Dunboyne Combined Residents Association
Home - About DCRA - Contact DCRA -Archive - News- Politicians Directory - Planning - Environment - Links Page - Newsletters - DCRA Meetings - Soapbox - Waste & Recycling
DCRA Opposes Waste Intensification Plan for Dunboyne
(Note: DCRA's objection is only one of 239 objections to this planning application sent to Meath County Council)
20th July 2004
Planning Department,
Meath County Council,
Railway Street,
Navan,
Co. Meath
Re: Planning application for intensification of waste processing from 5,000
tonnes per annum to 50,000 tonnes per annum at existing facility at Dunboyne
Industrial Estate, Dunboyne, Co. Meath, for Padraig Thornton Waste Disposal
Ltd, Reg ref:DA/40152
A Chara,
We have been instructed by our client, Dunboyne Combined Residents Association (DCRA), c/o Mr. Jim McGrath, 9 Elton Drive, Millfarm, Dunboyne, to submit the following objection to the planning application detailed above.
We submit the required fee of €20.00c.
1. INTRODUCTION
Our client, DCRA, acts as an umbrella group representing 20 residents' Associations
(c.1,600+ households / 85% of population) in Dunboyne. While they recognise
the important role that recycling has to play in dealing with waste, they have
always contended that the permitted development is excessive having regard to
the local demand for such services. This being the case, they have always feared
that the permitted development is a Trojan horse for a larger and even more
unacceptable development in the future.
Given that the current planning application seeks an intensification in activity
in the order of 10-fold without the necessity for additional plant or buildings,
their suspicions would appear to have been well founded. This being the case,
they are adamant in their opinion that the current proposal is completely unacceptable
at this location given its excessive scale relative to local recycling needs
and its location adjacent to the rear of Lutterell Hall and Plunkett Hall estates.
2. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT
The development which is near completion and permitted per Reg Ref:DA/20269,
PL17.202703 and DA30450 provided for a Civic Amenity Facility and Materials
Recovery Facility at Dunboyne. The development had a stated limit of 5,000 tonnes
per annum of non-hazardous waste thus enabling it to proceed on foot of a waste
permit (WMP2002/33).
Having regard to the description of the original proposal as set out in that planning application, it was envisaged that the permitted development would cater for three waste types in the following quantities (per annum),
· Household recyclables and bulky waste delivered by householders to
the Civic Amenity Facility (1,500 tonnes)
· Household recyclables collected by PTWDL kerbside recycling (Green
Bin) system (1,000 tonnes)
· Skip waste from construction and demolition projects locally (2,500
tonnes)
It is stated in the documentation submitted with the current planning application
that this operation was due to commence in June 2004.
3. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
The current proposal seeks to utilise the permitted infrastructure to facilitate
a more intensive operation at 50,000 tonnes per annum. This represents a 10-fold
increase over that permitted in the original proposal.
Looking to the documentation submitted with the current proposal, it appears that the facility will now cater for,
· Household waste delivered to the facility (1,500 tonnes)
· Household waste collected by or on behalf of local authority (8,000 tonnes)
· Commercial waste (6,000 tonnes)
· Construction and Demolition waste (28,020 tonnes)
· Industrial Waste (6,000 tonnes)
· Hazardous Waste (480 tonnes)
The applicant's stated purpose of the proposal is to, "…allow greater
integration of the waste recycling facility and recovery processes, and will
provide a greater economy of scale, that will result in a higher percentage
of recycling/recovery by the Company."
4. DEVIATION FROM PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT.
4.1. Introduction
The documentation submitted with planning application Reg ref:DA/20269 clearly
specified three waste types that would be dealt with at the site. These were,
· "Household recyclables and bulky wastes delivered by householders.
· Household recyclables collected locally by Thornton's kerbside recycling scheme (Green Bin System) and
· Skip waste from construction and demolition projects at local households and businesses (C&D waste)."
The subsequent permission granted by An Bord Pleanála was for these three waste types only.
The permitted development is thus characterised by two main factors,
· It caters for a limited number of specific waste types (household
recyclables & local c&d waste).
· Having regard to these waste types and the documentation submitted,
it caters for local need.
