Q028 Camphire Quarry.pdf (, 1144 kbs) - Waterford County Council

Waterford CountyCouncilQuarry Examination under Section261A ProcessDecision & Determination ReportQ-028 Camphire Quarry

To:From:Brian White, Director of ServicesEamon LonerganSenior Executive EngineerDate: 4 th April 2012Quarry Reference:Quarry Owner(s):Quarry Operator(s):Townland:Q-028 Camphire QuarryNoel CaseyNoel CaseyCamphireQuarry Site LocationThe Camphire Quarry is located to the west of the L-1016 local road and approximately 250m north ofthe Camphire Bridge, which travels over the River Bride approximately 400m upstream of it confluencewith the River Blackwater.Quarry LocationMap 1 – Site Location2 | P a g e

Land Ownership DetailsA search of the Land Registry records, namely folios 9116, 6306F and 8878 show that the ownership of thequarry site was registered with Noel Casey on the 22 nd April 2005.Murphy McCarthy Consulting Engineers Ltd made a written submission on behalf of the owner (Mr. NoelCasey) to the Section 261A process (dated 27 th January 2012) which states therein that “Mr Caseypurchased the lands in 2004”. It is also stated that “The total landholding is 4.77 hectares”.Planning Historya) Pre-1964Murphy McCarthy Consulting Engineers Ltd outline in the aforementioned submission “The quarryoperations on site commenced prior to October 1964”.b) Post 1964 Planning PermissionPlanning Permission applications were lodged by Mr. Casey for this site under PD 06/1430 and PD07/516.PD 06/1430 Development Description: to retain indefinitely existing sand and gravel pit, entranceand associated site works and planning permission to carry out further sand and gravel extractionand associated site worksThis PD 06/1430 application was refused permission by Waterford County Council on the 14 thNovember 2006 for the following two reasons.3 | P a g e

PD 07/516 Development Description: to RETAIN existing entrance and access road and for fullPermission to carry out further sand and gravel extraction, together with associated site works, on landsThis PD 07/516 application which included an Environmental Report was granted permission byWaterford County Council on the 26 th July 2007.An appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleanála, reference PL 24.224982, and the application wasrefused for the following reasons:It should be noted however that both aforementioned planning applications proposed furtherdevelopment of the site by circa 3 hectares as well as retention of the already quarried lands (lessthan 1 hectare).The section 261A examination only considers the lands previously quarried.The lands previously quarried are claimed by Murphy McCarthy Consulting Engineers Ltd to be0.86 hectares in the aforementioned submission, refer to Map 4 hereunder and in particular thearea outlined in green. This stated area also includes an area which has only had the topsoilremoved and is not considered to be quarrying of minerals, therefore the area of quarried lands isconsidered to be 0.27 hectares as was confirmed by the land survey conducted by David Regan.It should also be noted that on the 21 st December 2004, Valerie Conway (Planner) prepared apre-planning report for David Kelly Partnership – Consulting Engineers on behalf of Noel Casey(referred to as the landowner in the preplanning report). This report concluded that thedevelopment of a quarry (8 acres) would not be in the interest of proper planning andsustainable development in the area, various concerns were outlined in Ms Conway’s report.No other permission was granted for quarrying activity on these quarried lands.4 | P a g e

Map 2 – Site Layout Map provider with the PD 06/1430 planning applicationMap 3 – Site Layout Map provider with the PD 07/516 planning application5 | P a g e

c) Section 261 RegistrationUnder section 261 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000, quarry owners/operators were required tosubmit information to the planning authority not later than one year from the commencement of section261 (i.e. April 2004), and the planning authority then entered the quarry on a register.Only quarries granted permission in the 5 years prior to the coming into operation (April 2004) of section261 were not required to register, (i.e. permissions granted after April 1999).I can confirm that the requirements under Section 261 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 were notfulfilled regarding the site. Murphy McCarthy Consulting Engineers Ltd submission supports this: “The sitewas not registered in April 2005”.Map 4 – Site Layout Drawing provided with the Section 261A submission by Murphy McCarthy Consulting Engineers Ltd.6 | P a g e

