to the

north.

During construction all materials required will have to pass within yards of her front

door. Dust, dirt etc. will develop in her home.

Noise and vibration will be unbearable.


The development is within 30 feet of the objector’s boundary wall. A four-storey

block of apartments is proposed. This is double the height of the neighbouring

dwellings including the objectors. This will virtually eliminate all early morning light

and overshadow the property until approximately mid-day. It will totally overlook the

property. The reduction of light will have an adverse effect on the property.

The beach changes from day to day. During an even modest storm, the beach in front

of their property can change drastically. A measurement taken by her husband before

and after such an event indicates that 8-10,000 cubic metres of material can move

over night within a confined area.

For the developers Mr. Mason stated that all foul effluent from the site would be

collected and piped by gravity to a central pumping station within the development.

There would be a need to construct a new rising main to an existing active pumping

station operated by the Local Authority. This is located off Victoria Road. It pumps

waste to the relatively new waste treatment plant in Charlesland. The line of the pipe

would be up Beach Road, under the bridge at Victoria Road and then continuing on

up Victoria Road. The pipe would be a 200 millimetre diameter.

Mr. N. Ferns stated that he was the area officer of the Greystones coastguard unit.

The purpose of the Irish coastguard is to reduce the loss of life within the Irish Search

and Rescue region and on rivers, lakes and waterways.

The unit in Greystones is made up of 18 volunteers. It was established in Greystones

in 1821. It is located at Marine Terrace since 1857 (located approximately 200 metres

to the south of the harbour).

The existing premises are totally unsuitable for a modern coastguard unit. There are

no toilets, changing rooms etc. The location of the building is not suitable.

The proposed coastguard station has been designed to provide the unit with a facility

which will overcome the difficulties. All equipment vehicles and boats will be

housed. Access to the sea would be by means of a dedicated coastguard rescue slip.


Mr. D. MaCaulay stated that he was chair of the Greystones Ridge Angling Club.

He was also a volunteer coastguard.

The angling club was founded in Greystones in 1956. It has 50 members and 12

junior members.

The existing clubhouse does not offer good facilities. It is poorly located. The club

mooring is inadequate. The harbour mouth is very dangerous.

The club gates have been blown in during an easterly storm. The North Beach Road

to the clubhouse has been impassable with stones and rocks covering the road.

The north wall of the harbour is about to cave in.

It the last eight years, three boats have been completely wrecked and five others have

been destroyed during storms. Insurance companies no longer ensure commercial

boats in the harbour. Some companies refuse private boats on moorings in the

harbour.

A substantial number of call outs of the coastguard are to rescue people at the cliff

walk which is dangerous.

The Greystones Protection and Development Association plan for an alternative

harbour is nothing more than a sketch. It has never been shown to be able to work.

No mention has been made of any facilities for the clubs and the clubs have never

been contacted on any part of the proposals.

Mr. K. Simpson stated that he was a member of the executive committee of the

Greystones Sailing Club. He was concerned with the proposed development. The

most important concern was the safety of the design of the harbour. In relation to

sight lines one would not be able to see junior members sailing, coming in and going

out of the harbour mouth. Depending on weather conditions this may prove

extremely dangerous.


At the moment one can approach the harbour from many different angles. With the

proposed development it will be very limited.

Concern is voiced in relation to overtopping and the possible damage to boats which

this might cause.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Etchingham, Mr. S. Mason for Sispar

stated that it is evident from the historical record that attempts to halt erosion at this

part of the coast have not succeeded. What the developers proposed is the best

solution.

The relocation of the entire old landfill would not be in accordance with currently

accepted best practice in dealing with such facilities. Guidance by the EPA in general

indicates that their preferred option is not to move material that is not of any

environmental threat in its current location. By taking material from a site one

obviously has to transport it somewhere and relocate it. The same principle would

apply to relocating the landfill within the site itself.

In order to provide reasonable foundation conditions for a terrace of houses and to pay

attention to the visual impacts, the floor level of the terrace at the northern end of the

development will have to be taken down to a lower level than the existing ground

level in the area. The ground level rises up at the old landfill and continues to rise up

to a plateau in the area. The developers intend to remove only that element of the

landfill site which is necessary to enable construction of the terrace of houses at the

level proposed.

The removed material will be located at the fringes of the existing landfill. No more

disturbance will take place at the landfill than is strictly necessary. Whatever material

is removed will be relocated covered and capped in a similar fashion to the existing

material.

A total depth of 5 metres of landfill will require removal.


The entire landfill contains 52-60,000 cubic metres. The area to be removed would

contain approximately 9,000 cubic metres.

It is proposed to provide large boulders/stones at the beach or edge of the landfill as a

revetment to prevent any further erosion of the landfill by significant storms during

the construction phase.

Once the groyne is in place and the accretion of material starts to develop at the

groyne, there should be no fear of any further erosion in the intervening period. The

revetment would be 3 or 4 metres lower than the total height of the landfill.

Parts of the landfill would require to be cut back at the eastern edge, to make sure that

it is stable and safe in the long-term. This material is included in the 9,000 cubic

metres. There would be capping and landscaping at the cut back slope.

The amount of landfill taken out will be placed where there is at present no landfill.

In reply to a question from the Inspector, Mr. Mason stated that theoretically the

removed material from the old landfill could be placed within the borrowpit area.

There are no environmental threats from materials in the landfill. It is effectively

stabilised. It is more than 20 years old. However should there be any material

encountered that could not be reasonably dealt with, these would be separately

handled.

In reply to a question from Mr. Flynn, Mr. Mason stated that he was aware that with

the development of the Dublin Port Tunnel, a more recent landfill deposition at

Fairview Park had to be removed. The material was removed elsewhere within the

overall site.

The Environmental Protection Agency would be consulted in terms of any removal as

they are a statutory consultee. The Environmental Protection Agency have made no

representations to An Bord Pleanala relating to the proposed development.


In reply to a number of questions from Mr. F. Etchingham, Mr. Mason stated that

the landfill, at the northern end is approximately 70 metres wide. At the northern end

of the landfill an area of roughly 120 square metres would be covered however this

would be part of the land already covered by the old landfill.

In reply to a number of questions from the Inspector, Mr. M. Geaney stated that he

was a senior engineer working in the sanitary services section of Wicklow County

Council.

Sewage from the development would be pumped by the Rathdown Pumping Station.

It would be pumped up Hillside Road in Greystones and would flow by gravity to the

treatment plant at Charlesland. The pumping plant is located adjacent to the fire

station on Victoria Road.

The population being served by the Greystones Sewage Treatment Plant at present is

23,500. The plant can provide for a population equivalent of 28,000.

The Leamore Scheme has had its E.I.S. published in April of 2006. It has to go to An

Bord Pleanala for approval and it is hoped that this will be obtained by the end of

2006. If the Leamore plant was available a population equivalent of 6,789 will come

out of Greystones treatment plant. The plant is expected to be up and running by the

year 2010. In the meantime there is sufficient capacity in the Greystones plant. It is

designed for a capacity of 30,000. It has a sludge digestion capacity of 28,000.

Development is planned in the Charlesland area in the order of 6,000 population

equivalent. That development has not started yet. Capacity will have increased in the

plant by the time any development will have started there.

There are plans to extend the Greystones treatment plant to 40,000 population

equivalent. That was included in the original E.I.S. for the plant that was originally

commissioned. That extension would be finished by the end of 2008.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Walsh, Mr. Geaney stated that he was

familiar with the North Beach area and the local sewage pipe network. He was aware


that problems had arisen relating to the Bertram’s houses. This problem relates to the

connection between these local houses and the Rathdown pumping station. The

problem is at present being investigated. While there may be a problem locally, with

a small number of houses, there will be no problem with the overall proposed

development as there is sufficient capacity in the pipes and the pumping station and

the sewage treatment plant.

In reply to a number of questions from the Inspector, Ms. S. Walsh, Senior Planner,

Wicklow County Council stated that the Harbour View apartments consisted of two-

storey development containing eight units. It is a building in the Victorian style.

Permission was originally granted in 1997. The original application was for a four-

storey building. This was withdrawn and no decision was made. However a report

prepared by a Planner of Wicklow County Council recommended that refusal should

issue related to density of development, lack of car parking, private open space and

public open space. There were no difficulties with the height or contemporary design.

In 1998 permission was granted for a two-storey building.

It is one of the powers of a Local Authority to make Development Plans, vary such

plans and to make specific plans for specific areas. There may be an overriding

density standard. Guidance generally does suggest that development which is

seaward facing or overlooking a park and is not hemmed in on all sides by

development, may be suitable for higher buildings in denser development because of

the contrast with the scale and open side.

Greystones is a development centre. The proposed development would contribute

greatly to achieving growth in the town in a sustainable manner. It would provide

residential development and other services to the local community. The site is very

close to the town centre and is well served by public transport particularly Dart.

The proposal fully complies with the variation to the Development Plan adopted in

2003.


The harbour merits improvement. It is in very poor condition and does not provide a

strong focal point for the town. Historically while Greystones would have developed

around the harbour, it has shifted southwards particularly towards the Burnaby and

Charlesland. A rebalancing of the growth in Greystones which the developer would

represent, should be encouraged.

One could say that there is a single access point into the whole of north Greystones

from Bray at Blacklion. Given the coastal location, the hills and the mountains to the

west and to the north, there are difficulties in getting into and out of Greystones from

many directions.

The design concept which essentially continues Trafalgar Road northwards through

the development is acceptable. The development which is essentially located to the

west of that line would preserve to a significant extent the views that are presently

available from the area. The proposed structures would be set into the land rather

than out on the pier. While the structures will be visible in new views, the primary

views from the harbour to the Sugar Loaf and Bray Head will be intact with the

development. While the view will be altered the primary view of Bray Head will

remain intact. It is accepted that there will be a change in the context of the view.

The proposed development sits fully with the Development Plan and the variation.

When the Greystones Development Plan is being reviewed one would have to check

if existing views would still be achievable. If the context requires they can be altered

in the new plan. The plan for Greystones is currently under review.

Most of the views are concerned with the view of the Sugar Loaf and the view of

Bray Head from certain points. The vast majority of these views will remain.

It would appear that the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government

are extremely concerned with the southern block of apartments which would be

directly adjoining the new civic space in front of what is now the Beach House. It is a

one-storey building stepping up to four-storeys.


Concerns about the degree to which it could be integrated with existing structures in

the area were expressed. A tall imposing four-storey building, well designed and of

contemporary design would form a landmark building and would give the new

development a character of its own. By contrast two-storeys would not give the same

presence or command of presence or give the same impression for the new investment

which will obviously change the area and is a totally different type of development in

the area. It is not useful to try to replicate the height of existing buildings in the area.

This is obviously a completely new type of development. It is important that there is

a landmark gateway type building at the entrance to the development. It will also

frame the new urban space there.

The existing Victorian buildings to the south are up on a height and there is probably

a lack of enclosure in the space there. A taller building would provide a focal point

and enclosure to that space which is a concept that is well established in the provision

of new urban space. It needs to be framed by well designed buildings, taller buildings

to define the space which one would see in traditional Italian cities and Smithfield in

Dublin. It is a well recognised concept.

Changing the first building will not have a major impact on changing the overall

impression of the development. There is a much longer line of buildings to the north.

It would not have an overall impact by merely changing one building. It would not

alter views and prospects.

The current Greystones Development Plan was adopted in 1999 and is a schedule

town plan. The new Development Plan of 2004 is made under the 2000 Planning Act.

The Greystones Plan stands on its own feet as a scheduled town plan. It does not

necessarily require to fully comply with every policy and objective in the County

Development Plan as it is a stand alone plan in essence. In relation to views and

prospects the Local Plan is the correct one.

The proposed development would change the context in which views sit and views

themselves still exist and still be there.


The views west and north-west towards the little Sugar Loaf and the Sugar Loaf will

be altered. The higher lands would still be visible from the harbour. The hilltops

would be visible. The lower parts of the view would be removed by the development.

There is no doubting that.

Views in Development Plans are generally lacking in detail in relation to the full

context of the view. It would normally just be essentially a simple view from A to B.

Perhaps this is a weakness in the Development Plan. Perhaps they should set out in

more detail the context of what should be preserved. The same is true for the

Wicklow Development Plan and the Greystones Development Plan. Both refer to

viewpoints. Neither plan states that development cannot be permitted within the

ambit of the view. That type of detail is not provided. There is no detail as to what

part of a view has to be preserved within a more general statement.

The viewing points from the harbour area will be altered. This has to be taken in light

of the fact that there will be a new harbour which would be further out to sea than the

existing one. Views will be further out and perhaps that will mitigate it somewhat.

Views of Bray Head would be located further out. There would be views south

further out into the sea. The reduction in views or the compromising of some views

might be mitigated by the change in the design of the marina and the fact that there

would be new places from which to view these sites, the Sugar Loaf and Bray Head

which do not currently exist. There would be new piers, the breakwater, etc. These

would provide new viewing points from more accessible areas.

In the 2003 Variation to the Greystones Development Plan a section states that where

there is an apparent or possible conflict between listed views and the marina proposal,

the marina proposal takes precedence.

The main point of vehicular access into Greystones is through Delgany and over Bray

Head.

Traffic accessing the site would take a direct line into the town centre up and over the

hump backed bridge or along Victoria Road.


The Planning Authority have no concerns in relation to traffic with the redevelopment

of the La Touche Hotel site. An appeal was not submitted to An Bord Pleanala in

relation to traffic impacts. There is however only one access point into and out of the

site directly from Beach Road.

The Greystones Southern Access Road will soon be available (as noted earlier this

road was opened in June of 2006). The road is temporarily closed at present pending

its linking up with the N11.

The provision of the link with the N11 would change traffic circulation in the area

generally. It would serve the town centre and the area to the south of this centre.

The coastal area between Greystones and Bray has deteriorated significantly over

time. This has greatly affected the area. A number of pathways had to be moved

inland a number of times. It is a laudable objective to improve access around the

coastline areas. It is a general objective of the County Development Plan to improve

accessibility of the coast. The works proposed at the coastline are suitable for the

objective of protecting the coastal area.

No part of the site is located within a Special Area of Conservation. The northern part

of the site is located within a proposed Special Amenity Area Order however it does

not have defined boundaries as yet. The boundaries were set out in the County

Development Plan for the Planners of Wicklow County Council to investigate seeking

and SAAO. The boundaries of the SAAO area do not extend as far as the CPO area.

There are suitable setbacks from the area of archaeological importance in the vicinity

of the proposed heritage park. Preservation of any possible remains or existing

remains is therefore possible.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. J. Carthy, Ms. S. Walsh stated that an

archaeological conservation area offers additional protection to an area. An

architectural conservation area refers to a collection of buildings that have some merit

requiring protection. Any alterations to buildings within an architectural conservation

area would require either an exemption certificate or permission from a Local

Authority.


The Planning Authority have been investigating various areas around Greystones that

may merit protection as architectural conservation areas. They have looked at the

Victorian Cell, around the coastal zone of Trafalgar Road. There is a mixture of

buildings in the area. There are a number of later buildings and a number of very

poor buildings in terms of design quality built from the 1960s onwards. There are a

number of modern buildings also. To designate the entire area as an architectural

conservation area would essentially be preserving the poor buildings as well as the

good buildings. Protection afforded to buildings of quality is done so by way of

protected status to individual buildings. This offers sufficient protection to the

buildings of value in the area. Therefore an architectural conservation area

designation is not necessary.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Walsh, Ms. S. Walsh stated that any

development will have temporary impacts. Construction is a negative impact but it is

temporary in duration.

While it is accepted that 375 houses will be built and sold to provide individual

accommodation, and that the overall development will be for the benefit of a private

individual company, the Planning Authority considered that what is proposed is the

best way of achieving what everybody wants which is the improvement of facilities

for the coastguard and other harbour uses. It is a public private partnership. It will

have public and private elements. There will obviously be a private element.

However there would be approximately 32/36 acres of land resulting from the

reclamation of the foreshore. 4-5 acres of this land will be developed for private

housing which is quite a small proportion. The remainder is to be developed for

public use for public parks, piers and so on. A small element of the overall land take

would be in a private ownership. The freehold of the land would be retained by the

Local Authority.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. R. Fallon, Ms. Walsh stated that there

was a draft retail strategy drawn up for the County in light of the Retail Planning

Guideline. Greystones will be located very high up on the hierarchy in retail

provision as it is a major centre in the county. It is also in the metropolitan area.

Within such towns it is the objective of the Planning Authority to encourage and


facilitate large scale retail development to meet the needs of the residents and the

wider catchment.

More retail floorspace is required in the town. The main street has limited

opportunities for new facilities. The subject site is very close to the town centre.

There is a synergy with the town centre. There are shops along a large part of the

route between the harbour and the existing town centre. With the particular types of

usage proposed such as restaurants and the marine type of retail commercial,

competition would not occur with the existing shopping. The Planning Authority see

the retail floorspace as being complementary to existing floorspace.

Mr. S. Quirke, in reply to a number of questions from Mr. Fox stated that if the CPO

is confirmed it will vest the lands in Wicklow County Council. The lands to be

acquired include approximately 36 acres of foreshore. Most of this will revert to

water. There is an area which will become marina and an area which will become

harbour. There is also an area of approximately 4½ acres which would be developed.

All of CPO lands are vested in Wicklow County Council. The only areas that would

be transferred into private ownership will be transferred directly to the purchasers on

completion of their residential units and commercial units. None of these areas would

be transferred to Sispar.

The marina will be run on a concession agreement. It will not be in private

ownership, it will remain in public ownership. The harbour will always remain in

public ownership. The park will always remain in public ownership. The only areas

transferred into private ownership are private houses.

The land transfer mechanism has been given in detail to the members of Wicklow

County Council in December 2004 before Sispar were appointed as the private

partner.

The concessionary period is 30 years. After that time it would revert back to the

Local Authority for decision. A portion of the commercial development will be

retained in the public ownership to ensure a satisfactory completion of the concession

in the form of a bond.


The marina will be operated by a marina operator. Ownership will remain with

Wicklow County Council at the end of the 30 year period the concession could be

relet.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Etchingham, Ms. S. Walsh stated that

planning applications can be made for a change of use. In the commercial floorspace

proposed the Local Authority would discourage any such change of use to maintain a

vibrant mix within the development.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Flanagan Ms. Walsh stated that in the

event of inconsistencies between the County Development Plan and the Local Area

Plan (Greystones/Delgany), the local plan takes precedence.

The Development Plan for the county states that the Council proposes to preserve

views and prospects which are of special amenity value and subject to zoning

objectives. This essentially means that a view and prospect may exist but the land

also has to be zoned and if it is zoned it is deemed suitable for development so a

viewing prospect can’t override that in all cases.

In reply to a number of question from Mr. Etchingham, Mr. T. Dorney stated that

the marina is perfectly acceptable in terms of the number of units which constitute an

economic figure. Marinas comes in different sizes.

Replying to questions from Mr. Etchingham Mr. E. Gallagher stated that he had

been involved in the marina industry for over 30 years.

He was one of the people who was involved in the 2000-2006 Programme of Marina

Development published by the Marine Institute.

The European standard for berth provision was one per 42 persons. The provision at

the moment in Ireland is one per 179 persons.

To be economically viable the minimum size of marina is 200 berths.


The document prepared by the Marine Institute is titled Development Strategy for

Marine Leisure and Infrastructure.

In reply Mr. Etchingham stated that the document specifically refers to small scale

development being appropriate at Greystones. Small scale development provides 0-

25 births, appear, a slip way construction and maybe a small marina.