The decisions from both the Planning Authority and An Bord Pleanála reflected this thinking. For example, Meath County Council's Planning Officer states, "The applicant also met formally with the SE Environment and the SEP Planning and discussed the proposals at length….Up to 5,000 tonnes of material will be accepted at the site on an annual basis which is broken down into 1500 tonnes from the public at the CA site, 1000 tonnes of kerbside green bin collection as well as 2,500 tonnes from local skip waste collection."
An Bord Pleanála's inspector in his report again notes the limited waste types and the emphasis on local need and in the "Reasons and Considerations" section of his report concludes that the permitted development was acceptable given, "…the nature and scale of the operations proposed…".
In addition, while both authorities refer to the various National Waste strategies, Regional Waste Management Plan and the County Development Plan, the permitted development was ultimately adjudicated upon in the context of providing a recycling facility for a limited number of waste types serving a purely local need.
4.2. Analysis of current proposal.
It is our contention that the current proposal is radically different in nature
and scale to that permitted by An Bord Pleanála and as such, is unacceptable
at this location. In this regard, we have presented a comparison of the two
proposals in the table below.
Waste Type Permitted Proposed
Tonnes p.a. / % of total Tonnes p.a. / % of total
Household recyclables by public 1,500 (30%) 1,500 (3%)
Household recyclables by kerbside 1,000 (20%) 8,000 (16%)
c&d waste by skip (local) 2,500 (50%)
C&d waste by skip (all) Nil 28,020 (56.04%)
Commercial Waste Nil 6,000 (12%)
Industrial Waste Nil 6,000 (12%)
Hazardous Waste Nil 480 (0.96%)
Total Waste 5,000 50,000
The information presented in the table clearly demonstrates the chasm that exists between the permitted development and that presented in the current proposal. Apart from the massive increase in volume of waste in absolute terms, there is also,
A) A significant number of additional Waste Types
B) A deviation from local service to wider service
While the permitted development was deemed acceptable on its nature and scale relative to the local need for recycling facilities as set out in the County Development Plan and the Regional Waste Plan, the current proposal goes far beyond the facility envisaged by either of these documents at such a location in terms of Waste Types accepted and extent of service area.
Both the Planning Authority and An Bord Pleanála, having regard to the policies set out in the Development Plan and the Regional Waste Management plan, determined that a facility to cater for local, household recyclables and local, c&d waste, to be acceptable at this location.
The current proposals represents a clear departure from this approach as demonstrated by its relegation of household recycling from 50% of all activity in the permitted development to just 19% in the current proposal.
Likewise, while we note that the c&d skip waste is to rise from 50% permitted to 58% proposed, the fact that the tonnage increase 2,500 tonnes to 28,000 clearly demonstrates that this development is clearly aimed at catering for c&d waste from well beyond Dunboyne and its vicinity.
Finally, the fact that Commercial waste, Hazardous waste, Industrial waste, and total c&d waste, together amount to 40,500 tonnes per annum or 81% of total waste, serves to demonstrate that this is not a local facility but is in fact approaching regional proportions. Given that only 19% of the total waste handled at the facility will be genuine local waste, it makes a nonsense of any argument that it can be accommodated at this location on foot of Development Plan / Regional Waste Policies relating to the placement of local recycling/bring facilities.
4.3. Conclusion to this section.
In conclusion to this section, it is abundantly clear that the current proposal
represents a significant and fundamental departure from the permitted proposal.
This being the case, the existence of the permitted development can in no way
act as any precedent for the granting of permission for the current proposal.
5. INADEQUATE EIS - MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE
CURRENT PROPOSAL.
5.1. Introduction
Looking to the review of the permitted development set out in the EIS, we note
a number of inaccuracies. It appears that the applicant has portrayed the existing
development in such a fashion as to attempt to minimise its variance with the
development now proposed.
5.2. Additional waste types
As previously stated, the documentation submitted with planning application
Reg ref:DA/20269 clearly specified three waste types that would be dealt with
at the site. These were,
· "Household recyclables and bulky wastes delivered by householders.
· Household recyclables collected locally by Thornton's kerbside recycling scheme (Green Bin System) and
· Skip waste from construction and demolition projects at local households and businesses (C&D waste)."
