The Dolly recycling project, ABP report

The recent winning of the appeal against planning permission for a recycling and end of life vehicle processing plant at Knockbounce Business Park was made known to the two objecting groups by a 2-page letter, writes Brian Byrne. But the basis for that letter involved a 34-page report by the inspectorate of An Bord Pleanala.

The report is available for download on the ABP website, and for those interested in background to planning issues like this one it does make very interesting reading. John Desmond of the inspectorate submitted his report to the Board of ABP on 15 September 2012.

The report outlines the application, the observations and objections, the original grant, the Grounds of Appeal on behalf of the existing businesses on the campus and from the Cnoc na Greine residents, and the responses from the developers, Christopher and Catherine Dolly.

The relevant statutory policies are also cited, including the Kildare County Development Plan 2011-2017, the Kilcullen Local Area Plan 2008, the Kildare Waste Management Plan 2005-2010, and the Kildare Noise Action Plan 2009. Relevant Ministerial Guidelines noted include 'A Resource Opportunity, Waste Management Policy in Ireland' (2012); Regional Planning Guidelines for the GDA 2010-2022; and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)—Guidance for Consent Authorities regarding Sub-threshold Development.

The inspector reduced the 41 Conditions in the original Planning Grant to 17 'worthy' of note. He extracted some 30 issues raised by the 37 observations which had been received on the original application. The main Grounds of Appeal from the two groups were noted, numbering seven each.

In the case of the appeal by the businesses already on the campus, these related to non-compliance with the Planning & Development Regulations 2001; material contravention of the Kilcullen Local Area Plan; Transportation; inadequate consideration of foul and surface water drainage services; impacts of noise, dust, odour and emissions, with adverse effects on residential amenity; and poor architectural design that would be seriously detrimental to the Business Campus and adjacent residential development.

Grounds from the residents not already covered by the foregoing included issues on how the planning authority had considered the application, whether the applicant had complied with conditions of notice, and a claim of conflict of interest because the planning authority would itself benefit from a permission grant as it owned the relevant property. They also raised issues of waste licensing, and the timeline of provision of further information.

The inspector broke into a number of broad headings the issues by which the appeal could be assessed. These included consideration of the nature and details of the operation of the proposed facility, issues of principle and policy, the impact on residential amenities, general design and visual impact, roads and traffic, drainage, whether there had been appropriate assessments, and environmental impact assessment.

In a very detailed but clearly written review of the application, the inspector came up with a number of key points. He concluded that there were 'contradictions' in the matter of whether or not there would be wet organic wastes involved in the operation, which would have potential impact from the development.

The inspector noted that the provision of such a facility is generally consistent with the provisions of Kildare County Council's Waste Management Plan, but the County Development Plan considers such facilities not appropriate for town centre locations. Also, he did not consider the proposed facility to be a 'light industrial use', because of its potential to generate noise, dust and odours. He said it was 'incompatible' with the character of the existing permitted development.

The inspector also concluded that the application did not adequately assess the impact of noise on the nearby residences, and that he was not satisfied that the proposals on mitigating the visual impact of the development would be enough to protect the amenities of the neighbouring residences, given its scale and nature.

He dismissed the inclusion of example dust figures from a Dundalk based facility as 'not being comparable' to the proposed Kilcullen development, adding that there would be 'a significant risk' that the amenities of the residences would be affected adversely by dust at Kilcullen.

The inspector did not regard the proposed development as unacceptable within the campus by reason of visual impact, though he did say the general design was 'not desirable' in the context of the Business Park.

The report shows the inspector was not satisfied that there was sufficient information regarding the potential traffic impact of the development. He went into considerable detail here, including an examination of the geographical footprint of the applicant's business. While it was easy to show the routes by which the recovered materials would be transported on for further processing, he noted, the traffic generated by the source of the waste were much less easy to define.

On the matter of drainage, the inspector differed with the planning authority on the desirability of multiple pumping stations for individual foul sewer connections, but noted that Kildare County Council's Water Services considered them to be acceptable.

The inspector concurred with the planning authority that no separate assessment of water pollution impact was required, as the location did not provide a risk of pollution to any waterways protected under European regulation. He also decided that no Environmental Impact Assessment was warranted.

The inspector dismissed concerns about the site notice provisions, and a suggestion that further information provided warranted a revision of the public notices.

In the end, the inspector recommended a refusal of the planning permission on the grounds that it conflicted with the planning authority's objective for land use rezoning, that it would seriously injure the amenities of the nearby residential properties, and that there was insufficient information provided on traffic impact.

The Board of ABP concurred with his recommendations, and notified the relevant parties of its decision last week.