Mr. Gallagher stated that any marina below 200 berths would be unsustainable.

One of the prime areas for a marina in the Dublin area is Greystones.

The only marinas in Ireland in which a breakwater was built are in Carrickfurgus,

with 250 berths and Bangor with 550 berths.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Etchingham Mr. T. Durney stated that

the site is zoned town centre. There are many town centre functions between the

harbour and the retail centre of the town. The town stretches from the centre of the

town up to the harbour. The town centre zoning goes right up to the harbour from the

town centre itself. The harbour redevelopment could be considered the development

of a brownfield site.

Mr. Etchingham stated that it would appear that the original objective of the

Planning Authority was to restore the harbour and to address coastal erosion. The

development now seems to be replacing the harbour and not restoring it. The coastal

protection seems to be for houses which have not yet been built. There is coastal

protection to the old dump, however this is peripheral to the problem which is one of

waste management.

In reply Mr. Durney stated that extensive protection would be provided for at least

250 metres north of the Gap Bridge.

There were several days of public meetings in relation to the proposal. The developer

took on board what they heard from the objectors. Where they thought it was

appropriate to make relevant changes they did so. The major change was the


clubhouse facilities which originally ran from Bayswater Terrace. As a result of

consultation it was decided to break up the building into two and turn it at right angles

to improve views from the road. There were other architectural changes made to the

elevation facing towards Bayswater Terrace to lighten the impact in terms of the bulk

of the building as viewed from there.

Mr. S. Quirke of Wicklow County Council stated that considerable numbers of

meetings were held over the years relating to development proposals at the harbour.

The think/tank would have had approximately 80 people invited to every meeting of

which there were 9 or 10.

10 options were put in place and discussed by the think/tank group. This resulted in

the variation of the Local Development Plan in 2003.

The fact that there were ten options brought before the think/tank ensures that there

was a lot of consultation and discussion. Options were brought forward by people.

They were examined and a decision was made as to whether they were feasible or not.

For the developers Mr. D. Flanagan stated that all of the consultation was non

statutory. The present process is statutory. An Bord Pleanala must now decide on the

application for approval. While consultation took place the proposal was ultimately

put forward by the Local Authority for decision by An Bord Pleanala.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. D. Flynn, Mr. T. Durney stated that the

roads engineers fully considered the scale of the retail development along with the

residential and visitor parking requirements.

In relation to the existing shopping in the town centre the figure for convenience

shopping is 4,556 square metres. The figure for comparison shopping is 3837 square

metres.

The estimated future population of the development will give rise to reasonable

demand figure and there would be a local catchment for the area. This decided what

population the proposed development would serve. A forecast of turnover was then


made. Figures of requirement were then projected in both comparison and

convenience goods.

There is a mistaken impression that the entire 6,000 square metres proposed would be

devoted to convenience and comparison goods. This is not the case. It includes a

crèche and a leisure centre and it may include other things. It is not purely retail.

The study in relation to shopping depended upon the retail strategy of the County

Wicklow published by Wicklow County Council.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. P. Walsh Mr. Durney stated that there

would be no logic in providing cost benefit analysis of what was proposed. Cost

benefit analyses are only applied to state funded projects. In this case what is

proposed is a public private partnership. It is effectively the developer in the private

sector that is taking all the risk and delivering the benefit. The developers should

make a profit. That is what they are in business for. There are also benefits to the

town of Greystones.

The Dublin Docklands Authority acquired lands and have developed in conjunction

with the private sector in order to give major public benefits. In that case there were

different benefits. The old Gas Company site was cleaned up. It had lain dormant for

15 years. 33 million euro was spent on that. The current proposal is comparative to

the dockland in that it delivers public benefits at no cost to the taxpayer.

It would be unrealistic for anybody to expect that an accident figure as set out in the

Development Plan would not be achieved by a developer. Of course a developer

would try to achieve that figure of 375 units. The development is not excessive. It

does not represent overdevelopment of the site. It is highly acceptable in planning

terms.

Mr. Durney stated that the developer had to balance out issues of conservation and

urban design. What the Department of the Environment Report appears to propose

was a two-storey development along the square. From an urban design point of view

one can not just isolate three dimensional shapes. Use is equally important. The


relationship of views with buildings is highly important. It is vital that there is

residential usage along that frontage. It is also vital that there are storeys above it

which supervise the square in terms of passive policing. There is nothing wrong in

urban design terms in going from two or three storeys to four-storey.

In reply to a number of questions from Dr. C. Smal, Dr. N. Brady of the

Archaeological Diving Company stated that it was his understanding that the location

of the batching plant was originally in the vicinity of the dump site. Consideration

had been given to moving it north so that it was at a lower position in the landscape.

The Gap Bridge at the culvert were not a registered monument.

If a borrow pit is proposed at the southern end of Darcys Field this should be

proceeded by a full geo physical survey to appreciate the archaeological potential of

the area in advance of any decision to excavate. The potential of Darcys Field was

yet to be proved in any way.

The works to be carried out in Darcys Field to convert it into the proposed park will

be subject to the full rigors of archaeological protocol. That protocol should seriously

consider the possibility of avoiding archaeological features by not carrying out any

works that will in any way disturb deposits. Should avoidance not be possible

rigorous argument would have to be placed to justify any construction or landscape

work in these areas. That argument will be the subject to the rigour of the Department

of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and National Museum of Ireland

who will be the Authority’s to grant licences for any further works.

Ms. E. Singleton stated that the consultant archaeologist employed by the Friends of

Historic Rathdown have emphasised that the setting of the national monument site

was as important as the site itself. The Friends of Historic Rathdown are deeply

concerned that Darcys Field, through all of the construction work proposed, may lose

its value as the setting for a national monument.


Given the huge amount of potential in the Rathdown site there is a very strong

argument that at least initial studies should be conducted in Darcys Field because it is

going to be a construction site.

In a public private partnership, the public interest in the site is important.

Dr. D. Farrell stated that he was the chief engineer in the Department of

Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. He was accompanied by Mr. B.

Shaw from the engineering division.

Mr. Shaw stated that in the E.I.S. it was suggested that dredging would be carried out

using suction equipment to minimise turbidity which would occur in areas where

lobster and crab fishing potential occurs. It could have a serious impact on stock.

There could be mitigation measures what if any impact was detected as a result of

dredging.

There are two conflicting statements in the E.I.S. in relation to dredged materials.

One seems to say that material will definitely be reused in the reclamation area. The

other statement says that it is at the discretion of the contractor employed whether

material is reused or not. It will however be at the discretion of the Department of

Communications, Marine and Natural Resources whether material is dumped at sea or

not.

The Dumping at Sea Act is a separate process. An application is made to the

Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Disposal at sea is a

last resort. All other options should be considered. Quite a lot of the material would

appear to be suitable for reuse. It could be used in the reclamation or reused in the

beach nourishment programmes. These are two options. To say that based on

economics it might all go to sea is not the approach that should be taken. Other

options must be evaluated and cost should not be the reason why material goes to sea.

Dr. Farrell stated that the points in relation to the footprint of the development is that

the breakwaters and the revetment to the north are very good coastal protection for


both erosion and flooding. However north of the proposed revetment coastal

protection is minimalist so it is very close to a do nothing scenario.

There is a general concern in relation to mobile sediments on the coast. A condition

should be put in that those sediments in the harbour area, sand, gravel and cobbles,

should be removed from under the development footprint and moved northwards.

That is in relation to point 8 of the Department’s submission.

Wave disturbance modelling is covered in point 11. The significant wave heights in

the wave modelling in the marina were 0.25 metres whereas the British standard is

0.15 metres for a significant wave height in a marina.

The issue of wave overtopping has not been considered in the analysis. Doctor

Farrell stated that he was surprised by that omission. It should have been included in

the analysis and in the E.I.S. so an opinion could have been informed as to the degree

of overtopping of the breakwaters in front of the marina particularly with regard to

pedestrian safety and issues such as that.

In relation to coastal erosion even though the consultants have done quite a lot of

work estimating rates of erosion from data, there is a lot of uncertainty. This has to be

borne in mind in reviewing the estimated rates of coastal erosion.

The models being used are very powerful but they have to be used with great care.

The models are suited to long straight beaches. With a beach like Greystones which

is enclosed at each end by a headland, using such models is probably more

problematic. Even though the results of the modelling can be presented with a great

deal of precision they have to be interpreted with care.

Wave sheltering is a technical issue. The differences between the do nothing situation

which is leaving the harbour as it is now and the new proposal is effectively modelled

in the computers by putting in a sheltering for the new proposal. It is not clear how

this was actually done however this is a technical issue in relation to the modelling.


Quite a lot of studies were carried out on the coastal erosion rates. Doctor Farrell

stated that he was a little surprised to see a hard point like the Gap Bridge, which sits

in the middle of the beach, not being alluded to. This gave the study a slightly

abstract and theoretical air. It would have been better to have been alluded to. One is

not sure whether it would have been a material issue in terms of the modelling

however it should have been included.

Mr. P. Neary stated that he had a number of questions for Dr. Farrell. Mr. Neary

stated that he was a scientist who had been involved with the use of marine modelling.

In reply to a number of questions Dr. Farrell stated that there won’t be any material

effect on the harbour in terms of the wave modelling which has been carried out. It is

just an issue of the size of the waves. It is the matter of the operation and eficiency of

the marina in terms of the blocking out of waves. That is the only issue. It did not

affect the use of the harbour.

The E.I.S. has satisfactorily dealt with the condition of the beaches within the

harbour. While there are standards laid down for waves that may be permitted in a

marina there are no such standards for waves which may occur on the beaches.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resource would not be

concerned in relation to the consequences for the beach. The only concern is wave

action in the marina area.

The models used in the marine studies are very complex processes. Coastal

engineering is very complex. When looking at the results of models one has to be

aware of that and that the degree of precision may not be there.

There is also a difficulty in using the available models on short beaches such as at

Greystones. However there aren’t any other models which can be applied. One

therefore has to look at the results and filter them through experience to make

comment. That is the way it works.


In reply to a number of questions from the Inspector, Dr. Farrell stated that the

results from the modelling have to be considered to carry a high degree of lack of

precision. They have to be treated with care. Sometimes when the models are used

on long beaches they perform very well. On short beaches they don’t perform well.

However it is a tool which is applied. The results are interpreted from experience.

The type of modelling which has been done by the developers will not have any

impact on the harbour design as such. All one is really talking about are the effects on

the North Beach. The proposals are for a minimalist proposal for the nourishment on

the North Beach. One is not sure whether the modelling would have a material effect

on it. The nourishment scheme is a very small one. The developers are right to

propose it however. Dr. Farrell stated that he was not sure if it would have any

material affect on what occurred. Putting 6,000 cubic metres per annum onto the

beach will have a beneficial effect on the beach but whether the modelling can predict

that or not is open to doubt.

There will be no material affect on the South Beach resulting from the development.

There will be no material transport of sediment around the town of Greystones around

the headland so there would be no affect on the development. The two beaches are

almost mutually exclusive. The development would have no impact on any coastal

current between the North and South Beach.

Wave overtopping is a serious issue. There could be issues of public safety involved.

One can estimate the amount of water which would come over the new breakwater in

front of the marina in a storm. This will have an impact on pedestrian safety on the

breakwater and that should have been included in the E.I.S. However it is just a

technical issue.

In relation to climate change and possible rise in sea levels, the study did factor in a

0.9 metre increase of sea level. The kind of sea level rises being used at the moment

have been recommended by the International Panel and Inter Governmental

Commission on Climate Change. This is 0.5 of a metre over the next 100 years. This

figure would appear to be reliable.


In reply to a number of questions from Mr. D. Flangan, Dr. Farrell stated that using

0.9 of a metre instead of 0.5 was being more conservative.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources operate to British

standards 6349. This is a default standard for the Department. It is an onerous

standard and if one can demonstrate fitness for purpose under some less onerous

standard there is no problem with that.

Mr. D. Flanagan stated that Sispar had had discussions with the officials from the

Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. As a result Mr. O.

Jelsen stated that he worked for many years as a hydrologist.

At present he was working with Cowi as Director of Marine and Coastal Engineering

in a team of 100 people.

He had worked on the coastal protection works for Arklow town. He also worked,

since the year 2000, on coastal protection works at Bray Head for Iarnrod Eireann.

He also worked on the coastal area south of Greystones, at Sorrento Point, Killiney

and in north Dublin.

He stated that he was familiar with this particular coastline. He had also experience in

working with marina developments. He had worked closely with Arup on the project.

He had been working with marine modelling for the last 30 years. His company had

some of the best modelling expertise in the world.

The way the model was used to determine wave disturbance in the harbour, has been

developed over a number of years and has been proven. The model results will give

very closely a representation of what is happening in nature. There will not be much

deviation from the model and nature.

Wave disturbance in marinas can go up to 0.63 metres per second depending on wave

direction, size of boats etc. This is a guideline. Such an occurrence might be just a

couple of times a year.


With respect to waves coming into the entrance to the harbour and into the marinea

what is proposed will meet the criteria.

In relation to wave overtopping monitoring studies are being prepared at present.

This will look in detail at how waves come over the breakwater and the effects behind

the breakwater. This is for the detailed design stage.

The most appropriate model available for the North Beach is one which is used in

measuring the driving movement of sediment on the North Beach by way of action

during storms. It is not tidal current. Two dimensional models are available that can

be used. There is a model of sediment transmission however this is related to the

movement of sediment due to currents. There are no models that can really be used

for prediction of what is happening in the wave breaking zone and what happens

when a big wave attacks a beach like North Beach. The used model works better on a

straight section. What is here is a nicely curved beach between two points Bray Head

and Greystones Harbour and the cliffs of Greystones. That is why it is acknowledged

that models are models and nature is nature. What one is trying to do is to achieve an

absolute approximation.

Efforts have been made to see what happened in the past as a guide to the future.

Good records are only going back to 1937.

It is estimated that the cliff is retreating at the rate of half a metre per year. Recession

of the beach is not something that happens gradually day by day. It is more

something that happens in steps during very big storms and high tides and when big

storms coincide with high tides one can lose a few metres in a storm.

A very severe storm is normal on a coastline. It is perhaps something that happens

once in a century.

There is a quite long middle section to the North Greystones Beach. If sediment is

lost in one part it is not disappearing rather it is moving to the next cell or moving

perpendicular to the shoreline. When you get close to Bray Head things become very


complex off the deep water which prevents sediment accumulating in front of the

Head.

The new harbour will contain two breakwaters almost opposite each other. In the last

30-40 years it has been proven that this is the layout that will maximise natural

bypassing of sediment and will minimise the intrusion of sediment into the foreshore

in the harbour itself, providing two breakwaters out towards the entrance to the

harbour is what is being proposed. This is to prevent big eddies which would collect

sediment.

One has high and low water every 12 hours in the harbour. That brings water in and

out of the harbour.

In relation to the harbour and the proposed marina the situation will be improved in

relation to tidal currents than exists today. It was not considered necessary to study

currents. There are very little tidal currents in the harbour.

Mr. C. Ulrick for Sispar stated that there are limitations to what modelling can

achieve especially at the northern end near Bray Head. To deal with uncertainties a

number of things have been done. The impact of differing amounts of nourishment

were taken into account. Following this a safety factor was included in the E.I.S.

This was 6,000 cubic metres instead of 4,000.

An undertaking has been given to provide nourishment and monitoring over a 30 year

period. Shingle can be placed where it is most effective. There are ways in which the

modelling uncertainties can be addressed. There is considerable flexibility in dealing

with beach nourishment.

Mr. D. Flangan stated that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural

Resources do not require any more modelling. They understand the way in which the

modelling has been executed and are satisfied with what it is seeking to achieve.

In reply Dr. Farrell stated that that was correct with regard to beach modelling. The

Department were not sure whether any more modelling would shed more light on the


subject. What is proposed is a minimalist scheme. A small amount of material would

be placed on the beach each year. It is the responsibility of the landowner as to what

degree of coastal protection is put in. It is for Wicklow County Council to deal with

those particular issues.

In relation to erosion generally the Department liases with Local Authorities with

regard to priorities within each area in relation to applications for Government

funding.

The absence of modelled information in relation to the Gap Bridge would probably

not have made any difference in relation to the computer analysis.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Etchingham, Mr. C. Ulrick stated that

because of the desire to keep the wave crest height down, there will be some

overtopping in extreme stormy events in winter. There is a proposal therefore that

small boats not be stored immediately behind the breakwater during the winter period.

The boat club building because of its position would need to be robustly built. No

particular issue should present a problem.

In relation to people using the breakwater, there are no breakwaters where an extreme

event would not cause some hazard. There is no such thing as a breakwater which is

always safe under all conditions. It is proposed that on the north breakwater there will

be signage warning pedestrians of overtopping winter conditions.

The detailed design process would arrive at the degree of robustness required in

relation to waves overtopping in stormy conditions.

A considerable amount of work has been done by the developers to try and reduce and

mitigate the overtopping . On the outside of the breakwater there is a large amount of

rock the purpose of which is to try and break up the waves and reduce overtopping.


The crest of the breakwater has a curve on the top. This curves outwards which

means that a significant outpouring of energy is collected back out to sea rather than

going over the top.

Provision is also made for some form of barrier on the back of the breakwater which

will tend to break up any overtopping of waves and reduce the impact of those

landing in the water on the inside face.

What is proposed therefore are three very specific degrees of mitigation measure. A

fourth one is in the specific area of the sailing club. The crest of the breakwater rises

up from plus 6.5 metres to plus 8 metres to match up with the level of the road on the

south side of the harbour. All of the mitigating measures were introduced into the

design to reduce the overtopping compared with the existing situation where there is

at present significant overtopping.

Having consulted with Mr. Gallagher, who is a marina operator, there should be no

unusual level of risk to store boats. There is however no breakwater anywhere that

provides a completely safe environment under the most extreme weather conditions.

Such a thing does not exist. It is a matter of managing risk to an acceptable level.

Mr. B. Gallagher stated that he had worked in the boat business for the past 30 years.

He had worked in harbours where there was considerable overtopping and overspill of

water. He did not consider that boats would suffer to any great extent within the

harbour area during storms. At several locations along the east coast of Ireland there

are places where boats are stored inside breakwaters very close to them throughout

the winter.

In reply to further questions from Mr. Etchingham, Mr. Ulrick stated that the beach

profile, on the North Beach, after 30 years is indicated as being lower than the current

profile. This is a result of the revetment reflecting a certain amount of wave energy

which tends to lower the beach in front of the revetment. The alternative design

which is being proposed restricts the revetment to the area where accretion will take

place. The negative impact is therefore much reduced and the beach will increase


cover from the bottom of the revetment. There would not therefore be a problem in

terms of loss of amenity.

The issue is more acute at the northern end where erosion is expected in any event.

Towards the southern end the accretion will tend to mitigate the effects. At the

southern end the beach will lower a little but considerably less than the beach further

north.

In reply to a number of questions from the Inspector, Mr. Ulrick stated that the

reason beach nourishment was being proposed at the northern end of the proposed

CPO area was to provide some stability to the beach at this location. This results

from the fact that the amount of erosion at this part of the beach is expected to

increase.

Mr. Ulrick stated that one of the advantages of the beach nourishment scheme is that

over the course of the years one can adjust how the material is placed in the most

effective way. Initially 30,000 cubic metres of material would be placed on the

beach. This would be followed by 6,000 cubic metres per year.