However, at section 3.3.3 of the EIS submitted with the current proposal, the applicant states that the types of waste currently permitted at the facility are presented in table 3.3.1. Looking to table 3.3.1 we see that not 3 (as permitted) but 4 waste types (2 of which were not included in the original proposal) are included. These 4 waste types are,
· Household
· Commercial
· Construction and Demolition
· Industrial Non Hazardous Solids
We contend that the processing of Commercial waste and Industrial Non Hazardous Solids at the existing facility is not authorised under the existing permission. Quite apart therefore from the issue of increased volume, there is the more fundamental planning consideration of whether such uses are permissible at this location in the first instance.
5.3. Change in proportions of waste types
Looking to the proportions of waste type presented in the documentation for
the permitted development, we note the following,
· "1,500 tonnes/annum from the pubic at the Civic Amenity site (30% corresponding to Household Recyclables)
· 1,000 tonnes/annum from the kerbside green bin collection. (20% corresponding to Household Recyclables)"
· 2,500 tonnes/annum from local skip waste collections (50% corresponding to local c&d waste)
However looking again to table 3.3.1. of the EIS we note that once again the applicant misrepresented the figures to give the impression that the existing development is more akin to the current proposal.
In this regard, we note that while the "Household" waste type still corresponds to the 50% permitted, C&D waste has actually been reduced from the 50% permitted to 20% with the remaining 30% taking the form of the unauthorised waste types of Commercial and Industrial Non-Hazardous Solids.
5.4. Conclusion to this Section
In conclusion to this section, we respectfully contend that the applicant has
deliberately misrepresented the permitted development in an effort to disguise
the significant change envisaged by the current proposal over that previously
permitted.
6. INADEQUATE EIS - ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE SITE SELECTION PROCEDURE.
We would respectfully take issue with that portion of the EIS which deals with
the selection of the subject site and the consideration of alternative sites.
Per Annex IV of the EIA Directive 97/11/EC, the following must be submitted,
(2) An outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for this choice, taking into account the environmental effects.
Article 25 of the EIA Regulations 1989 was amended by Article 6 of the EIA Regulations 1989 to 1999 and specifies the minimum information necessary in an EIS to comply with Article 5 (3) EIA Directive 97/11/EC which states that the information to be provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include at least: (inter alia)
"…an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects".
The EIS submitted deals with this issue in Section 1.11.2 and simply refers to the provision of section 8.3.13.2 of the Regional Waste Management Plan, claiming full compliance with same. In this regard, we note that the applicant has conveniently forgotten that the site on which the facility is to be located is unzoned and outside the Dunboyne development boundary and contravenes the RWMP in this regard.
This section of the EIS, which is brief in the extreme, simply concludes that,
"Given that the facility exists with a capacity to process 50,000 tonnes per annum without physical alterations, use of the Dunboyne site is clearly a better option than development of any alternative sites in the catchment area."
Given the failure of the applicant to produce a credible catchment area or indeed any scientific analysis (such as a gravity model) to justify the choice of this location, we respectfully submit that current proposal lacks credibility and is contrary to the provisions relating to the preparation of EIS's.
It is our client's contention that the subject site was chosen as much of the
infrastructure was already provided by stealth in the guise of a local recycling
facility which is in stark contrast to the development currently proposed.
7. MATERIAL CONTRAVENTION OF THE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
7.1. Location of site outside zoned, development boundary.
Having regard to Meath County Council's Development Plan 2001 - Dunboyne, it
is obvious that the subject site is located outside the existing industrial
estate and indeed outside the Development Boundary of Dunboyne.
As it is outside the zoned development boundary of Dunboyne, the lands in question are deemed to be for agricultural use where industrial/ commercial developments of the type proposed in the current instance are not permitted. The Development Plan at Section 3.2.3 (Vol 1) makes it clear that such development will only be permitted in appropriately zoned lands within defined Development Boundaries.
Looking to the Planning Reports of Meath County Council and An Bord Pleanála, it appears that both authorities were prepared to permit the original 5,000 tonne development on the basis of local need, scale and nature of development.
7.2. Conclusion to this section
However, given the fact that the current proposal seeks effectively to create
a regional, 50,000 tonne facility, to handle a wide range of commercial, industrial
and hazardous waste, we respectfully submit that it does not deserve the latitude
with regard to zoning afforded to the previous proposal.