Planning Enforcement HistoryA complaint regarding a possible unauthorised gravel pit was made to the Council on the 22 nd June2006; this complaint was logged under reference W 760.David Regan (Executive Technician) inspected the site on the 15 th August 2006 and reported to ValerieConway (Planner) on same date, giving an account of the extent of works, his meeting on site with NoelCasey and recommendation that an enforcement notice was served on Mr Casey, said notice wasissued on the 21 st August 2006.In reply to the enforcement notice by Anthony Carroll & Co. Solicitors (consulted by Noel Casey) of the25 th August 2006, it is stated that the land was purchased circa June 2004 and that “At the start of 2006,Mr. Casey re-opened the quarry and entrance and started drawing a few loads of material per day fromthe quarry”.A letter from a third party dated 4 th September 2006 states that “truck loads of gravel continue to beremoved from the field” up to the 1 st September 2006.The site was re-inspected on the 1 st October 2006 by David Regan and noted that the enforcementnotice had not been complied with and recommended that the file was referred to solicitors to initiatelegal proceedings.Retention applications were subsequently made by Mr Casey and following the refusal by An BordPleanála a second enforcement notice was issued to the landowner requiring the operation to cease,which was complied with.Historical Aerial PhotographsMap 5 – Source: OSi 19957 | P a g e

Map 5 – Source: OSi 2000Map 6 – Source: OSi 20058 | P a g e

Map 7 - Most recent aerial view of quarry Source: Bing Maps (circa 2010)9 | P a g e

Area Outlined Yellow= 0.31 hectaresMap 8 – Source: Waterford County Council’s MapInfo (Bing c. 2010)Area Outlined Blue= 0.22 hectaresMap 9 – Source: Bing Maps (c. 2010)10 | P a g e

Map 10 –Survey Drawing Source: OSi 2005The 1995 and 2000 aerial photographs do not prove any evidence of quarrying pre 1995, although it isstated in the operator’s submission that „quarry operations on site commenced prior to October 1964‟.From further examination of the available aerial photographs and particularly from comparing thephotographs shown on Map 8 (2005) and Map 9 (2010), the overall area equates to approximately 0.53hectares including the roadway.The land survey conducted by David Regan shows that the area of quarried lands is 0.27 hectares, whichis reflective of the 0.31 hectares shown outlined yellow on Map 8.It is clear that the most recent quarrying took place within the lands outlined in yellow on Map 8 between2000 and 2010.Submissions to Section 261A ProcessI can confirm that only one submission was received by the planning authority following the publicationof the Notice required under Section 261A (1) of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended)from either the operator/owner regarding this quarry. This was a general submission by An Taisce anddidn’t refer specifically to this particular quarry, therefore the information is not considered ‘relevant’.Determination: EIA, EIA Screening & AA RequirementsBernadette Guest (Waterford County Council’s Heritage Officer) inspected the site on the 3 rd April 2012and examined the quarry site having regard to the EIA Directive and Habitats Directive and hasdetermined that an Appropriate Assessment would not have been required for the works carried out todate on the lands in question, namely the lands shown within the red boundary as shown on Map 10.Ms Guest considered that “the quarried site in its current scale does not pose a risk to the integrity of theRiver Bride (River Blackwater SAC) or have potential for adverse impacts on the conservation objectivesand habitats and species for which the Natura 2000 site is designated”.Regarding the requirements for EIA and EIA Screening, Ms Guest determined that “the scale of the site issub threshold (i.e. significantly less than the mandatory 5 ha) and based on the review of potentialimpacts on the adjacent SAC above and criteria for assessing sub-threshold development (nature, scale,location, sensitivity of receiving environment) it is considered that EIA screening and EIA would not havebeen required for this development”.11 | P a g e

Map 11: Proposed NHA (shaded purple)Map 12: Blackwater River SAC (shaded green)12 | P a g e