6,000 cubic metres per year placed on the beach over a 30 year period will achieve the

21 metre criteria which is set out in the E.I.S. The 21 metres related to the amount of

erosion which is expected to occur over the 30 year period with beach nourishment.

Mr. J. Jelsen stated that beach nourishment was common practice throughout the

world. Coastal protection schemes tried to work as closely with nature as possible.

The beach nourishment would provide a situation as close as possible to the existing

beach. Beach nourishment is a better solution than hard rock structures or revetment

along the cliff edge.

For Wicklow County Council Mr. S. Quirke stated that there will be ongoing

monitoring of the situation on the beach over a 30 year period. At the end of this

period an assessment will be made and nourishment will continue if required.

Finances will be put in place to ensure that this happens.


In reply to a question from Councillor Fortune, Mr. Quirke stated that it has been

publicly stated on a number of occasions that the value of the public works generally

would be of the order of 50 million euro. This includes coastal protection works, the

harbour, the marina, the park and the clubhouses.

Councillor Fortune stated that a professor of geology from University College,

Dublin recently stated that implementing coastal protection on a piecemeal basis did

not work.

Mr. M. Tinsley stated that he was a Senior Executive Engineer with Wicklow County

Council based in the Greystones area. Road maintenance in the area was one of his

primary functions.

The Local Authority in its role as Roads Authority would be in a position to monitor

the road usage in terms of speed and type of usage. If deemed necessary they would

be in a position to implement additional traffic management measures as laid out in

the IFPLUT study.

Mr. M. Ahern stated that he was a specialist in traffic management employed by the

Dublin Transportation Office. He had been involved in road design, road

construction, traffic management and production of guidelines over the last 20 years.

He would deal with the functionality of the Victoria Road railway bridge.

In the interest of good street and road design one would have to have harmony

between the function of the road, the shape of the road and the usage of the road by

the people on it.

Victoria Road is an access road. The function of the road is not to provide for through

traffic. It is to access property.

In such a situation of access one would be designing with vulnerable road users in

mind. On that basis the emphasis of the road would need to be primarily that all road

users would understand the ever present potential for cyclists and pedestrians.


In the context of an access road with low speeds of 20/25kph, it would be perfectly

acceptable to have cyclists cycling on the road because it would be typical of many

estate roads with low volumes of traffic, and mixed use, where there is no need to

provide specific measures for cyclists.

If the road is properly designed as an access road there shouldn’t be any specific need

for cycle infrastructure. Victoria Road is intended as an access road.

In reply to a question from the Inspector, Mr. Tinsley stated that the primary

function of Victoria Road would be as an access road.

Continuing Mr. Ahern stated that it was very important that speeds are as intended.

In the proposal there is a departure from the recommended guidelines which are 1.8

metres of width for new footpaths.

In that context it is very important that the general environment is a forgiving one

where speeds are low. The Victoria Road railway bridge should therefore not be seen

in isolation from the rest of the road.

Travelling eastwards along the R761 towards the bridge one does not necessarily get

any feel for the road. You don’t get a designation that you are leaving a regional road

and travelling onto an access road. It is within this context that Mr. Tinsley states that

further measures may be necessary to redefine the shape and feel of the road as an

access road so there is no confusion on the road for anyone as to function of the road

and the feel of the road and that the bridge fits in, not as a surprise in the middle of the

road but in fact as part of the entire context of the road.

The Dublin Transportation Office would not support the provision of a guardrail

under the bridge. DTO guidelines would advise judicious use of guardrails on

distributor roads. They are supposed to be for high speed, locations where there is a

need to constrain pedestrians. In this situation it would be desirable to have a

continuous footpath on both sides of the bridge. This is not possible in the current

circumstances. In the circumstances it ought to eminently possible to cross the road,


use the footpath and cross back again with ease for pedestrians. Cyclists would be

able to use the road lanes in mixed traffic.

In reply to a question from the Inspector, Mr. McDaid of Sispar stated that he

accepted what Mr. Ahern had said in relation to a guardrail. In the context of detailed

design of traffic management measures for the area there would be no problem with

the omission of a guardrail. This would give a clear 1.5 metre wide footpath in the

overall context of reducing speed and creating a lower speed environment. There

would be no need for a guardrail.

Mr. Ahern stated that the issue at question is that speeds must be low.

Mr. Tinsley stated that one would be looking at a low sped environment. It is within

the power of Wicklow County Council to carry out traffic calming measures on a

public road under Section 38 of the 1994 Road Traffic Act. The Local Authority

would be in a position to monitor the situation. If it was deemed that further

additional traffic calming measures were required the Local Authority would be in a

position to provide them.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Fox, Mr. Ahern stated that the entire

road, Victoria Road and Beach Road, up to the entrance to the site is an access road

and therefore would be managed in the context of the low speeds.

The DTO would be particularly concerned that there are opportunities to improve the

entrance in relation to pedestrian connectivity to the rest of the town. In particular

pedestrians coming and going from the development might be better served in general

access to the Dart.

A plaza type development that would give pedestrians a degree of primacy within the

area is part of the proposal. A little more attention to the location of bus stops, may

be the creation of a waiting area and connections across the road should be possible.

In relation to the entrance onto the site there are two exit lanes one left and one right.

The E.I.S. indicates that the vast majority of cars would be turning right out of the


development. The Traffic Management Guidelines in those situations would advocate

that run over areas, just two lanes, one in and one out, run over areas might be a better

design in the context that it reduces the pedestrian crossing time and therefore gives a

more efficient junction for traffic and for pedestrians.

Eastwards from the junction of the R761 with Church Road (approximately 200

metres from the Victoria Road railway bridge) right through under the bridge, to the

development site, needs to be treated in a homogenous way as a low speed

environment. In these circumstances there would be no surprises, pedestrians can step

out onto roads in a forgiving environment, it is an environment where cyclists can

cycle mixed with traffic.

The road width at the bridge is 6.3 metres. A 3 metre lane is sufficient and in a low

speed environment, the DTO advocates tight lanes. 3 metres is tight. However there

is a bend under the bridge and one would need a little bit of extra swing.

Mr. Fox stated that there was very limited scope under the bridge. Mr. Ahern

agreed.

Mr. Fox stated that locally the bridge was regarded as a very dangerous area. In reply

Mr. Ahern stated that the environment has been changed, only it had to be improved.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. Fox in relation to the building period

during which large vehicles would be using the local road network, Mr. Ahern stated

that if local conditions during construction were unsatisfactory either the Gardai or the

Road Authority will take action.

Councillor De Burca stated that a written submission of the Dublin Transportation

Office to An Bord Pleanala contains the following quote;

“However due to the constraining aspects of the site and lack of multiple

access points to the site, the DTO is concerned about the overall scale of the

development. The provision of just one access point which would appear to

be catering for all modes does not seem appropriate for development of this


scale in the central location within the town. This is likely to accentuate the

traffic impacts of the development on the road network within the town centre

add negatively to the pedestrian/cycling environment in an area where this

should be a primary consideration. Although it is accepted that the physical

constraints of the site may limit accessibility potential, the overall scale of the

development should reflect this constraint.”

Should the development therefore not be scaled back. The Buchanan Report of 1997

stated that the harbour area was ill suited to significant extra volumes of traffic. The

report also stated that in the event of a significantly larger marine development being

approved it was recommended that access be via a suitable junction with the R761

Bray to Greystones Road.

In reply Mr. Ahern stated that in relation to the development proposed, in the context

of an access road with low speeds, one would certainly be in a situation where one

would be near the upper end of what an access road would be reasonably be expected

to deliver. This is in the context not so much of the level of service for pedestrians

and cyclists but in the context of a level of service to vehicles. It is really down to

individuals making their trips how acceptable it is to them to drive by car should they

experience delays on the route.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. D. Flynn, Mr. D. Kelly stated that he

was employed by AWN Consulting. A daytime noise limit of 40dBA would render

any construction work impossible. The noise levels adopted for daytime working

were 50dBA and 45dBA during night-time. This would by typical practice.

The daytime construction noise limit proposed is 70 dbLaeq. There is no statutory

guidance in relation to permissible noise levels for construction noise.

The document used by the National Roads Authority outlines various noise levels for

day and evening periods and also weekends.

The construction works that are proposed are comparable to a Motorway Scheme.

Batching plants are associated with Motorway Schemes. Piling work is also involved.


In reply to a number of questions from Mr. P. Walsh, Mr. Kelly stated that he was

aware of where the Bertrams lived.

There would be short periods during construction where noise levels associated with

the development would be increased however levels would be managed within the

noise limits proposed, as much as possible. Noise levels would be significantly below

construction noise limits for most of the time. The majority of work would be carried

out between Monday and Friday.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. P. Walsh, Mr. P. Keogh stated that he

was a Director John Siskon Son.

There were two activities which would require working outside of normal working

hours. The first would be dredging. This would be an eight week period at the end of

the 21 month period in which effectively operations would be required around the

clock. The night-time operation would operate under the 50dB limit indicated.

The second activity requiring work outside normal working hours is for tidal related

works. There may be a small number of items such as pouring a slipway for instance

which would require working outside normal hours.

It was not intended to use North Beach Road as a means of access to the construction

site. Traffic would be taken through the site.

Development was programmed over five years. The civil work would be over the

first 21 months. Following that public areas would again be available to harbour

users. Following that landside development will occur.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. P. Walsh, Dr. I. Shanahan stated that

dust generated by the development will be at an acceptable level. The whole point of

controlling environmental impact associated with any development is to ensure that

the effects are controlled within acceptable levels. While there will be dust and it will

be over and above the levels experienced at present, dust generation will be within

acceptable levels.


In reply to a number of questions from Dr. Smal, Dr. Shanahan stated that concerns

raised in relation to the batching plant were misplaced. A detailed description of what

is proposed has been provided. There would be no biohazard resulting from the

proposed batching plant.

The proposed batching plant is located immediately north of the old landfill site

within Darcys Field.

Dr. Smal stated that a planning application made by Mr. Bernard Darcy in 1972 for a

caravan park containing 30 caravans was refused by Wicklow County Council on the

basis of traffic issues at the harbour. The current proposal for 375 houses is

apparently considered acceptable.

In reply to a number of questions from Mr. D. Flynn, Mr. O. Thorup stated that Sisk

and Company have not undertaken marine work to date however their partner Lagan

completed a marina in Bangor which is slightly bigger than the one here proposed.

Within both companies there are a number of individuals who have worked for other

contractors. Mr. Thorup stated that he worked for Christiani and Nielsen for almost

30 years doing harbour works around the world. He had participated in the

construction of a number of breakwaters. There is a breakwater at the Bangor marina.

Considerable detail has been provided in Appendix 2 in the E.I.S. in relation to the

marine works proposed.

Limited use of coffer dams will be made mainly associated with the slipways and the

launching ramp. The remaining works would be done using the big concrete blocks

only. These would be placed directly into the sea, into the prepared seabed

foundation.

The existing harbour will be generally demolished using conventional excavators with

hydraulic breakers. Before construction of the southern breakwater most of the

existing harbour will have to be demolished. The first element of demolition work


will be on the south side however this would not be the first construction activity.

This would be the provision of the northern breakwater.

Even during the course of the works there should be temporary access to the water.

There will be quite a lot of usage at the harbour provided for the community. Access

is possible through a temporary slip.

Mr. Etchingham stated that there is potential for major disruption of sailing activity

and to serious loss to the sailing club. Sailors will simply go elsewhere if they cannot

get out on the water. While a liason committee could be of some assistance

guarantees cannot be given that a sailing schedule would not be disrupted.

Dr. Smal stated that it should not be possible that an emergency exit would be

provided through the site northwards. An emergency exit, a temporary road or any

other sort of road through a national monument should not be permitted. In reply Mr.

P. Keogh stated that the developers could guarantee not to build such an access.

Construction bonding would be in place in relation to the development. There would

also be performance bonds.

Ms. E. Singleton stated that she wished to provide information in relation to public

private partnerships and how they operated.

One of the principles on which such partnerships are based clearly states that it is the

likelihood of providing value for money particularly as compared to conventional

public expenditure which should be considered. Without a cost benefit analysis the

public has no way of ascertaining whether such arrangements provide value for

money. It is accepted there will always be business sensitivity when a contract has

been drawn up between the Local Authority and the development company.

One of the difficulties in assessing the public element, the marina, the coastal

protection works etc. is that no figures are available on which to base any assessment.

It is a similar situation in relation to archaeology. There are no aerial photographs of

the southern end of Darcys Field. No resistivity testing has been carried out.


This is a large issue because one is being asked to accept that something is value for

money within the PPP system without any information.

Mr. S. Quirke stated that in 2001 Wicklow County Council employed a client

representative team. This comprises architectural, engineering and financial advice as

well as retained legal advice. This representative team will continue working

throughout the course of the construction and will ensure compliance with the terms

of the contract.

A contract backs up all of the conditions which may be applied by An Bord Pleanala.

The contract is between the public and private partners in this case.

Any requirements will be met through the contract and through the management of

the contract.

At the end of the concession period, 30 years, the construction works will revert to

Wicklow County Council. The Council will have to consider that what they are going

to get handed them is suitable for the purpose into the future.

In reply to a question from Mr. Flynn, Mr. S. Mason stated that his company had

met with Iarnrod Eireann in relation to the load carrying capacity of the hump backed

bridge. There were also discussions in relation to truck movements down Victoria

Road. No concerns were raised.

In reply to a number of questions from Dr. Smal, Mr. J. Brophy stated that

mitigation measures should be taken in relation to sand martins.

Mr. Brophy stated that he was a resident of Greystones since 1985 and had been

studying sand martins on a regular basis. He had published papers and notes in

various journals on the birds of the east coast area.

Since the mid 1980s and through the 1990s the colony has changed from year to year.

This is due to the exposure of sand seams, after wind and storms.


The total length of the potential cliffs is approximately 2 kilometres. Some of that is

not suitable because of vegetation however potentially it could be suitable in years to

come.

The area affected by the proposed rock armour at the southern end of the cliff is

approximately 100 metres. The clay cliff on this section has been used. It appears to

have been used in 2005.

A very small section of cliff face would be affected by the proposal, approximately

5% of its total length in a linear strip. Because the further one goes northwards the

higher the cliffs become, it is probably only about 1% of the total surface area that

would be affected, an area that would be disturbed.

Because there would be future erosion right along these cliffs for years to come in

10/20 years time there would be fresh seams of sand exposed by natural erosion.

Because 95% of the surface is remaining intact to actually insert borrows into an

unstable cliff face would be pointless. If however the Inspector feels it is appropriate

to do so it can be done.

The legal situation in relation to sand martins is that they are protected under the

Wildlife Act 1976 and 2000 as are all birds including blackbirds, robins and thrushes

in anyone’s back garden. The sand martin received no additional protection, no more

and no less than any common bird. The slight conservation value it does have is that

it is amber listed. It is not red listed. It is amber listed due to a decline in parts of its

European range.

Other species which are amber listed include swallow, stock dove, black guillemot.

These are all widespread species in Ireland that are not threatened in any way.

The conservation status of sand martins has been taken out of proportion by some

speakers.

The special area of conservation commences at the Gap Bridge and continues

northwards towards the Bray Head Peninsula.


From survey carried out in 2004, and following review of the coastal erosion works

and the results from the modelling, the developers are not concerned about the impact

of accelerated erosion on the cliffs to the north of the Gap Bridge.

At the time of the survey in 2004 a concern was raised that substantial erosion further

to the north could occur. This is at a distance of approximately 1.5 kilometres north,

where the vegetation becomes more stable. There is a grassy slope with scrub and

low woodland.

From the vegetation point of view that is the main ecological interest along these

cliffs. It continues further towards the Cable Rock where it merges down to the rocky

cliff. That is where the real ecological interest commences.

To the south of that area the cliffs have been seriously eroded over the years. The

vegetation and flora is very poor and impoverished and often of a weedy character.

This is natural because of the natural erosion that is occurring. However on top of the

cliff there is very little maritime grassland or flora because of the land use which is

agricultural. These cliffs are missing a vital component, cliff top vegetation.

The cliffs are classified as of low interest even though they are within the special area

of conservation site. Ecologically they are of low interest.

The National Parks and Wildlife service have not made a submission to the oral

hearing.

In relation to the sea kale, it is not legally protected. It is just a red data book species.

Part of the population has been taken into cultivation by the Botanic Gardens in

Glasnevin. There is therefore a genetic stock already taken from that population.

In answer to a number of questions from Dr. Smal, Mr. S. Mason stated there had

been extensive coverage of coastal erosion within the Environmental Impact

Statement. It had also been raised extensively at the oral hearing. Many options had

to control erosion were looked at in the study. The proposal before the Board is by far


the most appropriate not only in terms of preserving the nature of the cliffs but in

preserving the amenity value of being able to access the beach into the future.

The only work that will affect the cliffs would be the removal of the Gap Bridge.

There is no intention to do any work to the existing cliffs as part of the development

other than whatever landscaping work is done at the top end of the cliffs working

back towards Darcys Field, for safety purposes.

Landscaping works associated with the new park would extend to a point south of the

Gap Bridge. Although the lands north of the Gap Bridge have been included as part

of the CPO there is no intention to do any work on the cliffs in that area. In reply to

questions from Mr. Etchingham Mr. Quirke stated that at the end of the concession

period the marina would be handed back to Wicklow County Council. There would

be no capital debt on it. The question of running cost as against a conventional

marina, where there would be capital debt to be serviced, would not arise.

There is a proposal to ring fence funding from the proceeds of the development to

cater for coastal protection works for the 30 year period. There would be a revenue

share mechanism between Wicklow County Council and Sispar. That revenue share

will take place when the land side developments are completed.

In reply to a number of questions from E. Singleton, Mr. Dijkhuis stated that the

proposed public park needs to be seen as an extension of one of the urban realms. By

introducing housing into the area there would be some passive surveillance within the

area. What would be created in the development would be a community of close to

900 people of various ages.

There is a very strong connection between the end of the boardwalk and the

amphitheatre which is proposed. Car parking is also proposed close to the park which

will provide a viewing point into the park. The layout of the park can be changed in

order to open it up more to public views. Concerns have been taken on board through

public negotiations and discussions.


Mr. J. Fox for the Greystones Protection and Development Association stated that the

main public benefit from the proposal would seem to be coastal protection works and

obligations and duties under the Waste Management legislation relating to the landfill

site. The PPP model is not the correct vehicle to use to achieve these objectives.

The success of the development depends on long-term and on-going maintenance

over a 25-30 year period. It has not been demonstrated how this would be secured.

The details of the PPP contract have not been available to the public through the

planning process. This is contrary to national justice.

The foreshore is public property. It ought to be preserved for future generations. It if

is not to be preserved the public must have full access to the details of a proposal to

dispose of it.

If the PPP succeeds it results in a valuable gift from the public to the private sector.

However if the contract does not succeed the public has to step in and rescue both the

assets which the contract was established to build and operate in the first place. Either

way the public loses out.

There have been dramatic failures in Ireland with PPP projects. Examples of these

are;

The M50 toll bridge.

Jarvis financial difficulties and the schools projects including the Cork School

of Music.

National Aquatic Centre.

Ringsend PPP Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Beaumount hospital car park.


Ballymun Regeneration (schools have no access to the leisure centre).

An Bord Pleanala should not approve the development until it has all the documents

which answer many questions. These questions relate to Sispar, the financing of the

project and to contractural details.

In relation to the compulsory purchase process and the action of the Local Authority,

Section 211 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 deals with the disposal of

land by Local Authority which includes land under water such as the foreshore.