8. MATERIAL CONTRAVENTION OF REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
The Regional Waste Management Plan identifies two potential Material Recovery
Facilities at Monaghan and Drogheda. No mention is made of Dunboyne in this
regard.
Similarly, the Regional Waste Management Plan identifies four potential Recycling Centres in County Meath. Again, no mention is made of Dunboyne in this regard.
While An Bord Pleanála's inspector found the permitted development to be acceptable at this location despite these facts, we would argue that a similar allowance should not be extended in the current instance because,
· The facility will deal with waste produced far beyond Dunboyne and its hinterlands so it therefore fails to qualify as one of the "Local MRFs" identified in the Regional Waste Management Plan.
· Regarding the Civic recycling facility, the Inspector found this to be acceptable having regard to requirement for such facilities in the "Delivering Change" document. However, the permitted facility is more than adequate in this regard and the current proposal is clearly aimed at regional-type service provision, not local service provision.
This being the case, we respectfully submit that the current proposal contravenes
the objectives of the Regional Waste Management Plan.
9. CLIENT'S SPECIFIC CONCERNS.
In addition to the issues previously addressed, our client has a number of specific
concerns regarding the proposed development that are addressed below.
9.1. Traffic
The existing situation with regard to HGV traffic using Dunboyne is already
a major source of concern to our client. This issue is also of concern to the
Council who, we understand, are considering dealing with this under the relevant
legislation.
It is clear that the proposed development will give rise to a considerable increase in vehicular traffic entering and exiting the existing industrial estate. Our clients are concerned that there has been an underestimation in the application documentation submitted. In addition to the lorries taking waste to the facility there will also be a large number of vehicles taking items away for handling elsewhere. Given the volumes predicted in the EIS, our clients are greatly concerned by this issue.
In this regard, it is noted that there are existing entrances to residential
schemes of Old Fairgreen/Millfarm, Kilbreena (including temporary school) in
close proximity to the entrance of the industrial estate. Given the congestion
in Dunboyne already, our clients are concerned that the increase in traffic
arising from this development will exacerbate an already unsatisfactory situation.
9.2. Noise
Given the proximity of the subject site to existing residential development,
our client is concerned that existing levels of residential amenity will be
undermined if the current development proceeds.
While it acknowledged that staff levels would be low, the site will none the
less see use of equipment for sorting and preparation of materials prior to
transportation off site. In addition they are also concerned for the potential
for noised produced by both trucks and cars entering and leaving the site.
9.3. Vermin
Notwithstanding the assurances of the applicants, our client is concerned that
any type of waste handling facility has the potential to attract vermin. Given
the proximity of the subject site to existing residential development, our clients
are concerned that ingress of vermin will become a problem for them.
9.4. Dust
Our client is also concerned that the proposed development will give rise to
levels of dust that will affect their level of residential amenity. They are
fearful that, particularly in dry weather, that dust from the waste and waste
carrying vehicles themselves will travel from the subject site to those houses
that are closest to the proposed development.
9.5. Impact on Electricity Services.
The existing situation with regard to electricity supply in Dunboyne is most
unsatisfactory. Our client informs us that on average, Dunboyne has experience
one power cut per month since 2003.
Our client is therefore concerned that the considerable requirements of the facility, in terms of electricity consumption, could exacerbate the situation with regard to unreliable power supply at Dunboyne.
In addition, should such power cuts continue to occur, perhaps more frequently, they are concerned that these cuts could result in the failure of electronic equipment at the facility which in turn could lead pollution discharge etc'.
9.6. Potential for Flooding.
The village of Dunboyne has recently been the subject of extensive flooding.
It is our understanding that on occasion, the subject site has been subjected
to flooding. Given the nature of the development our client is fearful that
waste from the site could be washed into open areas and watercourses with potential
for risks for health and amenity.
It appears that while flood abatement measures have commenced, our client is
concerned that the current proposal could be affected by flooding until all
of the necessary abatement measures have been completed. This being the case,
we respectfully suggest that the subject proposal is, at best, premature.
10. CONCLUSION
Given our client's concerns regarding these issues based on the information
provided to date, we respectfully call on the Planning Authority to refuse planning
permission for this development.
Yours faithfully,
_________
Mark Rave, B.A.(Hons), M.R.U.P.
Mark Rave Associates, Prospect House, 42 Killine View, Edenderry, Co. Offley