StreamMap 13: Stream to west of the quarry site discharging into the River BrideSite Survey DetailsThe quarry site was surveyed in March 2012 by David Regan - Technician Waterford County Council.The extent of the quarried lands and boundaries are shown on Map 10, the quarried lands being locatedwithin the boundary line coloured red.Site InspectionsI inspected the site on the morning of the 3 rd April 2012 accompanied by Bernadette Guest (HeritageOfficer – Waterford County Council).There were no development works taking place during the inspection nor was there any associated plantor machinery on the site.The exposed materials appear to be sand and gravel in nature.It was observed that there is no visible link between the quarried lands and the stream to the west, and a5m to 10m raised mound acts as a physical buffer, refer to Photo A hereunder.13 | P a g e

Photo A 03/04/2012Photo B 03/04/201214 | P a g e

Photo C 03/04/201215 | P a g e

Photo D 03/04/201216 | P a g e

Photograph BPhotograph DPhotograph CPhotograph AMap 14 – Locations of Photograph vantage points Source: Bing Maps (circa 2010)17 | P a g e

Planning Decision under section 261APlanning permission was never obtained for the area outlined yellow on Map 8 and the area outlinedblue on Map 9.Evidence was not provided by the owner/operator to support the claim that some of this quarried areawas carried out pre-1964, the aerial photographs from 1995 don’t assist in supporting the claim.Nevertheless, even if there was pre-1964 development, that area was not registered under section 261 ofthe Planning & Development Act, 2000, and neither was development works after 1964; therefore therequirements of section 261 were not fulfilled.Note: Registration under section 261 was not required for quarries that were granted permission in the 5years prior to the coming into operation of section 261 (April 2004) i.e. permissions granted after April1999.ConclusionPlanning permission was not obtained for the quarried lands outlined in red on Map 15 hereunder andthe requirements in relation to registration under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000were not fulfilled for this quarried area.Therefore the entire area outlined in red on Map 15, hereunder is deemed to be unauthorised in terms ofSection 261A.It has been determined that an AA, an EIA and an EIA Screening would not have been required fordevelopment works carried out at this quarry.Therefore, given the aforementioned unauthorised planning status of the entire quarry in accordancewith section 261A, it is considered that the operator cannot apply for substitute consent under section261A and the matter of regulating the quarried lands should be pursued through a retention application.18 | P a g e

Map 15 – Extent of the unauthorised quarried area19 | P a g e

RecommendationAn Enforcement Notice should be issued to Mr. Noel Casey, c/o Murphy McCarthy Consulting EngineersLtd., Unit 6 Marina Commercial Park, Centre Park Road, Cork under Section 154 of the Planning &Development Act, 2000 (as amended) requiring the immediate cessation of the operation of the quarrywithin the lands outlined red on the attached map, namely Map 15.A cover letter should also be sent to Mr. Casey informing him of the planning authority’s conclusionsfollowing examination of the quarry in accordance with section 261A.The planning authority has Determined under section 261A(2)(a) that development was carried out after1 st February 1990 and having regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, an environmentalimpact assessment and a determination as to whether an environmental impact assessment (EIAScreening) was not required for said development works, based on the following reasons:the scale of the site is sub threshold (i.e. significantly less than the mandatory 5 ha) and based onthe review of potential impacts on the adjacent SAC above and criteria for assessing subthresholddevelopment (nature, scale, location, sensitivity of receiving environment) it isconsidered that EIA screening and EIA would not have been required for this developmentThe planning authority has Determined under section 261A(2)(a) that development was carried out after26 th February 1997 and having regard to the Habitats Directive, an appropriate assessment was notrequired for said development works, based on the following reasons:the quarried site in its current scale does not pose a risk to the integrity of the River Bride (RiverBlackwater SAC) or have potential for adverse impacts on the conservation objectives andhabitats and species for which the Natura 2000 site is designated”.AndThat the planning authority has made a Decision under section 261A(4)(a) in respect of the quarry’splanning status that the quarry is unauthorised based on the following reasons:1) Planning permission was not obtained for the quarrying of the lands outlined in redand2) The requirements in relation to registration under section 261 of the Planning and DevelopmentAct, 2000 were not fulfilled for the lands outlined in redMr Casey should also be informed that in order to regulate the works carried out to date, it will benecessary to obtain retention permission.Recommended by: ______________________Eamon LonerganSenior Executive EngineerPlanning SectionApproved by: ______________________Brian WhiteDirector of ServicesPlanning & Environment20 | P a g e