The Local Authority is not empowered to gift or grant land to a private developer in

accordance with Section 211 of the 2000 Act. The land would be sold, leased or

exchanged. This section is precise with no scope for any other form of disposal of

land.

In contrast Section 10 of the State Property Act 1954 states;

“A State Authority may in respect of any state land for the time being be invested in

the State Authority do all or any of the following things;

(a) Sell such state land already part thereof.

(b) Exchange such terms, including payment or receipt of money for a quality of

exchange, as such stated Authority may determine such state land or any part

thereof for any other land.

(c) Make a grant gratuitously of such state land or any part thereof for any

specified purpose.

(d) Make a lease of such state land or any part thereof for any term.”

The main differences between Section 211 of the 2000 Act and the power of the

Minister for Finance in the 1954 Act is to make a grant gratuitously for any specified

purpose. There is no such power afforded to the Local Authority in the 2000 Act with


regard to the disposal of the foreshore once acquired by the Local Authority. Until

such time as the compulsory acquisition of the foreshore is confirmed by An Bord

Pleanala, the foreshore is vested in the Minister for Finance under the State Property

Act 1954.

The current PPP proposal to develop the foreshore and related works does not specify

exactly the nature of the arrangement entered into by Wicklow County Council with

Sispar. There is no transparency and the public and An Bord Pleanala have not been

presented with any written documentation or oral testimony as to the nature of the

contractural arrangement to the parties to the PPP.

The foreshore is apparently to be granted to the developer following compulsory

acquisition. The E.I.S. states at page 91;

“It is intended that freehold ownership of the land will be retained by the

Council. The residential and commercial units will be sold to third parties on

a long-term lease at a nominal rent.”

Page 92 states;

“The role and function of Wicklow County Council as owner and sponsor of

the project during the operation phase will be as follows;

To provide land at no cost to Sispar.”

There is no mention of value for money. Whether the Council retains freehold or not

is irrelevant. The big picture is that Sispar has freedom to sell, utilise and dispose of

the property as in the sale of the residential and commercial units contained in the

development. The land is a gift to a private developer and Section 211 of the

Planning and Development Act, 2000 does not permit Wicklow County Council to

hand over state property to a developer. The section is very precise. The words used

are sold, leased or exchanged. There is no mention of gift or grant which is the nature

of the arrangement between the County Council and Sispar simply because the

contractural arrangement has not been open to public scrutiny.


Wicklow County Council has not given a valuation of the 37 acres of state property

on the foreshore.

This is the first time in the history of the state that the foreshore is proposed to be

developed. It is a precedent development which has major ramifications for the Irish

people and the Irish foreshore. Building sites with sea views are rare commodities. It

is a certainty that the 37 acres with sea views along one of the most scenic parts of the

east coast is worth several million.

The developer would be acquiring a large site which has the luxury of putting

development of the residential units in context with the best sea views on the east

coast. In the process the ordinary residents of Greystones are being deprived of what

is rightfully theirs in terms of views and prospects. The proposal amounts to a

deprivation of panoramic views on the most beautiful landscape and seascape for the

local residents and visitors to Greystones and handing it over to a private developer

who will reap the benefits of what previous generations have enjoyed for several

years unimpeded by modernisation.

The proposed development will be a blot on a seascape and landscape. The views and

prospects from the harbour will be obliterated for the vast majority of the population

if this development is allowed to proceed. The proposed four-storey block has no

context whatsoever in a Victorian village harbour.

The Minister for finance had not been represented at the oral hearing. There has been

no evidence that the Minister for Finance has been served with the appropriate

documents in this regard. An Bord Pleanala should satisfy itself that the Minister for

Finance was served as with any other party to the CPO process.

Approval should be withheld as the Planning and Development Act 2000 does not

specify that a Local Authority may grant gratuitously or give away the foreshore to a

private developer.

Transport infrastructure in the surrounding area is totally inadequate. Information

furnished in the E.I.S. and at the oral hearing is inadequate and inaccurate as to


projected traffic flow. The local road network is unable to cater for increased traffic

load generated by the proposal.

There is an issue as to safe access and egress to the proposed development both

during and after the construction phase. There is perceived danger to pedestrians and

road users in the vicinity of the Bridge on Victoria Road especially with increased

vehicular usage both during and after construction. The representative from the

Dublin Transportation Office has recognised, in direct evidence, that the width of the

road under the railway bridge is inadequate in the context of the proposed

development.

The wave modelling data furnished in the E.I.S. and at the oral hearing with regard to

the proposed marina is inadequate and unreliable for the purposes of evaluation.

In assessments and modelling and various tests carried out in connection with the

proposed marina and associated development, the proponents did not take into

account and did not seem to be aware of the previous serious incident in 1928

whereby a row of houses on the Coast Road, adjacent to the proposed development

was washed away in a storm. The proponents did not demonstrate adequate

knowledge of the sea conditions in the area of the North Beach which has

implications for safety issues involved in the proposed development. The proponents

did not adequately assess the likelihood of any such event in the future.

The proposed development will encroach on the Rathdown archaeological site, the

full extent of which is not yet known. It will involve earthworks in the vicinity of

Darcys Field which itself is recognised to have archaeological significance.

The development will endanger the archaeological site in future years by generating a

demand for a public road through the site from Bray Head.

The proponents are unclear and imprecise as to their intentions with regard to the Gap

Bridge which requires conservation status due to its archaeological significance.


It has not been demonstrated that the proposal will ameliorate the problems of sea

erosion in the long-term. It would add to the problem of sea erosion further up the

coast.

There are safety issues surrounding the proposed marina in terms of tidal flow and

recreational use and a new coastline which it will generate.

The proponents have not fully complied with the E.I.S. regulations under the

legislation by adding new information on a daily basis during the oral hearing and in

effect treating the E.I.S. as a work in progress with new information. The public at

large have not had an opportunity to assess.

Mr. P. Walsh stated that the proposal which has been put forward as a means of

securing major new amenities for Greystones does not do that. The compulsory

acquisition of land is not an appropriate vehicle to achieve that. It is an

unconstitutional and illegal use of the compulsory purchase order mechanism.

A compulsory purchase order must be for a purpose identified by statute as one of

public utility. Fair procedures must also be observed.

The development proposal severely impacts upon the Bertrams. In this case a private

company would be given the land free of charge to erect a considerable residential,

commercial and marina development.

For the five years of building his clients property could not be sold. The properties

would be in the middle of a building site. They would be devalued by over 30%.

The development should respect the existing built form, the scale, character, heritage

and residential amenity of the harbour and the North Beach area. Approval to the

development and to the compulsory purchase order should be withheld.

Mr. D. Flanagan submitted a copy of an Environmental Management Plan, in two

sections, which is a draft document. It is given to An Bord Pleanala in consideration


of the appropriate mitigation measures which it introduces and is presented in that

context.

Further mitigation measures are submitted in line with those proposed in the E.I.S.

Documentation was also submitted in relation to negotiations between Wicklow

County Council and Sispar. Also submitted were minutes of the meeting of elected

members of Wicklow County Council of 13/12/2004 at which the issue of the

implementation of the project and the relationship between the Council and the public

private partnership will work on the ground.

In reply Mr. P. Walsh stated that he objected to the submission of a Draft

Management Plan on the basis that it should have been brought forward to the oral

hearing so that it could be cross-examined. The Inspector agreed with Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Flanagan acknowledged this. Continuing Mr. Flanagan stated that Wicklow

County Council carried out significant public consultation in relation to the proposal.

There have been complaints that an adequate level of design has not been provided for

the purposes of the E.I.S. However in the case of Murphy v Wicklow County

Council, relating to the Glen of the Downs, a judgement was given in 1999 by Kearns.

J. Effectively what this judgement states is that there is no authority for the

proposition that an E.I.S. must be done to detailed design stage. The obligation under

Environmental Impact Assessment is that the potential, or likely effects on the

environment will be considered. All potential effects will be ventilated so that the

public can be given an opportunity to discuss the issues arising.

The level of design available is above and beyond the requirements of the

Environmental Impact Assessment legislation. In an English law case, Berkeley,

Fulham Football Club redevelopment, one of the points that the judge Hoffmann L. J.

made was that;

“The point about the environmental statement contemplated by the Director is

that it constitutes a single and accessible compilation produced by the


applicant at the very start of the application process of the relevant

environmental information and a summary in non-technical language”.

The E.I.S. is the start of a statutory application process to be supplemented by

observations, submissions of third parties and to be further supplemented by the

information at an oral hearing and ultimately if An Bord Pleanala requested additional

information prior to decision on an application for approval.

The exercise of the right to require land was extensively reviewed by the Supreme

Court in the Social and Affordable Housing provisions challenged in August, 2000.

What the Supreme Court said was that in striking the balance between the acquisition

of land and private property rights, the requiring Authority must have reasons which

are rationally connected to planning considerations.

The Supreme Court also recognise that there was no absolute right to compensation in

all circumstances while the right to compensation was generally provided for. It was

not an absolute right. The overall exercise of acquisition rights must be rationally

connected to planning considerations.

An English legal case relating to the redevelopment of Ipswich town football club

resulted in a challenge on the basis of the inadequacy of the environmental

assessment. Individual property was alleged to be overshadowed. The point of

relevance, made by Sullivan.J. in that case was, that an E.I.S. is about the likely

effects on the environment in the community sense rather than the individual sense.

The obligation under the directive was to look at whether the community assessment,

was adequate.

Part 15 of the 2000 Planning and Development Act at Section 227(10) states;

“Nothing in the State Property Act 1954 shall operate to prevent a Local

Authority compulsorily acquiring land on the foreshore.”

The Planning and Development Act since 2000 has expressly excluded those

provisions.


The Local Authority are not purporting to exercise powers under Section 211 of the

Planning and Development Act 2000 as they are not seeking to dispose of land in the

manner in which it is suggested by the objectors to the proposal. Rights would be

exercised under Section 212 of the 2000 Act to facilitate the development of land, to

enter into arrangements so to do and to use powers of compulsory acquisition, which

are expressly provided for.

The compulsory purchase order that has been made by the Local Authority was made

under the Housing Act 1966 as amended which is expressly one of the acts provided

for in Section 214 of the 2000 Planning and Development Act. The Local Authority

are entirely entitled so to do.

The proposal being sought for approval is for physical works which have been

adequately described. It is not an application under Section 34 of the 2000 Planning

and Development Act. It is an application for approval for physical works.

Approval of a development proposal does not of itself preclude the Local Authority

from the obligation to comply with other legislation. If for instance a national

monument issue arose, if foreshore or dumping at sea issues arose legislation

governing those issues must be complied with. In the case of Keane v An Bord

Pleanala, relating to lighthouses, when an application for planning permission is made

it does not obviate the requirement to apply other consents.

The PPP process is governed by the PPP Act and by obligations under that legislation.

These obligations include for example the National Development Finance Agency

being satisfied that the arrangement is one which is appropriate and secondly that the

Department of Environment oversee the PPP process.

That is something which is separate and distinct. It has nothing to do with the oral

hearing. It is an additional layer of requirement imposed under the PPP Act which

stands to be complied with in parallel to the application for approval. Implementation

of this effectively requires a number of processes to be complied with.


The 2003 variation to the County Development Plan expressly states that should there

be any conflict between the County Development Plan and the 2003 variation, the

variation would prevail. The 1999 Greystones/Delgany Development Plan states that

the preservation of views is subject to zoning objectives.

Rights of way would be replaced and restored.

Of the total land take of 69.928 acres, foreshore accounts for 35.993 acres. Of that

only 4.5 acres is being reclaimed and being developed.

32.086 acres of land is already in the Council’s ownership and has been included in

the schedule to the CPO. There is 1.841 acres of private land.

The road improvement proposals at the junctions are part of the application for

development consent approval.

In relation to the Gap Bridge its removal will result in opportunities for the reuse of

material contained in the structure.

The proposal secures the objectives contained in the Development Plan, as varied. It

complies with national, regional and local policy in relation to its location. The

development is of medium density. It is a development which stands on its own

merits.

The Department of the Environment, are satisfied that on the basis of appropriate

monitoring the development could go ahead. Dr. Roche has no objection in principle

to the proposal. She has a concern in relation to the step up issue. She has

commented within her narrow remit.

In the wider context of planning and architectural implications, it is acceptable

particularly as it is stepped up with the upper storeys moved back.

It is set back 130 metres from Bayswater Terrace and 45 metres from buildings in a

westerly direction.


There would be no impact on the Special Area of Conservation as a result of the

coastal works. The issue of a special amenity area order is something which is being

contemplated at this point in time. It would however relate more to land use rather

than coastal issues.

When the DTO submission is carefully analysed, including additional submissions,

the DTO broadly support the proposal in terms of consolidation and in terms of the

document Platform For Change. Effectively the DTO are satisfied with the access

point on the basis that an appropriate speed environment is provided.

The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources provided

clarification which should be satisfactory. They are satisfied that no further

modelling needs to be done. They are also satisfied that the physical modelling has

provided appropriate assessment.

The Greystones Protection and Development Association accept that there will be a

significant increase in population in Greystones, up to 22,000 people in a short period

of time. They accept that the proposal is one that solves a number of problems in

relation to the redevelopment of the harbour and the need for housing in the area of

Greystones.

There is no proposal for a northern access road.

The GPDA acknowledged that the alternative plan for the harbour was a concept and

not a definitive plan.

Greystones is presently undergoing and will continue to undergo a period of rapid

change. The harbour represents an important planning resource in the context of the

present and future life of the town. There is a significant amount of sprawl in the

Greystones area. The current proposal is an opportunity to bring back to the core of

the town a very important development for the benefit of Greystones.

In conclusion Mr. J. Fox stated that An Bord Pleanala has a discretion in relation to

the matter of costs. The Greystones Protection and Development Association seeks


an award of its costs against the Local Authority in relation to the matter. As the

proposal is so precedental in nature and of national importance, it would be

appropriate for costs to be awarded to the Greystones Protection and Development

Association.

Mr. P. Walsh requested the awarding of costs on behalf of his clients.

As this concluded the evidence the oral hearing was formally closed.

ASSESSMENT

Background to Proposal

The large scale scheme which is proposed as a Public Private Partnership by Wicklow

County Council in conjunction with Sispar has evolved over a considerable period of

time. The history of this evolution has been adequately outlined in the written

submissions and indeed amplified at the oral hearing.

Wicklow County Council basically see the problem as one of lack of finance for

harbour improvement work. There is also a perceived lack of funding available to

prevent coastal erosion. This erosion has been the subject of considerable comment

by all parties in both written and oral form.

The earlier proposals to carry out development at the harbour came to nought. In this

regard the advent of public private partnership would appear to have given the process

a standing which it did not previously have. This PPP system itself was given a legal

standing in the 2000 Planning and Development Act which it previously did not have.

In relation to the overall proposal it would appear that it is one of the first public

private partnership developments involving the carrying out of work by a private

developer, in conjunction with a public authority which does not involve the provision

of basic public infrastructure. The PPP system has previously been used in

conjunction with the provision of public roads, public water supplies and sewerage


facilities. It has also been used in conjunction with the provision of schools and a

number of other public facilities such as car parking. It has not, to date, been used to

provide for harbour works of the type currently proposed nor has it been used as a

means to provide coastal protection.

If it is accepted that the public private partnership system is the appropriate

mechanism by which to achieve the objective of an upgrading of harbourage at

Greystones, including the provision of a marina whilst at the same time providing an

element of coastal protection work, it follows that unless the public purse expends

large amounts of capital in direct subvention to the private partner, funding for the

development must be found elsewhere. This funding would accrue to the proposal as

a result of the large scale provision of residential accommodation and to a lesser

extent by the provision of retail floorspace. These two elements are the drivers of the

overall development, without which the proposal would not be economically feasible.

The private partner was chosen by Wicklow County Council following a competition.

An agreement has been drawn up between the Local Authority and Sispar relating to

the proposal. A copy of this in two volumes is on file, as part of the Invitation to

Negotiate.

The Local Authority prepared a compulsory purchase order in 2004. While they

wished An Bord Pleanala to process the compulsory acquisition of both land and

foreshore, An Bord Pleanala required that an Environmental Impact Statement first be

submitted so that the overall scheme could be properly assessed and the compulsory

purchase acquisition procedure and the environmental impact appraisal be carried out

in tandem. This was achieved at the oral hearing.

Prior to commenting on the various aspects of the proposal it would, in my opinion,

be remiss in this case not to refer to the very large scale of public participation in what

is now effectively part of the planning process. This participation was initiated by the

Local Authority in the original consultations in relation to previous proposals. These

consultations continued right up to the submissions received by An Bord Pleanala in

relation to both the CPO and the Environmental Impact Statement appraisal. They

concluded with the closing of the oral hearing.


While the objectors are generally dissatisfied with the amount of public involvement

and in particular with the ending of that direct involvement with the Local Authority,

when Wicklow County Council submitted the Environmental Impact Statement to An

Bord Pleanala, nevertheless I consider that the level of public participation in this case

has been significantly greater than what would normally be experienced in the

planning system generally. This is no doubt a reflection of the length of time that it

has taken to bring the project to this stage. It is also a reflection of the level of local

interest in the proposal. Public participation has played a significant part in the level

of representation to An Bord Pleanala, which is very extensive.

Land Use Planning Background

The subject development is set against the backdrop of a considerable number of

planning documents ranging from the regional to the local level. All of these

documents inform the proposal and set it in perspective. This has generally been

accepted by the objectors in relation to the overall land use proposed.

National Spatial Strategy

The overall development is informed by the National Spatial Strategy to the extent of

placing the site within the Metropolitan Hinterland area with the purpose of an

energising role in relation to the local catchment.

Regional Planning Context

This is further detailed in the Regional Planning Guidelines 2004-2016 for the Greater

Dublin Area. The regional plan places the settlement of Greystones/Delgany at the

southern end of the Metropolitan area designating the settlement as a large growth

town, Scale 2. It is viewed as a stand alone town being economically self sustaining

and containing an ultimate population of 15-25,000 persons, including catchment,

which of itself is capable of supporting educational, health and retail facilities.


County Plan

At a county level the County Development Plan 2004-2010 outlines

Greystones/Delgany as the second largest settlement in the county following Bray. At

present the population is of the order of 13,000.

Local Plan

As befitting a town of its size Greystones/Delgany has its own Local Area Plan. At

present this is the 1999 plan, made as part of the Wicklow County Plan of that year.

While the Wicklow County Plan has been updated and is now the 2004-2010 plan, the

new Local Area Plan has not been made. The Draft Greystones/Delgany Local Area

Plan 2006-2012 was published in May 2006. At present the 1999 plan is the

operational plan for the area.

In relation to the subject proposal a variation to the county plan was made in 2003.

This is referred to extensively in Appendix 1 to this report. This variation sets out in

some detail, the development proposed on the subject lands.

Draft Local Plan

The Draft Local Area Plan at Section 9.1 refers to the Greystones Harbour and North

Beach Action Plan (Z1).

The development area is outlined in Zone 1, harbour and marina, Zone 2, public park

and Zone 3, Heritage Park.

The subject development is based on the variation to the County Development Plan of

2003. Considerable detail has been given in relation to this variation in the

Environmental Impact Statement, in the various submissions to An Bord Pleanala and

at the oral hearing. The variation to the plan provides for the provision of a new

harbour, a marina basin with approximately 230 berths, 375 residential units and

approximately 6,500 square metres of retail floorspace mainly at ground floor level

under residential units immediately to the west of the harbour basin.


The land use planning context sets the subject proposal in its physical context.

It is of considerable note that while the proposal contained in the public private

partnership is the subject of objection, nevertheless continual reference has been made

in both the written submissions and at the oral hearing to the desirability of harbour

improvement and the improvement of existing facilities such as clubhouses etc. while

at the same time respecting the existing physical character of the area.

The developer’s position would be that what is proposed is the minimum required to

fund the overall proposal and that the scale of the development is not inconsistent

with the orderly development of the area.

The opposing viewpoint outlines the excessive scale of the development, the

excessive amount of profit which would be generated and the inconsistency of the

development with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

While the proposal involves large scale reclamation, from a land use viewpoint all of

the uses proposed are, in my opinion, per se, acceptable. None of the uses are

incompatible with existing land use. Rather it is the scale and the design of the

proposal which is at issue.

Environmental Impact Statement

The Environmental Impact Statement submitted consists of a number of volumes with

appendices. An outline of the issues covered in the E.I.S. has been referred to earlier.

The Environmental Impact Statement could have benefited considerably from editing.

In this regard several site descriptions are provided where, one comprehensive

description would suffice. General outlines of the proposal are also mentioned at

several points, basically in repeat of each other.

The Environmental Impact Statement documentation was submitted to the relevant

notice parties. In this regard the notice parties made detailed submissions in written

form. These are the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources


the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Dublin

Transportation office.

The submission by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural

Resources was somewhat critical in a number of areas relating to the amount of detail

provided in the Environmental Impact Statement. However when these issues were

raised, mainly by the Inspector, at the oral hearing, departmental officials stated a

general satisfaction with both the Environmental Impact Statement and the various

clarifications which have been given, not only at the oral hearing, but also through

meetings with the private partner, Sispar.

The eventual position adopted by the Department of Communications, Marine and

Natural Resources is to the effect that subject to compliance with various

requirements relating to such issues such as dumping at sea, maintenance of

reasonable levels of chromium, the overall proposal was acceptable. This was also

the case in relation to coastal erosion and the modelling, which had been carried out

by Sispar, as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore from a position

in which it appeared that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural

Resources, had serious reservations in relation to the material submitted, it transpired,

following evidence given at the oral hearing that there were now no difficulties which

could not be overcome by the imposition of normal standards and/or conditions.

The position of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in

relation to the Environmental Impact Statement, was to the effect that the statement

was adequate.

The Dublin Transportation office voiced concern with certain elements of the

proposal.

While the objectors to the proposal voiced concern in relation to a number of aspects

of the Environmental Impact Statement, I consider that during the course of the oral

hearing, there was much comment provided by the developers in relation to the

majority of the areas of concern.


I consider that the Environmental Impact Statement is in compliance with the

statutory requirements relating to such statements. I furthermore consider that it is

adequate for the purposes of enabling consideration of the application for approval, by

An Bord Pleanala and has been significantly clarified by evidence presented to the

oral hearing.

Development Plan Provisions

The County Development Plan provisions relating to the appeal site contain a

considerable amount of detail. An action plan for Greystones Harbour North Beach

area is outlined in considerable detail in Appendix 1 of this report. This clearly

indicates that what is proposed for the area is fully contained within the Action Plan.

This resulted in a variation to the County Plan in 2003. The varied plan provides the

planning framework for the public private partnership proposal. There are a number

of changes made to the original Local Area Plan which was contained within the

Greystones/Delgany and Rathdrum section of the 1999 Plan. The variation to the

1999 Plan particularly states that in the event of inconsistency between the general

provisions of the Greystones/Delgany Plan, the Greystones Harbour and North Beach

Action Plan, varied in 2003, shall take precedence in order to facilitate its successful

implementation.

The variation of 2003 was very specific in relation to the scale of the development.

In relation to the harbour and the marina these were to consist of a marina basin for

230 berths, a leisure harbour with easy access to the sea, harbour entrance with wave

absorbing basin, a rubble mound groyne to create a sheltered sandy beach, and the

provision of marine based community clubs and facilities in a waterside location with

direct access to a launching beach and slipways.

In relation to residential and non residential usage 13 separate standards and

limitations were set out.

A good built environment was a standard requirement, being responsive to the site

and setting and creating a sense of place with its own identity.


Contemporary architecture and urban design principles were also referred to. Public

walkways and open spaces including plazas providing for continuity, ease of

movement legibility and enclosure were also referred to.

Minimisation of the impact of the development on coastal views towards Bray Head

and the Little Sugar Loaf from Greystones Harbour were specifically mentioned.

Up to 375 residential units were referred to, with a variety to meet a wide range of

social and living needs.

In relation to commercial floorspace 6,5000 square metres were specifically referred

to as being mixed use commercial, cultural, community and tourist residential water

front space.

Density was to conform with contemporary urban design principles and where

appropriate the Residential Density Guidelines.

Maximum height referred to was three storeys over ground floor at the harbour and

the marina. Elsewhere it was to be two storeys, apart from buildings directly

overlooking the sea which should not be more than three storeys.

Vehicular access and car parking were referred to as being required to comply with

the County Development Plan.

The two remaining elements of the overall development relate to a public park and a

heritage park.

In relation to the heritage park the preservation of land in a natural landscape for

future study was referred to as was the promotion of the development of a heritage

park at the site of medieval Rathdown.

The public park referred to a landscaped area containing appropriate planting

walkways, seating etc.


Capping and landscaping of the old dump was specifically referred to with it forming

an integral part of the park. Road access and public car parking were referred to.

Finally coastal protection for the harbour/marina was referred to stretching

northwards from the harbour/marina to at least 250 metres past the Gap Bridge.

Regrading of cliffs was also referred to.

In the original Development Plan of 1999 the Greystones/Delgany section for the

Local Area Plan and particularly with the variation to the county plan of 2003, the

Planning Authority specifically made provision for the scale of development currently

proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement. The original proposal of 1999

referred to a maximum of 230/250 residential units.

While the original plan included the provision of a hotel this has not been included in

the current proposal.

The maximum height of the development was originally put at two-storey over

parking, giving a three-storey height adjacent to the railway embankment.

Three/four-storey units with tops set back to front with stepped facades were also

referred to at other parts of the site.

The original plan indicated a limited number of commercial units at ground floor, a

maximum of 16 containing 500/700 square feet each. This would have provided for a

total of approximately 1,040 square metres of commercial floorspace as opposed to

the 6,500 of such floorspace currently proposed. It should be noted that part of the

currently proposed 6,500 square metres of floorspace contains community usage and a

crèche.

In overall terms I consider that the proposal complies with the variation to the County

Plan of 2003. This variation was specifically carried out with the intention of

ensuring that the variation complied with the proposal as drawn up in the PPP.


While the proposal, the subject of application for approval, complies with the

Development Plan, as varied in 2003, this does not necessarily mean that the proposal

should be approved in its existing form.

Of particular note in relation to the varied plan is the very large increase in the

number of residential units currently proposed as opposed to that originally contained

in the 1999 plan. The number has been increased from a maximum of 250 to a

maximum of 375, an increase of 125 or 50% of what was originally proposed.

The commercial floorspace currently proposed is also considerably larger than that

originally indicated, being a factor of approximately five times greater than that

originally proposed, notwithstanding the proposed community floorspace. As noted

earlier the proposed hotel was omitted.

The variation of 2003, to the County Development Plan, specifically provided for the

subject proposal. On a general basis it referred to the optimisation of views, natural

daylight, conservation of energy and environmental sustainability as constituting key

elements. Reference was also made to the provision of a link to the coastline with

public access and coastal protection works provided to preserve the landscape from

further erosion in the future.

Reference was also made to general development standards contained in the

Greystones/Delgany Plan.

Evidence was submitted to the oral hearing of the passing of the 2003 variation.

The Draft Greystones/Delgany Local Area Plan 2006/2012 was published by

Wicklow County Council in May 2006. The Draft Plan at Section 9.1 specifically

refers to the Greystones Harbour and North Beach Action Plan (Z1). This is a

restatement of the variation to the 2003 County Development Plan with the major

elements contained in the variation, included in the Local Area Plan.

The variation to the County Development Plan made in 2003 provided a reasonably

detailed brief for the competition that was held to choose a private partner. The


legality of the 2003 variation is not in doubt, nor indeed is the competition held by

Wicklow County Council to find a partner. The Planning Authority fulfilled all of the

legal requirements relating to the subject proposal. The objectors are however

unhappy with the public involvement in the action plan making process. They

consider that their input resulted in little change to the overall proposal.

I consider that the amount of public participation in reaching the stage of seeking

approval from An Bord Pleanala constitutes an acceptable level of such involvement.

Compulsory Purchase Order

The Wicklow County Council Compulsory Purchase (Rathdown Upper and

Rathdown Lower/Greystones Harbour and North Beach) No. 4 order 2004 is the title

of the legal entity proposed to be acquired by Wicklow County Council. As well as a

compulsory purchase order the proposal includes the extinguishment of public rights

of way.

The reason for the compulsory purchase order, sought in accordance with Parts XIV

and XV of the Planning and Development Acts, 2000/2002 is for the purposes of the

orderly development of land. This is to effect the implementation of the objectives of

Variation 6/2003 to the Wicklow County Development Plan, Greystones/Delgany

section, made by the Planning Authority on 3/11/2003. As noted earlier this in turn

relates to the Greystones Harbour and North Beach Action Plan.

The overall area of land affected by the development is of the order of 35 hectares (86

acres). Of this approximately 20 hectares consists of foreshore which is in the

ownership of the Minister for Finance.

Of the remaining land, the majority is owned by Wicklow County Council. This

covers land at the existing harbour including the pier, the shingle beach at the harbour

and at the North Beach, Traceys Field and smaller areas of land.

Very little of the site is held in private ownership, the most notable being map

References 12 and 13, in the ownership of the Greystones Sailing Club and


Greystones Ridge Angling Club respectively. The other notable one is Reference 14

owned by J.J. Burke and Sons.

The area to be acquired includes the pier, the harbour, fisherman’s huts, the northern

breakwater and slipway, car parking areas, beaches, an access road, the sailing and

angling clubs, commercial property (J.J. Burke) a former landfill site, playing fields, a

former sewage treatment site and agricultural land. As well as this a section of the

Cliff Walk is also included. As noted above a major part of the acquisition, in areal

terms is the foreshore.

Part I of the Schedule relates to land/foreshore required to carry out the development.

Part II of the Schedule relates to land required temporarily during the construction of

the proposed scheme.

Finally Part III relates to public rights of way to be extinguished, as part of the

compulsory acquisition. These rights of way are outlined in Part III of the Schedule.

They were detailed by Mr. S. Quirke in his evidence relating to the compulsory

purchase order.

Objections to the acquisition of land and the extinguishment of public rights of way

are detailed in the various submissions to the oral hearing in relation to the CPO.

I consider that the purpose for making the proposed CPO is based upon the Action

Area Plan for the Greystones Harbour and North Beach area. As this plan has been

legally made the acquisition of land in furtherance of the plan constitutes a reasonable

purpose for acquiring and, including the foreshore and extinguishing public rights of

way. While public rights of way would be extinguished, if the order was confirmed,

the evidence of the Local Authority is to the effect that such extinguishment is a

necessary legal obligation in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land, in order to

provide unencumbered title, in the interests of the furtherance of the development

proposal which would follow from the compulsory acquisition including the

extinguishment of public rights of way.


In relation to public rights of way it is not the intention of the acquiring Authority to

diminish the rights of way which are available within the area. As a result of the

development, if it was implemented, the generality of rights of way would still be

available within the area although possibly not precisely at the same location, by

reason of the proposed development. In this regard the right of way for instance on

the pier would no longer exist however it would be replaced by new rights of way on

the north and south piers/breakwaters.

Acquisition of a considerable area of the foreshore is proposed. This is required not

only to provide for a new harbour, harbour basin and marina, but also to provide for

other reclamation to the east of the existing coast, in order to provide reclaimed land

for a significant part of the development. I consider that the acquisition of the

foreshore in this regard has been legally permitted by the Planning and Development

Act 2000 and that the objection on the basis that such acquisition is not legal, does not

constitute a correct interpretation of the relevant section of the Planning and

Development Act 2000. Likewise I do not consider that the intention of the Planning

and Development Act 2000 was to do anything other than to facilitate the acquisition

and development of foreshore areas. The development of such areas had not been

provided for in the previous Planning Acts. The 2000 Act specifically set out to

change this situation and, in my opinion, clearly provides for such acquisition. The

intention of the legislation is not, in my opinion, in any way circumscribed or in any

doubt. In this regard I consider that the acquisition of foreshore would constitute the

use of the relevant section of the Planning and Development Act 2000, in a manner

which the legislation intended. Had the legislation intended otherwise this would

have been explicitly stated or indeed not included in the Planning and Development

Act 2000.

Part XV of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which embraces Sections 224,

225, 226, 227 and 228, is titled

“Development on the foreshore”.


I consider that Part XV of the Planning and Development Act 2000 sets out the legal

position in relation to development on the foreshore, by a Local Authority. However

it also sets out the position of the State Property Act 1954, at Section 227(10).

Having regard to the stated intention of the compulsory purchase order and having

examined the generality of the development proposal, the subject of approval

application to An Bord Pleanala, I consider that the proposed compulsory purchase

order is suitable for conformation in its entirety, including the extinguishment of

public rights of way.

The variation to the County Development Plan made in 2003 provided a reasonably

detailed brief for the competition that was held to choose a private partner. Legality

of the 2003 variation is not in doubt, nor indeed is the competition held by Wicklow

County Council to find a partner. I consider that the Planning Authority fulfilled all

of the legal requirements relating to the subject proposal. The objectors are however

unhappy with the public involvement in the Action Plan making process. They

consider that their input resulted in little change to the overall proposal.

I consider that the amount of public participation provided, in reaching a stage of

seeking approval from An Bord Pleanala, constitutes an acceptable level of such

involvement. It appears that the objectors, in their public participation, expected to be

able to achieve greater change to the proposal, with particular reference to the scaling

down of the overall development.

Proposed Harbour Development:

There is general agreement on all sides that the condition of the existing harbour is a

source of considerable concern.

Having regard to its history of usage, the original harbour could not, in my opinion, be

considered to have been a very successful one. The very small inner harbour is

unusable and has been for a considerable period of time. The original harbour wall

provided berthing and some shelter however it provided little protection in storm

conditions. Its use for commercial purposes appears to have been very short lived and


to have ceased, in any meaningful way, following the severe damage to merchant

ships in the early 1900s. Its function would appear to have been that of a very small

fishing harbour, with a mainly summer time leisure function.

While it did provide, over the years, for a modest fishing function, commercial fishing

is almost defunct at present.

The major utility function which the existing harbour serves is that of leisure sailing

and rowing. Other functions include angling and use of the harbour as a base for

scuba diving.

The pier itself, because of its very short length does not constitute part of a walking

route. The north breakwater is not accessible to the public, in fact it contains a public

notice discouraging access due to dangerous conditions.

The beach and the grassed area backing it, within the harbour constitute important

amenity features.

In terms of utility relative to size, the harbour performed at a low level. The moorings

are few in number. The entire harbour area is uncovered at low tide and therefore

unusable. In this regard there would appear to have been considerable silting in the

harbour area with the sinking of the old Kish base at the northern end of the original

pier. It did not however result in the provision of shelter within the harbour area

which would appear to have been its intended function. It appears to have resulted in

increased silting and the retreat of the sea altogether from the inner harbour area.

I consider that from a utility point of view the existing harbour is performing at an

extremely low level. There has been no investment in the harbour for a considerable

period of time and this is reflected in its general condition, particularly the northern

breakwater. It is further exemplified by the serious silting which has occurred.

What is proposed in the development as the major element is the provision of a new

harbour.


If one disregards the existing scale of the harbour and its relationship to the land,

particularly to the south at Greystones Rocks and adjoining housing in the curve

stretching from the rocks across through Bayswater Terrace to Beach House, I

consider that it would be difficult to argue that the existing harbour does not need to

be replaced, if one was to provide improvement. The northern breakwater requires

removal. The Kish base and its attendant rock armouring, requires removal as it is

inappropriate to its location and does not appear to have served its intended function.

The inner harbour does not now function as a harbour by reason of silting.

There would, in my opinion, be little point in providing a new harbour with provision

for 20 or 30 moorings as in the existing harbour.

The existing harbour does fulfil an important leisure function either through active

water sports or through passive recreation such as walking or sitting.

The active recreational facilities are limited. In the case of moorings to approximately

20, all affected by tide. In the case of the yacht club access to the slip at the northern

breakwater requires boats to be taken to and from the clubhouse across North Beach

Road to what is at present a poorly defined slipway.

The coastguard service is not presently located at the harbour.

While it would be possible to carry out a completely new harbour development which

would incorporate the existing pier, it would require a considerable input of finance to

render, what would be effectively a new harbour, amenable to the amount of usage

realistically required of it.

What is effectively proposed by way of a new harbour is the provision of a harbour to

cater for all existing usages but crucially, including a marina. In this regard there

would be effective separation between the functions contained in the existing harbour

which would be within the southern part of the new harbour and the marina, which

would effectively occupy the northern part of the new harbour.


The proposed marina would provide a new element of leisure provision, unavailable

at present. It would provide a user base for a certain element of commercial

floorspace proposed in the overall development. Of note in relation to the marina is

the revenue stream that it would generate, partly to be used in the continuing

maintenance of the overall harbour.

In terms of structure the proposed harbour would contain two major elements the

north and south breakwater. The south breakwater would be located 7 metres to the

east of the existing pier. It would be approximately 90 metres in length running

generally in a northerly direction from Greystones Rocks.

The north breakwater would contain a length of approximately 250 metres. It would

run in a south-easterly/southerly direction to within 25 metres of the southern

breakwater. This quite narrow harbour entrance is required because of the relatively

exposed nature of the location to easterly and north-easterly winds particularly. In

overall visual and layout terms I consider that these two major elements of the

harbour are to an acceptable standard of location and design. The overall shape of the

harbour and its location had not given rise to overtly adverse comment. Rather it is

the scale of the harbour which has been commented upon including the provision of a

marina. In terms of scale what is proposed is, in my opinion, acceptable, if a marina

is to be provided. The scale of the marina is also, in my opinion, at 230 berths, at the

lower end of what would be economically viable. I consider that sufficient evidence

was provided by the development company that anything smaller than this would not

constitute an economic proposition.

The harbour of itself will generate a requirement for significant marine engineering

works not least of which is the building of the breakwaters, the inner harbour/marina

breakwaters and the large scale reclamation required.

New facilities are proposed within the harbour including the marina which is the

major user, at the northern end of the overall anchorage. The southern end would

contain the new slips, the clubhouses and the marine rescue facilities. It would also

contain extensive boat yards for the open storage of craft. Finally it would contain a

new shingle beach at the southern end.


What has been described as the entrance square onto the overall site, is located at the

south-western corner of the harbour development. This would adjoin surface car

parking. It would be contained to the north by the stepped block at the southern end

of the overall residential/commercial development.

In layout terms I consider that there is serious overcrowding of facilities at the

southern end of the harbour with little or no provision for the public domain. In this

regard the southern part of the existing harbour provides the most important element

of public domain/open space in the entire harbour area. This section which is mainly

grassed but also contains important sections at the old slipway adjoining the inner

harbour and the area over the fisherman’s huts, including the shingle beach, and the

grassed area, constitute the most readily visible and heavily used areas of public open

space. The importance of this open space cannot, in my opinion, be underestimated.

It is however, in my opinion, largely lost in the proposed development. This is, in my

opinion, the most severe draw back in the layout of the proposed harbour. The

proposed clubhouses and the boat yard while being at a lower level than the adjoining

Cliff Road, are nevertheless cheek by jowl with the roadway and the protected

structures on the southern side of the roadway. There is serious crowding which,

given the overall scale of the proposed new harbour, would not appear to be

warranted. In this regard the location of the clubhouses as proposed has given rise to

concerns of late night activity, traffic etc, from the adjoining residents. I consider that

the location of the clubhouses and boat yard as proposed are unacceptable, for the

reasons noted above.

The facilities for marine rescue are somewhat different, being located further north-

east and a reasonable distance from protected residential structures. In usage terms

the facilities would be low intensity relative to sporting clubhouses. Furthermore

there would be no early/late night noise generating activity and therefore no

implications in relation to residential amenity.

I consider that, apart from the marine rescue facilities including the slipway, the

southern part of the harbour area requires retention of the public access/domain

arrangement which largely exists at present. It is also an important element in relation


to accessibility to the southern breakwater/pier, which of itself would constitute an

important open space amenity.

I consider that the provision of space for existing club users of the harbour, including

provision for the open storage of boats, is of paramount importance. If these

functions are not to be catered for at the southern part of the harbour, they have to be

catered for elsewhere, within the harbour area. This requires a recasting of the layout

elsewhere at the harbour. This should be provided for with the omission of courtyard

1 and its surrounding buildings. This part of the overall proposal is considered in

detail later.

The remaining element, resulting from the provision of a new harbour, is the groyne

at its northern end. This is intended to provide for the accumulation of beach material

on the landward side of the groyne. Public access would constitute an important

element of this part of the harbour with access to a new beach area, onto the groyne

itself and onto the north breakwater.

Definition on the landward side of the harbour is provided at the boardwalk. The

boardwalk is intended not only as the major pedestrian access on the western side of

the harbour, it is also the means of access to the marina at the harbour side and also to

commercial floorspace and to a lesser extent to residential accommodation above. It

also appears that it is viewed by the developers as a possible means of vehicular

access in winter time.

I consider that the boardwalk is an important public element providing definition

between the harbour and the buildings immediately to the west. It is part of the public

domain largely intended for pedestrian usage and, intended by the developers as one

of the major elements of animation within the entire scheme.

The proposed marina occupies almost two-thirds of the harbour area, effectively a

harbour within a harbour. The pontoon system providing access to the berths

themselves are not part of the public access area. A gated controlled access is

proposed at the western arm of the inner harbour. The two-storey marina building

would occupy the full width of this arm with controlled access to the marina basin.


This aspect of the development has itself given rise to considerable comment in

relation to the privatisation of the seashore and the lack of public accessibility. The

marina model being used is the same as the model used elsewhere. This is the urban

model of marina development which restricts pontoon access to the general public

presumably in the interest not only of safety but also of security. By its nature it is

confined to those owning or renting boats and being in a position to be able to afford

to rent a berth. While the harbour moorings are not the same, the use of moorings

obviously requires access to the ownership or use of a boat. In relation to the existing

harbour this entitlement to moorage would have been historical and strictly limited to

the 15/20 moorings available. Therefore notwithstanding the lack of public access

into the marina basin, the same pertains in relation to moorings in most public

harbours.

The construction of the harbour constitutes a major civil engineering development.

Having regard to the scale of this development it is of some importance that the

development is carried out in as sustainable a manner as possible.

The Coastline

The subject development relates not only to the harbour at Greystones but also to a

considerable area of land including beach stretching northwards from the harbour.

The setting has been referred to earlier on in this report. The coastline is one of

erosion. This is specifically outlined in Map 35B of the Development Plan entitled

Coastal Areas Prone to Erosion. Erosion is indicated as occurring immediately to the

north of Greystones Harbour northwards to Cable Rock at the south-eastern sector of

Bray Head.

Considerable evidence was submitted by Sispar in the Environmental Impact

Statement and indeed at the oral hearing in relation to coastal erosion. Evidence has

also been submitted by objectors in both written and oral form. Comment has also

been made by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in

relation to the coastal implications of the proposal.


The County Development Plan features the coastal strip between Bray, to the north

and Greystones to the south in a number of its maps. The first of these maps, No. 12

indicates the Bray Head Greenbelt. This is located approximately 300 metres to the

north of the Gap Bridge and within approximately 150 metres of the northern tip of

the subject site CPO area. In this regard the total length of coastline northwards from

Greystones Harbour to Cable Rock is approximately 3.5 kilometres. The total length

of the proposed CPO, on a north-south, axis is approximately 0.7 kilometres.

Map No. 4 of the County Development Plan indicates areas to be considered for

Special Amenity Area Orders. Included in this is Bray Head. This generally includes

the full width and breadth of Bray Head. However it also includes a long sliver of

coastline running southwards from Cable Rock for a distance of in excess of 1.5

kilometres. In fact it stretches southwards to the Gap Bridge.

Map No. 5 of the County Development Plan indicates Proposed Natural Heritage

Areas. While Bray Head is again included as a Proposed Natural Heritage Area, the

coastal strip is not.

Map No. 6 of the plan indicates Special Protection Areas and proposed and Candidate

Special Areas of Conservation. Again this includes Bray Head as a proposed and

candidate special area of conservation. It also includes the long sliver of land running

southwards from Cable Rock to the Gap Bridge.

Map No. 37 of the Development Plan contains the Rathdown No. 2 zoning objective.

This again indicates a small section of the site, to the north of the Gap Bridge as being

included as an area to be considered for a Special Amenity Area Order.

Map No. 38 of the Plan is the Bray Environs Development Strategy. This again

includes the section of coastal land already indicated in the previous maps, as an area

to be considered for a Special Amenity Area Order.

Map 35A of the County Plan is entitled Coastal Zone Strategy Cells, north and south.

The northern map contains the section of coast between Greystones and Cable Rock

as a separate entity, being Rathdown.


The landscape categories Map 3B of the County Development Plan indicates the

entire subject site and indeed all of Greystones and northwards of Greystones to the

southern part of the Bray Head Greenbelt referred to earlier in Map No. 12, as urban

area.

Finally Map 35B of the plan entitled Coastal Areas Prone to Erosion, indicates the full

section of coastline north of Greystones Harbour between it and Cable Rock as an

area prone to erosion.

Appendix 1 of the County Development Plan relates to coastal zone management and

refers back to Maps 35A and B. This has been referred to above. The section of coast

at the subject site is Rathdown. The plan states in relation to this;

“This cell is bounded by the Cliff Road, below Bray Head, to the north, the

R761 to the east (sic) (it should be to the west) and Grove Lane to the south.

This cell also includes a narrow strip of land between the railway line on the

coast as far south as Greystones Yacht Club.

Policy CZ3

The Council shall provide for public open space and harbour development at

North Beach in accordance with the provisions of the Greystones/Delgany

Development Plan.

Control Objectives

To preserve the rural character of all lands in this area in order to maintain the

greenbelt between the towns of Bray and Greystones.”

The cell to the south is that of Greystones which is referred to in Appendix 1 as

follows;

“This cell extends southwards in a narrow strip from Greystones Yacht Club

to the driving range at South Beach. Thereafter the cell widens to include all


the lands between the R762 and the Three Trouts Stream as far inland as

Killincarrig.

Policy CZ4

The Council would support the objectives of the Greystones/Delgany

Development Plan and the development of a harbour at Greystones Harbour.

Control Objectives

(1) To seek to develop the town of Greystones as a based holiday and day

visitor centre by promoting the development of the town’s recreational

function in association with the existing amenity area to the north at

Bray Head. Matters in relation to development control are dealt with

in the Greystones/Delgany Development Plan.

(2) The Council shall seek to improve public access to north and south

beaches as a priority and shall support the development of Greystones

Harbour for sailing and other boating activities.”

Section 5.5.1 of the Development Plan relates to recreational development in amenity

areas and states as follows;

“The Council will promote and encourage the recreational use of the coastline,

rivers and lakes for activities such as game fishing, boat sailing etc. Where

such recreational uses involve the development of structures or facilities, the

Council will ensure that the proposals will respect the natural amenity and

character of the area, listed views and prospects onto and from the area in

question. Where possible, such structures should be set back an appropriate

distance from the actual amenity itself and should not adversely affect the

unique sustainable quality of these resources.”

Section 6.1.18 relates to coastal zone management objectives and state;


“Coastal Zone Management Plan

The Council will control development in the coastal zone in accordance with

the objectives set out in the Coastal Management Plan (see Maps 35A and 35B

in Appendix 1).

Sand and Gravel Removal

It is a control objective of the Council to ensure that there is no removal of

sand dunes, beach sands or gravels through application of the provisions of the

foreshore (Amendment) Act 1992 in close co-operation with the Department

of the Marine.

Land Reclamation

The Council will ensure that no reclamation of estuary land or coastal marsh

land occurs which would damage coastal habitats.

Development Close to Soft Coastlines

The Council will protect both public and private investments by prohibiting

any new building or development (including caravans and temporary

dwellings) within 50 metres of soft shorelines as defined by Map 35B.

Development close to Sea Level

The Council will ensure that no new habitable structures shall be permitted

below 3 metres (O.D. Malin) in the interests of public safety and the

protection of property and residential amenities.”

Development Impact

The proposed harbour will totally change the beach environment, at the existing

harbour and to the north of the northern breakwater, for a distance of approximately


150 metres. A new beach is proposed within the harbour area with the reuse of

existing shingle. The provision of the groyne to the north of the harbour is intended

to result in the build up of a new beach in the cove at the groyne.

A considerable area of existing beach would be completely covered as a result of

reclamation and building work. This stretches approximately 150 metres north of the

existing northern breakwater.

To the north of the harbour/groyne, it is intended to take major coastal protection

measures in order to prevent the further erosion of the coast. It is primarily intended

to prevent coastal erosion at the landfill site. It is also intended to reduce the amount

of coastal erosion on the northern part of the site.

The coastal protection works at the former landfill would consist of the rock

revetment set against the cliff edge and rising to a height of 4/5 metres above the

existing beach level. Locally sourced rock is proposed to be used with the average

size being 10 tonnes. It is intended to cover the rock armouring/revetment with

existing beach material.

It is intended to cap the landfill and to landscape it. The revetment/armouring is

intended to prevent any erosion at the landfill. At present, as the landfill adjoins the

beach, there are a number of broken reinforced concrete slabs pushed up against the

intersection between the landfill and the beach. This is the existing form of protection

to the landfill.

At the northern end, the landfill is in a cliffed section as it adjoins the beach. It does

not contain any protection. It is subject to erosion at the rate of 0.5/1 metre per year.

It would appear that the coast generally within this area is subject to similar rates of

erosion. A notable exception to this rate of erosion is the area immediately at the Gap

Bridge and its abutments. The abutments have basically acted as barriers against

erosion. As a result the land immediately to the north and south of the abutments has

eroded and the bridge itself now juts out onto the beach.


By constructing the proposed new harbour and groyne water movement, particularly

in storm conditions would greatly change over the existing situation. Considerable

research has been carried out by the developers with the provision of modelling of

outcome resulting from the construction of the harbour. The comments of the

developers, the objectors and the Department of Communications, Marina and Natural

Resources, would point to the fact that the modelling of the coastal section between

Greystones and Bray is problematic for a number of reasons. Part of the coast, at

Bray Head/Cable Rock is hard. To the south of this is a soft shoreline southwards as

far as Greystones Harbour and Greystones Rocks. As well as this the coastline is not

straight as it consists of a bay curving inland as one travels northwards from

Greystones Harbour and outwards from an approximate mid position between

Greystones Harbour and Cable Rock. The Department of Communications, Marina

and Natural Resources consider that the modelling carried out is little more than an

indication of what is possible by way of rates of erosion, if the proposed development

was implemented.

The developers consider that the provision of rock armouring/revetment as a

protection to the landfill site constitutes an acceptable approach to coastal

protection/preservation. They also consider that the provision of 6,000 tonnes of

cobble/pebble sized rock, transported onto the beach from a quarry, per year as a

means of beach nourishment, would provide adequate protection to the existing beach

and shoreline and considerably reduce the amount of coastal erosion.

Beach nourishment is proposed over the 30 year period of the contract to operate the

facility at the harbour. This would entail trucking material each year, through

Greystones and through the site, northwards onto the beach to provide what is

considered to be the required nourishment. The location per year would depend on

wherever the material was required in order to maintain coastal protection at the

required level.

The objectors consider that the proposed coastal measures will result in greater

erosion to the north of the Gap Bridge as there would be little if no protection

provided in this area and critically the harbour works and coastal protection works

further south would result in the beach/cliffs further north being impacted as a result


of the deflection of wave energy northwards from the harbour/coastally protected

areas, on to the unprotected areas.

The developers consider that the impact on the area to the north of the Gap Bridge

would be similar in terms of coastal erosion, as to what exists at present, whether the

development was carried out or not.

If there is no intervention at this section of coast erosion will continue at its current

rate. In this regard the Gap Bridge would be lost within several years. It is, in my

opinion, in a dangerous condition and at this stage requires removal by virtue of being

effectively undermined. Its dangerous condition is pointed to by the fencing off of

access under the bridge from the landward side, by Wicklow County Council.

Material constituting the bridge, particularly the stone work, is capable of reuse.

The objectors have not accepted the developer’s position that the coastal protection

works proposed are required in order to prevent the erosion of the former landfill. I

would largely accept the objector’s position in this regard. I consider that the landfill,

being a wholly inappropriate feature to this sensitive coastal location, ideally requires

removal. The time to remove it would be the time when major development is being

implemented, which if the requisite approval is granted by An Bord Pleanala, should

take place as part of the development. Landfill removal could quite readily, in my

opinion, be implemented by ship just as the provision of beach nourishment material

could also be shipped to the site. This would obviate the need to transport any of this

material by road. This would be a major mitigation measure in relation to traffic

generation by heavy goods vehicles. The minimum amount of material possible

should be trucked in and out of the site given the haul route down the R761 and under

the railway bridge, for traffic accessing the site. In this regard I consider that

provision could be readily made for a berthing position for barges within the harbour,

adjoining the northern breakwater. Given the fact that beach nourishment is proposed

over a 30 year period and, possibly past that time, the provision of such a facility is, in

my opinion, necessary.

In overall terms I consider that the coastal implications by way of erosion, resulting

from the proposed development require revetment protection as proposed. The


landfill of itself does not require protection. If the coastal section here was in

immediate danger, the landfill should be removed regardless of whether the proposed

harbour and resulting development, takes place. While it is recognised that the

material in the landfill is inert, its continuing presence on such the coastline in an area

which is traversed by the public, is not readily explicable, particularly having regard

to the remediation measures which could quite readily be implemented with removal.

I therefore accept the position of the objectors in relation to the landfill. It should not,

in my opinion, be considered as constituting a reason for permitting the building of a

new harbour and the large scale residential/commercial development required to fund

the harbour. Regardless of any development, I consider that the landfill needs

remediation. While coastal protection as proposed would ensure that it remains in

situ, using its presence on site as a partial reason for the overall development is, in my

opinion, somewhat of a red herring.

The developers referred to the amount of coastal erosion which would occur if no

coastal protection works were carried out. The objectors however consider that there

would be increased erosion to the north of the Gap Bridge resulting from the building

of the harbour and the protection of the coast within the vicinity of the landfill.

Having regard to the evidence submitted by all parties in relation to coastal erosion, I

consider that erosion will continue regardless of whether development occurs or does

not occur. While the pace of erosion would likely be somewhat quicker, on the

overall coast, without intervention, with intervention erosion would most likely be

somewhat quicker at the northern end of the site, as a result of the development. It

does not appear that the implication of the proposed development will greatly change

the rate of coastal erosion on the overall coastline. Erosion will be prevented at the

harbour and at the revetment to the north. At the revetment beach nourishment would

be required to continue protection. The provision of basically what is a hard shoreline

will affect the remaining soft shoreline. However it does not appear that the change

will be such as to greatly diverge from what would have happened had no coastal

intervention occurred.

I consider that the eventual outcome in relation to coastal erosion and the rate of

erosion, will be largely unknown until such time as the development is fully


implemented. At such time attack on the coast can be mitigated by beach

nourishment. In this regard I consider that the evidence of the Department of

Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, at the oral hearing, provides the

indicator for the likely outcome in relation to coastal erosion, resulting from the

development.

The development requires the regrading of the cliff face, to prevent the edge receding.

Apart from this no other intervention is proposed at the top of the cliffs. Such

intervention, is required to prevent water infiltration and subsequent slump.

If the development is implemented the existing beach north of the northern

breakwater will be lost under reclamation, northwards for a distance of in excess of

120 metres. To the north of this the beach would be altered northwards a further 130

or 140 metres by the armouring hard against the cliff edge. A further change will take

place as a result of beach nourishment however this will change from year to year. A

further important change would be the removal of the Gap Bridge however, as noted

earlier, this requires removal as a result of undermining.

I do not consider that the general utility of the beach, obviously apart from that area

which is reclaimed, would be diminished by the proposed works. Use of the beach

for recreational purposes such as swimming, fishing, walking would not be materially

impacted. In this regard the developers have pointed to the projected build up of a

new beach area at the groyne.

In overall terms I consider that the construction of the harbour and the coastal defence

works would generally have an neutral impact on the existing beach, thereby being

acceptable.

Proposed Residential Development

The major floorspace proposed in the development consists of the residential

accommodation in housing and apartments. The various details in relation to the

provision of residential accommodation has been referred to earlier.


The standard of accommodation proposed is, in my opinion, acceptable. Both

housing and apartment development is to a reasonable standard. In terms of

floorspace and internal design, what is proposed is adequate.

In terms of external design, apart from block no. 1, I consider that the overall

development is to a reasonable standard. In terms of streetscape what is proposed is

acceptable. Relative to private open space provision and public open space provision,

the proposal is adequate. There is reasonable separation of residential

accommodation with little or no overlooking. Where private amenity open space is

not available at ground level balcony provision is made.

There is a reasonable separation of properties both from each other and from site

boundaries.

The housing accommodation proposed is to an adequate standard with a reasonable

mixture of 3, 4 and 5-bed houses.

The apartment accommodation is also, in my opinion, to a reasonable standard,

providing dual aspect to individual units, with many of the units facing seaward.

Exception has been taken to the height of the three blocks, which constitute a major

element in the overall development. I do not consider that the erection of Blocks 2

and 3, the middle block and the northern block respectively, would be detrimental in

terms of streetscape, harbour view, visual amenity or scale and character.

I consider that Block No. 1 requires to be deleted from the development entirely. The

accommodation in Block No. 1 consists of mainly residential with some commercial

floorspace. The commercial floorspace is at ground floor level and contains a floor

area of approximately 1,800 square metres. This constitutes approximately 28% of

the total of 6,500 square metres of commercial floorspace proposed. In Block 1 the

southern four-storey building contains two commercial units. The eastern building

contains six units.


Omitting Block No. 1 would result in the deletion of 72 apartments and six houses.

Of the total of 375 residential units proposed the 78 residential units in Block 1

represent 21% of these residential units. 72 apartments would be deleted accounting

for 31% of the total number of apartments proposed. Six houses would be deleted.

These account for 4% of the total number of houses.

With the omission of Block 1 the scheme would contain 158 apartments and 139

houses giving a total of 297 residential units on the remainder of the site.

Blocks Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the major blocks which address the proposed harbour.

Each block would contain four separate terraces of buildings. On the eastern side,

immediately adjoining the boardwalk, each of the blocks would contain four-storey

buildings with commercial floorspace at ground floor and apartments on the upper

three floors.

The southern terrace to each block would similarly contain retail floorspace at ground

floor level and residential apartments at the upper three levels. The only difference

between Blocks 2 and 3 and Block 1, at the southern section, is the setting back of the

residential units by approximately 10 metres, in Block 1, proposed by the developers

as a means of protecting the residential amenity of the four dwellings located across

North Beach Road from the block, at distances varying from 20-30 metres.

The northern terraces to the blocks contain apartments at ground, first and second

floor levels.

The western sectors contain two-storey terraced dwellings facing westwards onto the

new North Beach Road.

All of the blocks contain underground car parking. This has been referred to as

undercroft parking by the developers. In the case of Block No. 1 a total of 128 off-

street car parking spaces are proposed.


In omitting Block No. 1, I do not consider that the underground car parking requires

omission. On the contrary it could quite adequately serve the relocated clubhouses

from the southern sector of the harbour.

There are a number of reasons for requiring the omission of Block No. 1.

The block is, in my opinion, located too close to the dwellings on the western side of

North Beach Road. The residential amenities of these properties would be seriously

injured. The proposal would result in a serious diminution in property values. The

omission of the entire block overcomes these problems. The problems would not re-

emerge with the proper relocation of the proposed clubhouses in the general area

proposed for Block No. 1.

Block No. 1 generally is located too close to protected structures at the harbour

notably Bayswater Terrace and the protected structures to the east of it, as well as

Beach House. It is located excessively close to the main access point into the

development and provides for a very limited area for this sole site entry. The block

would be visually dominating. Its erection would result in serious deterioration in the

visual character of existing protected structures at the harbour. It is overscaled and

inappropriately located relative to these structures. It also relates very poorly to the

adjoining dwellings to the west, referred to above and to the old Coastguard Station.

Its omission would considerably reduce the impact of the development on the

protected view from Cliff Road.

By omitting Block 1 an alternative location for the clubhouses becomes available. As

a result of this alternative the location proposed for the clubhouses can remain in the

public domain with no diminution in the amount of public amenity open space.

Traffic generated by the proposed development would be considerably reduced by the

omission of Block 1. I do not consider that the omission of Block 1 would in any way

jeopardise the viability of the overall proposal. While there would be a reduction of

28% in the retail floorspace and 21% in the number of residential units, I do not

consider that the remaining retail floorspace and the residential units being developed


on the site would be anywhere near the economic breakpoint for the overall proposal.

In this regard a conservative ½ million euros per residential unit would produce a

figure of 150 million euros. This does not take into account the commercial

floorspace of approximately 4,500 square metres.

Omitting Block No. 1 would require a considerable recasting of this section of the

scheme. As there is, in my opinion, already a requirement to relocate the clubhouses

and the open boat storage compounds, these issues of detail, can in my opinion, be

addressed firstly by way of condition and by way of resubmitting drawings to the

Planning Authority.

Commercial Development

The breakdown of commercial development is not readily available however

considerable detail has been given by the developers in relation to the types of use

which are proposed. The Local Area Plan also provides considerable detail in relation

to what would or would not be permitted by way of commercial usage.

A crèche facility is proposed.

A reduction in the commercial floorspace proposed in the development would not, in

my opinion, detract from the financial viability or attractiveness of the proposal for

commercial operators.

The Retail Planning Guidelines for Wicklow County, as they refer to Greystones,

would permit the amount of floorspace originally proposed, 6,500 square metres.

The retail function of Greystones is at present in a development process. This is

understandable given the considerable increase in population which is occurring in the

town at present.

Reference has been made to the difficulty in letting commercial floorspace in the

shopping centre built to the west of Main Street. This centre is only open a short

period of time and it is, in my opinion, too soon to judge its operation.


I consider that the establishment of retail floorspace on the subject site would be

consistent with the Local Area Plan and also with the zoning of the area for town

centre uses. The scale of the development can, in my opinion, be readily

accommodated within the retail planning strategy for Greystones and its town centre.

In this regard the development itself will provide a reasonable level of demand. The

site is also located close to the existing town centre. Commercial floorspace proposed

would not, in my opinion, compete with the town centre as such. It would generally

be a stand-alone facility serving the harbour and its general area and its new

residential population.

The provision of two separate buildings, the kiosk at the southern end of the scheme

and the two-storey bar/restaurant at the northern end of the proposed harbour, are

both, in my opinion, acceptable in regard to location, scale and design.

Clubhouse Development

Buildings 01 and 02 are indicated as providing for existing clubs which use the

harbour. Greystones Sailing Club and the Ridge Angling Club occupy existing

buildings of the western side of the North Beach access road. These would be

demolished.

Block 01, the eastern block would be a two-storey structure containing approximately

550 square metres. It would provide for the Greystones Sailing Club and the diving

club, at two floor levels.

Building 02 which is approximately 20 metres to the west of Building 1, would

provide for the Ridge Anglers Club, Greystones Rowing Club and Greystones Sea

Scouts. The building would again be of the order of 550 square metres in a two-

storey structure of similar design to Building 01. Both buildings would be surrounded

by open storage areas for boats. The overall area covered by this section of the

development is approximately 4,000 square metres. This accounts for a major part of

the land area at the southern end of the new harbour.


I consider that this whole section of the harbour area should be given over to direct

public access. In this regard the remaining public area to the west is indicated as a

main area for public parking. In particular there are no remaining areas of public

open space. Removing the clubhouses and associated boat yards from this section of

the site opens up the public domain to provide something akin to what exists at the

harbour at present, a reasonably large area of public open space addressing the

harbour and separating it from the protected structures on the southern side of Beach

Road/Cliff Road. This preserves the existing spatial relationship between protected

buildings and the harbour and the water. It also preserves an extremely important

element of public open space which would be lost if the clubhouses and open storage

areas were provided as proposed.

There is an ample amount of space available by the omission of Block 1, for the

erection of two-storey clubhouses, with a combined floorspace of the order of 1,200

square metres, and attendant open storage of boats. This constitutes a desirable land

use in replacement for Block 1. It has the benefits of protecting the character and

spatial arrangement of the harbour with protected structures. It removes development

from too close proximity to the protected structures. It provides the element of public

open space referred to earlier. It also provides a development which is acceptable

relative to the four dwellings on the western side of North Beach Road, which would

otherwise have been severely impacted by the erection of Block 1.

The fisherman’s store also requires removal to a position adjoining the clubhouses. It

contains a floor area less than 200 m2 and can be readily accommodated with the

clubhouses.

Traffic Issues

The traffic generated by the proposed development was the subject of adverse

comment by the majority of the objectors. Considerable evidence has been submitted

in relation to traffic. This is contained in the Environmental Impact Statement. It is

also contained in the various written objections. It also constituted part of the oral

hearing procedure.


Access to the subject site is from Victoria Road/Beach Road. This is located at the

south-western corner of the site. It is the only means of vehicular access onto the site.

The junction presently exists although it is not particularly well formed. This results

from the fact that Beach Road itself is in a poor state of repair. It does not contain

footpaths. Its surface is in a poor condition even close to the junction with Beach

Road. As one travels further north it becomes progressively worse until one reaches

the turning area/off-street car parking area, at the playing fields at Darcy’s Field

where the access way is deeply rutted, pot holed and quite often flooded. The access

way presently serves the old Coastguard station, the four houses on its western side

and the rear entrance into the two-storey block of apartment which front onto

Victoria Road. It also serves the J.J. Burke premises and the playing fields, although

the playing fields are not used for that purpose at present. It also serves as a vehicular

access for those wishing to use the Cliff Walk or the beach.

One of the main traffic generators on the road are the clubs, the angling club and the

sailing club.

It also provides access to be a public off-street car park immediately to the east of its

junction with Beach Road, containing approximately 30 spaces.

The junction adequately deals with the level of traffic which is generated through it at

present.

There are three access points for vehicular traffic into Greystones at present. Two of

these have been in existence since the establishment of the settlements of Greystones

and Delgany. The third one is the R774 which is a very recently constructed road

connecting the N11 at Bromley, approximately 2 kilometres to the south of the Glen

of the Downs, eastwards to Charlesland, approximately 1.5 kilometres to the south of

central Greystones.

The R761 runs northwards from Greystones to Bray. It is the main vehicular access

point to the town and the most heavily used. Its main junction, as one approaches the

town is at the point where traffic splits at the Blacklion Road/Rathdown Road

junction. The Rathdown Road traffic travels eastwards to Victoria Road and either


diverts southwards down Church Road to the town centre or continues eastwards to

the harbour area. Traffic can also divert northwards at the junction of Rathdown

Road/Victoria Road/Church Road and New Road Junction which is located

approximately 200 metres to west of the subject site.

The R761 continues southwards until it meets the R762 immediately to the south of

Killincarrig. The R762 connects the N11 eastwards to Delgany village and in an

easterly/north-easterly direction to the centre of Greystones. This is a very busy

regional road however the bottlenecks of Delgany Village and Killincarrig Junction

and the narrow width and substandard nature of much of the alignment of the road,

render it unsuitable for the amount of traffic which it was required to carry with the

development of Delgany and particularly Greystones.

The R774 was recently opened. As noted earlier this provides for traffic travelling

from Greystones accessing the N11. It is on a completely new alignment running

southwards and subsequently westwards from the town through Charlesland. At

present the junction with the N11 is a temporary arrangement. It provides for left in,

left out traffic only. Access onto it can only be achieved by traffic travelling

southwards along the N11. Access off it on to the N11 can also only be achieved by

traffic turning left and travelling southwards on the N11 to the grade separated

junction at Newtownmountkennedy, a distance of approximately 1.5 kilometres to the

south of the existing temporary junction.

From inspection it would appear that the R774 is not carrying the traffic it will

ultimately carry with the build up of population particularly in south Greystones. It is

however carrying considerable volumes of traffic at morning and evening peak times.

When the junction with the N11 is fully developed it will provide for normal traffic

turning movements in a grade separated junction which will make it more attractive

for use by those wishing to access Greystones directly from the N11. There can be

little doubt however that the presence of the R774 has changed the peak time usage of

the local road network serving the Greystones/Delgany area. This network had been

surveyed, by the developers, prior to the opening up of the R774. The situation in

relation to traffic therefore would have changed considerably since the new road was

opened. It will change further when the junction is fully completed.


The R761 is very heavily used at present. Its junction at Blacklion is light controlled.

Queuing does occur here however I do not consider that the traffic generated by the

proposed development would be such as to materially impact upon the level of service

of the road. Peak hour delay will increase however not to such an extent as to greatly

reduce level of service.

The R761 is the most likely method by which traffic will access the appeal site,

outside the a.m./p.m. peak hours. The site would be accessed, in my opinion, from

the N11 by the new road, obviously depending on the level of traffic on the R761 and

the Southern Cross Route, to the south of Bray, which leads onto the R761 at the

Kilruddery roundabout. The level of usage of the R774 will increase when the

junction is fully completed. There is now an option to accessing the general

Greystones area now available which wasn’t available in the past. This is of major

importance in terms of traffic circulation.

The importance of the R762 N11/Delgany/Killincarrig/Greystones regional route will

diminish somewhat in importance particularly the section connecting the N11 and

Killincarrig having regard to the bottlenecks which occur in Delgany village.

I consider that the provision of the R771 will considerably improve traffic circulation

generally in the Greystones/Delgany area. This improvement will no doubt be

reflected in changed traffic circulation patterns in the future.

Existing harbour users will continue to use the local road network whether the

development is implemented or not. This is traffic generated by the leisure activities

and by existing land uses.

The public car park at the harbour is heavily used at present although it does not

attract a parking charge. Parking charges are not in force in the area.

There is a one-way system operating on part of the road network to the east of the

railway line. Part of the Coast Road from Cliff Road southwards to the La Touche

hotel is one-way providing for south travelling traffic.


Two vehicular access points cross the railway line. That to the north is the under

bridge at Victoria Road. This is a 6.2 metre wide roadway which contains a footpath

of 1.5 metres on its northern side as it passes under the bridge.

The southern access point is by means of the hump backed bridge at La Touche

Place/Church Road Junction. This is a narrow over bridge, 5.5 metres in width which

contains footpaths of 1 metre to the northern side and 0.5 metres to the southern side.

Traffic accessing the harbour area coming from outside Greystones, would generally

use Rathdown Road/Victoria Road as the means of accessing the site rather than

hump backed bridge which provides for access to the harbour northwards along

Trafalgar Road.

The amount of traffic which would be generated by the proposed development is of

major concern to the objectors. They consider that the means of access across the

railway line are inadequate.

In relation to the hump backed bridge this, in my opinion, would be substandard as

the sole means of vehicular access to the land east of the rail line. Of itself it could

not provide adequate access to this area of land.

The Rathdown Road, Victoria Road, Beach Road access to the site is the one which is

most heavily used. This constitutes the main access way to the site. It is, in my

opinion, of an adequate standard to cater for the subject development. In this regard

the Dublin Transportation Office expressed concern with the availability of only one

junction onto the overall site. While I consider this position to be generally correct

there are a number of mitigating factors which require consideration.

The first is the relatively high level of public transport accessibility available to the

site. The main medium is the Dart. This service will improve in the future. The

other is a public bus service which will also improve in the future. However I

consider that there will be a high level of car usage in accessing the site.

Notwithstanding this I consider that the road network is generally capable of

providing for the traffic which would be generated. A further point of note in this


regard is the fact that I consider that Block No. 1 should be omitted from the overall

development. This would have the effect of considerably reducing the traffic demand

made of the junction and of the road network generally. I consider that the level of

service which would be available at the junction onto the site from Beach Road,

would be acceptable with the omission of Block 1 and would, in my opinion, be

somewhat marginal if Block 1 was included.

An area of considerable concern voiced by the objectors and also by the Dublin

Transportation Office relates to the Victoria Road railway bridge. This is an under

bridge over which crosses the single line Dublin to Wexford railway on an elevated

embankment. There is a slight bend in the road immediately at the bridge.

The presence of a footpath only on the northern side of the bridge limits the usage, by

pedestrians, to this side.

Use of the R761 and the bridge is the main access to the subject site. It could not, in

my opinion, be argued that heavy goods vehicles such as trucks transporting material

to the site should use the hump backed bridge approximately 0.5 kilometre to the

south, at the station. This bridge contains a width of approximately 5.5 metres. It

does contain footpaths as noted above however its hump backed nature effectively

reduces it to one-way traffic when used by buses or heavy goods vehicles.

The original proposal put forward by the developers was to provide a guardrail to the

footpath as it goes under the bridge. This would reduce the effective width of the

footpath to 1.2 metres, it now appears that the proposal being put forward both by the

Planning Authority and by the development company is that large scale traffic

calming measures would be implemented along the R761 from its junction with

Church Road/New Road, approximately 200 metres to the west of the bridge. Both

the Planning Authority and the developers consider that the R761 contains the status

of an access road as one travels westwards from the Church Road junction. In order

that this would be readily known by road users, traffic calming measures are

proposed. Such measures would consist of the speed tables, informational signs and

the use of cycle ways.


The traffic calming measures would, in my opinion, have an effect of greatly reducing

speeds on Victoria Road, Beach Road, Cliff Road. This would achieve the desired

objective to provide for a safe traffic environment. While I consider that the Victoria

Road Bridge is not particularly well suited to the function being asked of it,

nevertheless with an overall calmed regime in operation in the area, it can be made

amenable to acceptance in terms of catering for the traffic generated by the

development, both during construction stage and after.

The omission of Block 1 would also be of considerable help in relation to the other

area of difficulty outlined initially by the Dublin Transportation Office. That relates

to the availability of a single access point to the overall development from Victoria

Road, Beach Road. This single access point effectively makes the overall scheme

into a cul-de-sac, in traffic circulation terms. This does however have the advantage

of not having to provide for through traffic. The impact of traffic generated by the

proposed development, can therefore be reasonably assessed. Of considerable help in

this regard is the recommended omission of Block 1 which would reduce the

residential/commercial demand by in excess of 20%.

I also consider that the omission of Block 1 provides a far greater area, at the south-

western sector of the overall site, to deal with traffic generation. In light of the

operation of existing uses on the site, it would be possible to, for instance, provide a

roundabout, instead of a T-junction. It would also be possible to provide a greater

level of separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic than would pertain with

the very tight land availability presently proposed. This is, in my opinion, of

considerable importance having regard to the very limited area which would be

available, at the only entrance onto the site, if Block No. 1 was not omitted. I

consider that this quite limited area would be required to fulfil too many functions, for

too much development, in too little an area. There would, in my opinion, be

considerable confusion in relation to user priority, as between pedestrians and

vehicles. This can be obviated by the separation made possible by the greater area of

land.

The objectors consider that the traffic generated by the proposed development would

be excessive. They particularly point to the difficulties in relation to the hump backed


bridge and also to the Victoria Road railway bridge. They further voice concern in

relation to the availability of only one vehicular access point onto the overall site.

Traffic generation generally has constituted one of the major points of concern voiced

by the objectors.

The proposed development will considerably alter the existing pattern of traffic

circulation within the area. From a relatively low user situation, in the harbour, the

new harbour and residential/commercial development will generate considerably

greater levels of traffic, over a different daily time frame.

For the proposed development to be acceptable from a traffic view point I consider

that traffic calming measures require to be implemented prior to the start of

construction. I furthermore consider that the omission of Block 1 is critical in relation

to both traffic generation and the amount of space available to deal with traffic. These

points have been referred to above.

On the basis that there would be a reduction in the overall level of traffic from that

originally proposed by the developers, resulting from the omission of Block 1, I

consider that from a traffic view point, the proposal is acceptable. The major point

made by the Dublin Transportation Office is the development of public transport over

the medium to longer term. Of considerable importance in this regard is the existing

availability of the Dart service.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

Because of the scale of the proposed development there can be little doubt but that the

its visual impact within the area would be significant. This has been accepted in the

Environmental Impact Statement. In terms of landscape what is proposed will

considerably alter the existing character of the landscape within the harbour area and

to the north.

Of significance in relation to amenity is the inclusion, in the County Development

Plan and in the Local Area Plan of views and prospects northwards, north-westwards

and westwards from the harbour. The view northwards is towards Bray Head. This is


very significant however it would not be greatly impacted by the proposed

development when viewed from Cliff Road. It would be severely impacted in views

northwards from Trafalgar Road however the omission of Block 1 would largely

obviate this intrusion.

To the north-west and west the view would be considerably altered by the erection of

Blocks 1, 2 and 3. In this regard Block 1 is of the greatest visual impact. It is located

closest to the harbour in the foreground of views to the north-west and west from

Beach Road, Cliff Road. The most significant views from the harbour area are those

obtained on the higher ground at the south-eastern corner of the existing harbour at

and close to the bend in Cliff Road. However the general view from the harbour area

to the north, north-west and west is also correctly referred to in the plans.

The Planning Authority position in relation to the preservation of listed views is that

development resulting from the zoning of land overrides views. I do not accept this

position as being a tenable one in land use planning terms. If a view is worthy of

preservation/listing than it should be preserved. What the Development Plan basically

states is that in the event of development occurring as a result of zoning in the Local

Area Plan, the views can be largely discounted. This does not, in my opinion,

constitute a reasonable or realistic policy in relation to the preservation of visual

amenity within an area.

The view northwards to Bray Head and westwards to the Sugar Loafs are of particular

note in relation to the Local Area Plan and also to the County Development Plan. I

consider that the preservation of the view from the harbour is of considerable

importance. The view directly northwards from the harbour area will not be severely

impacted by the proposal. The view to the north-west/west towards the Sugar Loafs

will be significantly impacted particularly, as noted above, with the proposal to erect

Block 1. However if Block 1 is omitted, I consider that the development is generally

acceptable having regard to the separation distance of Blocks 2 and 3 from the major

viewing points and particularly the fact that the view would not be significantly

interrupted by the erection of Blocks 2 and 3. The same could not be said of Block 1.

Therefore it is of considerable importance that Block No. 1 is not constructed. This

together with the several other reasons for not constructing the block, referred to


earlier, render its omission, of paramount importance relative to the overall scheme.

Block No. 1, in visual terms, intrudes southwards into the existing harbour area and

especially towards the protected structures. From a townscape/harbourscape

viewpoint its visual impact would be extremely negative resulting in undue

impingement upon the setting of the existing buildings relative to the water and the

harbour. Omission of the block would result in the retention of a reasonable balance

of separation between the water, the new harbour and existing protected structures.

It is of considerable note that the comments of the Department of Environment,

Heritage and Local Government particularly referred to the desirability of maintaining

the existing ambience and character of the harbour area with particular reference to

the damaging impact that the erection of Block 1 would cause. I consider that the

position adopted by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government,

constitutes the correct interpretation of the impact of the construction of Block No. 1.

It is also of considerable note that Mr. Crimmins, for the developers, in commenting

on the significance of the existing building ensemble refers to the quality of the

Coastguard Station as well as the existing protected structures.

At the oral hearing considerable comment arose in relation to the possibility of

designating the harbour and its adjoining buildings, as an Architectural Conservation

Area. It is notable in this regard that the Planning Authority, in the Draft Local Area

Plan for Greystones/Delgany designate all of the land to the east of the railway line as

a Local Urban Character Area. This is one step down from designation as an

Architectural Conservation Area. It signifies the seriousness with which the Planning

Authority consider the significance of the protected structures.

I consider it of some importance that Block No. 1 be omitted in relation to a reduction

in the visual impact of the development, the preservation of the main view from the

harbour to the west/north-west and in particular the provision of an adequate

separation between the protected structures and the new harbour. Also of

considerable help in this regard would be the relocation of the clubhouses to the

position proposed for Block 1. Relocating the clubhouses including the open storage

areas for boats, would considerably assist in the preservation of the listed view from

the existing harbour at Beach Road, Cliff Road.


I consider that a reduction in the marina control building from two-storeys to single-

storey, would also be of considerable help particularly in relation to the preservation

of the view northwards to Bray Head. This building would constitute a significant

visual feature in the view directly northwards, whereas its reduction to single-storey

height would effectively remove it from the view.

The County Development Plan contains a protected view southwards towards the

harbour from the R761. By dint of distance from this viewing point, I do not consider

that the proposed development would impact upon the view.

While the view from Cliff Walk southwards to the harbour would be considerably

interrupted by the proposed development, I do not consider that this constitutes a

reason for not permitting the development. The significant view in my opinion, is

from Cliff Road, Beach Road, referred to earlier.

I consider that the developers have reasonably stated that the construction of a new

harbour will present the possibility of a considerable number of new views

particularly to the north and north-west. This is a point, which is, in my opinion,

reasonably made and one which requires to be included in any assessment of the

impact of the proposal on views and prospects.

Flora and Fauna

The very extensive subject site covers a considerable variety of both land and sea

based flora and fauna. The Environmental Impact Statement provides information in

relation to terrestrial ecology, marine ecology and fisheries.

The general site has been the subject of considerable activity over the years, stretching

back to the pre-historic settlement at Rathdown, southwards to the development of the

harbour at the end of the 19th century and latterly with the use of part of the site as a

landfill within the last 30 years. Human intervention has therefore played a

significant role in the existing character of the ecology of the area. This ranges from

the very extensive shingle beaches at the harbour and to the north, to the former

landfill, the playing fields and the very extensive area of clay cliffs.


As noted earlier the northernmost part of the subject site, to the north of the Gap

Bridge, is located within the Bray Head Candidate Special Area of Conservation and a

Proposed Natural Heritage Area (site code, 000714).

The candidate SAC has been selected for the presence of vegetated sea cliffs,

including the clay cliffs.

The area has been designated under the E.U. Habitats Directive (Council Directive

92/43/EEC). It is noted as an important site for vegetated sea cliffs and coastal heath

and is noted for a host of scarce and rare plants. Whilst the area of sea cliff within the

study area is quite small it is part of a cliff habitat, stretching further north, which is of

international importance.

The principal conservation interest in the entire area is within the shingle beach,

which is an example of the Habitats Directive Annex 1 habitat perennial vegetation of

stony banks. This is well developed over a very small area in the south-eastern side

of the harbour and of particular note is the presence of sea kale (crambe maratima), on

the shingle beach, within the harbour. On inspection one location was noted. This is

a Red Datable listed species, and photographed at plate 3.1.1.3 of the Environmental

Impact Statement.

There is also a possibility that spring vetch (Vicia Lathyroydes) occurs on the rock

outcrop at the harbour.

In relation to fauna the E.I.S. did not note any mammal species of high conservation

importance within the site. No breeding bird species nest on the shingle or the beach.

The main species of note is the sand martin. There is a colony of sand martins which

occupy the clay cliffs, on an annual basis, the exact location within the cliffs,

depending on the previous winter and the condition of the clay cliffs. My inspection

noted that former nesting places had been located within clay cliffs, within the subject

site however considerably more nesting places were located further north, in the clay

cliffs to the north of the subject site.


Considerable evidence was submitted at the oral hearing in relation to the sand martin

colony.

There are no other fauna of note, peculiar to the site other than the sand martins.

I consider that the evidence submitted to the hearing and generally by way of written

information either through the Environmental Impact Statement or written objections,

indicates that there is little likelihood that the subject proposal will impact upon

anything but a small area of clay cliffs. The developers position, that the overall

development will have little or no impact on the sand martin colony, constitutes the

correct position. In this regard the very extensive clay cliffs outside the subject site,

provide ample nesting places for the colony. The reduction in such places, resulting

from the development would not, in my opinion, be material.

The position in relation to the spring vetch is unknown. However, the sea kale colony

would be lost from its present location if the development was implemented. As a

mitigation measure it has been suggested that plant populations could be translocated

however I consider that the Environmental Impact Statement correctly points to the

difficulty which in situ conservation of the sea kale colony would result in, given the

scale of the proposed development. The colony could however be moved to a nearby

suitable location, with the developers considering that it should preferably be as close

to its original location as possible. The same would apply to the possible occurrence

of spring vetch. While the loss of sea kale would constitute a significant loss of flora

within the harbour, this cannot in my opinion be avoided if the development is to take

place. A condition requiring relocation of sea kale is included in the recommendation

below.

In general I do not consider that the overall development would result in a serious

diminution in the flora and fauna range within the overall site. This applies to land

and sea.


Noise and Air Impacts

Both of these issues are dealt with in some detail in the Environmental Impact

Statement. They are also referred to in the objectors submissions. They were referred

to in detail at the oral hearing.

Noise

The major issue arising in relation to noise relates to the construction phase and to the

levels of noise generated during that phase. In this regard the length of the

construction period is of particular note. From beginning to end the period is

indicated as being approximately five years. In the initial period marine engineering

work would necessitate what would be the greatest noise generation with the

construction of the harbour. This includes dredging, piling and the fabrication of the

very large reinforced concrete blocks, constituting the major harbour members.

Several thousand blocks would require casting. The undertaking in relation to the

marine engineering works is therefore considerable.

Hours of operation are critical in relation to noise generation.

In general I consider that the overall development is amenable to control by reference

to hours of activity. A condition relating to hours of activity is included in the

recommendation. Provided the condition is complied with I consider that the noise

generated by the development, during the construction phase, would not result in an

injury to the residential amenities of the area.

Air Impacts

The proposal to provide a batching plant and a casting plant on site has given rise to

considerable objection.

I consider that the setting up of these plants on site constitutes the most logical

approach having regard to a number of factors. The first is the mitigation by way of

reduced heavy goods vehicles which would result from the establishment of both uses


on the site. The second is the advantage of casting extremely large reinforced

concrete members, particularly the 39 tonnes blocks, on site rather than transporting

several thousand of these by road. In this regard the Victoria Road Bridge and the

hump backed bridge would not be particularly suited to the road transportation of

such large members. From an operational point of view I consider that the developers

proposal in relation to the batching plant and to the casting plant provide the most

suitable means of dealing with the transport of material.

Considerable evidence was submitted by the developers, at the oral hearing, in

relation to the batching plant and to a lesser extent in relation to the casting plant. The

batching plant would, in my opinion, be operated in a reasonable manner, provided

the management proposals, submitted are complied with. I do not consider that there

are any mitigation measures which are required in relation to either noise or air

impacts other than the strict compliance with conditions relating to noise generation,

hours of operation, dust suppression and air pollution.

Cultural Heritage:

Archaeological Impacts

I consider that the importance of Rathdown has been illustrated in the submissions of

the Friends of Historic Rathdown. There is a very interesting history relating to

previous residential development proposed west/north-west of the subject site.

Considerable detail and research has been submitted in relation to the archaeology of

Rathdown. This constituted an important element of the Environmental Impact

Statement. It constituted an even more important element of the Friends of Historic

Rathdown submission and a significant module of the oral hearing.

The objectors are, in my opinion, reasonably concerned that the development does not

result in the loss of archaeological material. Of equal importance they are concerned

that prior to development archaeological monitoring is carried out and that the

appropriate measures are taken in the event of archaeological material being

discovered. While this relates to the overall site it particularly relates to Darcys Field

which is close to the previously excavated areas in Rathdown. In this regard it is of


some importance that the batching plant and the casting site/yard are fully

investigated prior to the setting up of either plant.

In general I consider that conditions relating to archaeological monitoring of all

excavation, should be implemented.

Architecture

Greystones Harbour is surrounded by buildings which have been listed for protection

in the Local Area Plan. The Draft Development Plan for Greystones/Delgany also

lists these structures. However it also provides a new local objectives designation in

Map A, Landscape and Heritage objectives. This designation, which covers the area

on the south side of Victoria Road, Cliff Road, to the east of the Railway Bridge, and

southwards as far as the Railway Station is designated;

“Local Urban Character Area”

It is not one which has been previously used in the Greystones/Delgany Plan and

within County Wicklow generally.

It should be noted that quite a large area, mainly constituting the Burnaby estate is

designated as;

“Architectural Conservation Area”

The Planning Authority have therefore elevated the significance of existing land and

development to the south of the harbour by recognising its importance as a local urban

character area. It is of note that this did not include the existing harbour.

Dr. Roche of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government,

considers that the harbour area should have been designated as one of architectural

conservation. Mr. Crimmins for the developers notes the importance of the local

character basically constituting the protected structures, other structures located close

to the harbour including the Coastguard Station and indeed the harbour itself.


I consider that the setting of the harbour is particularly significant in relation to the

buildings located to the south and west of it. They dignify the setting providing a

respectful urban backdrop to the harbour. In this regard, as referred to earlier, it is in

my opinion of some importance that the context of the existing built ensemble

consisting of Bayswater Terrace, the protected houses to the east, including Cliff

House, and Beach House and several other houses to the west, are fully respected in

any new development. This cannot be achieved with the erection of Block No. 1 as

proposed. Neither can it be achieved with the location of the clubhouses and boat

yards as proposed. These issues have been discussed above in some detail. If the

changes proposed were not implemented, I would consider the proposal to be

unacceptable on the grounds that it is seriously at variance with the maintenance of

the existing character of the area. This character is particularly bestowed upon it by

the protected structures, in terms of location, layout, spacing, scale, materials and

design. Subsuming all of this character into a totally altered scene as proposed at the

southern end of the harbour, would not respect the architectural character of the area

and certainly would not respect the local urban character.

While it is recognised that the overall development has been afforded considerable

design care, the inclusion of Block 1 and the location of the clubhouses and boat yards

as proposed constitute major design problems, which would not be amenable to

correction without the omission of Block 1 and the relocation of the clubhouses and

boat yards.

Conclusion

The assessment of both the Compulsory Purchase Order and the development, the

subject of approval, has considered all of the written submissions, including the

Environmental Impact Statement, and the proceedings of the oral hearing, in terms of

the likely effects on the environment and the likely consequences for the proper

planning and sustainable development of the area.

I consider that the compulsory purchase order is fully warranted having regard to its

intended function.


I consider that the approval sought under Section 175 of the Planning and

Development Act 2000, should be granted subject to the conditions which are

appended below.

The overall development does not conflict with the statutory planning documents

prepared by the Local Authority in relation to the development proposal. The general

land use policy contained in the planning documentation, particularly the Local Area

Plan would be largely implemented if the development was undertaken. The proposal

would not conflict with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

or detrimentally effect the local environment, provided appropriate conditions are

appended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) I recommend that the compulsory purchase order be confirmed by An Bord

Pleanala in its entirety.

(b) I recommend that approval under Section 175 of the Planning and

Development Act 2000 be granted by An Bord Pleanala for the hereunder

stated reasons and considerations, subject to the conditions set out hereunder.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to

(a) the existing condition of Greystones Harbour,

(b) the central location of the site relative to the town of Greystones and its rail

line,

(c) the existing pattern and character of development in the vicinity,


(d) the provisions of the current Wicklow County Development Plan, including

the variation of that plan and the provisions of the variation relating to the site,

it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out hereunder, the

proposed development;

(1) would not have significant adverse effects on the environment,

(2) constitutes an appropriate development proposal in terms of, land use, scale

and visual amenity,

and would therefore be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable

development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. All of Block No. 1 shall be omitted from the overall development.

Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity and the maintenance

of the architectural character of the nearby protected structures.

2. The proposed clubhouse buildings, as well as the fisherman’s accommodation,

shall be relocated on site, to the location proposed for Block 1. Details of the

relocated buildings, including associated areas for the open storage of boats,

shall be submitted to the planning authority for compliance with this condition.

Additional slipway accommodation shall be provided to serve the clubhouses.

Reason: In the interest of the maintenance of the visual quality of the nearby

protected structures and the overall character of the harbour area.

3. The area, at the southern side of the harbour, resulting from the relocation of the

clubhouses and associated boat storage areas, shall be laid out as public open


space, and used as such in perpetuity, in accordance with details to be submitted

to the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of the maintenance of the visual quality of the nearby

protected structures and the character of the harbour area.

4. The point of access to the site from the adjoining public road, Beach Road, shall

be redesigned in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority,

taking into account the changes to the overall layout resulting from the

requirements contained in Condition 1, 2 and 3. In particular adequate provision

should be made for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety and orderly development.

5. Prior to the commencement of development, the subject of this approval, a

traffic calming scheme shall have been implemented by the planning authority.

The scheme shall operate within the confines of the site, and on the surrounding

road network, within a 200 metre radius of Victoria Road/Beach Road. The

scheme shall commence on the R761, immediately to the west of the junction of

Victoria Road, New Road, Church Road. It shall provide for adequate

vehicular speed reduction and cyclist and pedestrian safety, including adequate

road signage and road and footpath surface design.

Reason: In the interest of pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular safety.

6. Material required for beach nourishment shall be shipped to the harbour. For

this purpose a berth shall be provided adjoining the north breakwater, to permit

the discharge of nourishment material, for transport to the required beach

locations. Details of the berth and the haul route shall be submitted to the

planning authority for compliance with their requirements.

Reason: In order to reduce the impact of heavy goods vehicles in their annual

beach nourishment campaign.


7. Boat maintenance shall not be undertaken on either breakwater.

Reason: In order to maintain the breakwaters for public usage.

8. All excavations for the purposes of the construction of the development, shall be

monitored by a suitably qualified archaeologist. A Monitoring Report shall be

prepared in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority. A copy

of the report shall be submitted to the Department of the Environment, Heritage

and Local Government and to the Department of Communications, Marine and

Natural Resources. A copy shall also be made available for inspection at the

offices of the Local Authority.

Reason: To protect the archaeological and cultural heritage of the area.

9. The establishment of the batching plant and the casting plant shall be monitored

by a suitably qualified archaeologist. Both plants shall be located as far as south

as possible in Darcys Field. A report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and a copy

shall be made available for inspection in the offices of the Local Authority.

Reason: To protect the archaeological and cultural heritage of the area.

10. Demolition and construction works shall be confined to between the hours of

08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 16.30 on Saturdays.

Construction shall not take place on Sundays and bank holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties in the vicinity during

the course of the works.

11. Prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works, detailed

codes of practice in relation to dust suppression, shall be drawn up by suitably

qualified personnel, in accordance with the requirements of the planning

authority. Contractors employed in the demolition and construction phases of

the development shall be required, by contract, to comply with these detailed


codes of practice. Prior to demolition works commencing, a detailed inventory

shall be carried out of all demolition materials, in order to identify materials for

reuse on site in the construction works. Demolition material shall be reused to

the maximum extent possible in the construction phase of the development.

Reusable materials, not used on site, shall be recycled elsewhere, rather than

being disposed of to landfill. Details of the codes of practice and the inventory

of demolition materials required by this condition shall be available for public

inspection at the office of the Local Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of property in the vicinity and in the interest

of sustainable development.

12. The Gap Bridge shall be removed from the site in accordance with the

requirements of the planning authority. Demolition material from the bridge

shall be reused to the maximum extent possible in the construction phase of the

development. Reusable material not used on site shall be recycled elsewhere

rather than being disposed of to landfill.

Reason: In the interest of public safety, having regard to the condition of the

bridge.

13. Details of water supply and drainage arrangements including the disposal of

surface water, shall comply in full with the requirements of the planning

authority in the provision of such services.

Reason: In the interest of public health.

14. The proposed development shall provide for the complete removal of landfill

material from the site. The material shall be removed prior to the occupation of

any dwellings. Material shall be trucked to the berth at the north breakwater,

being provided in compliance with Condition No. 6 above, for shipment off the

site. Details relating to this requirement shall be submitted to the planning

authority prior to the commencement of development. These details shall


comply with the requirements of the Authority in relation to method of removal,

shipment and location of final disposal.

Reason: In order to ensure that landfill material on site is dealt with in

accordance with the best modern practice and to ensure that any long-term

adverse environmental impact is avoided.

15. The marina control building shall be reduced in height to one-storey. Details of

compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

16. Walling to the inner harbour and on the inner sides of the northern and southern

breakwaters shall be not more than 0.5 metres in height. Alternatively the

proposed walling may be replaced with metal rails or chains, in accordance with

the details to be submitted to the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

17. Nautical hazard lights shall be placed in the harbour, as required by the

Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Reason: In the interest of marine safety.

18. Measures to permit public access to the Cliff Walk, during the course of the

works, shall be implemented, in accordance with the requirements of the

planning authority.

Reason: To maintain the recreational utility of the area during the construction

period.


19. Prior to the commencement of development, the Local Authority shall establish

a locally based liaison committee, which shall act as a forum for disseminating

information of planning and construction work relating to the overall

development. The committee shall be represented by the Local Authority, their

consultants and contractors, and local residential and business interests.

Reason: To facilitate and promote the involvement of the local community in

ensuring that the development is being provided in accordance with appropriate

standards.

20. Sea kale on the site shall be relocated to a position to be agreed with the

planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of maintaining the species as local to the area.

_____________________James CarrollSenior Planning Inspector

July, 2006

YM


Documents

· Web viewThe development side has stated that physical model tests have now been commissioned and will be completed within three months. Modelling of harbours and estuaries is