Upon the lodging of the planning application by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland the Burren Action group commissioned Jack O'Sullivan of Environmental Management Services Ltd. to prepare an objection to the proposals. The following is the text of that objection, submitted to the Clare County Council on 10 December 1996:
The present application has arisen as a consequence of a series of decisions beginning with that made by Clare County Council on 23 July 1992 under Section 84 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, to grant consent to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for a "Burren National Park Visitor Centre" near Mullaghmore.
This decision was appealed by Howard and others (plaintiffs) to the High Court initially by way of proceedings for an interlocutory injunction which was heard on 25 November 1992 and refused by O'Hanlon J. on 3 December 1992. The substantive case challenging the legal authority of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland was heard by the High Court on 28 and 29 January 1993, and judgement in favour of the plaintiffs was given by Costello J. on 12 February 1993. This judgement also granted to the plaintiffs the previously refused injunction against the Commissioners, preventing further works being carried out on the site, restraining the Commissioners from proceeding with the development, and declaring that the development carried out to date was illegal as it had no planning permission.
This judgement was appealed to the Supreme Court by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and was heard in March 1993. The Supreme Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and disallowed the appeal of the Commissioners (The Supreme Court, Judicial Review 40/93 and 22/93). The Supreme Court judgement, delivered on 26 May 1993, confirmed the illegality of the structures and works carried out on the site, and in the normal course of events would require the Commissioners immediately after the delivery of the judgement to remove the works and reinstate the lands, or to seek planning permission for retention. Any variation of the Court order, which would be necessary in order to retain any of the partly completed structures or to carry out any further works on the site, would require the consent of the High Court.
On 24 October 1996 the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland submitted to Clare County Council an application to develop a "Visitor Entry Point Shelter" at Gortlecka. The proposed development, to be constructed on the site of the partially completed Burren National Park Visitor Centre, would consist of:
The application was supported by drawings, correspondence with the Sanitary Services Division of Clare County Council, and by an "Environmental Background Document" prepared by RPS Cairns. The application proposed the retention of certain elements of the illegal structures comprising portions of the previously proposed Visitors' Centre, the removal of other elements of the illegal structures, and reinstatement of some land to its previous condition.
In no place does the planning application refer to the declaration of the High Court, effective from 12 February 1993, that the existing structures on the site are illegal, or to the consequence of that declaration which was to impose an obligation on the developer to make a planning application for retention or removal of the structures. In view of the background and judicial history described above, and of the similarity between the former proposal for a Visitors' Centre and the present application for a Visitor Entry Point Shelter at the same location (despite the applicant's use of two different names for this location), a reference to the High Court Order of 12 February 1993 (and re-confirmation of that Order in subsequent High Court and Supreme Court hearings involving the applicant) should have been provided in support of the planning application. In the absence of such information, neither the planning authority nor the public are in a position to make an informed decision or observations on the application.
The Burren region, located within County Clare, consists of about 200 square miles or 520 square kilometres of karst limestone pavement and associated escarpments which are unique in Ireland and Western Europe. The Burren National Park comprises some 1128 hectares (approximately 2.5% of the total area of the Burren) in the south-eastern part of the Burren region. The Park was formally announced in 1991, and was launched on 22 April 1992 by the then Minister of State for the OPW Mr. Vincent Brady who described it as an area of relatively unspoiled scientific and scenic diversity.
The lands which constitute the Burren National Park were acquired on behalf of the State by the Office of Public Works (OPW), and are managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) under the provisions of the State Property Act 1954, and the State Authorities (Development and Management) Act, 1993. It is the intention of the OPW to acquire more land, and to enlarge the Park to around 3000 hectares.
The Mullaghmore area, which contains the site of the proposed Visitor Entry Point Shelter, is of international conservation importance (An Foras Forbartha, 1981) and of outstanding scientific interest within the overall Burren Region which is internationally important as a whole. An area of some 560 hectares of Mullaghmore is listed as an ASI of international ecological and geological importance in the National Heritage Inventory of Areas of Scientific Interest in Ireland (An Foras Forbartha, 1981) and, in line with new designation procedures, will be included in the proposed Natural Heritage Area (NHA). In due course, the Burren may be recognised as a World Heritage Site -- a hope expressed by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Michael D. Higgins, T.D., on 20 July 1996.
The Mullaghmore area is therefore one of the core conservation areas within an internationally renowned region, and it deserves special protection. As the National Park expands, the Mullaghmore area will become more central and will increase in importance on account of the wealth of information concerning it and the lesser degree to which it has been affected by agriculture in comparison to other parts of the National Park.
The proposed NHA status of the existing OPW property will have to be taken into account in the management of the expanded National Park, and zoning may be necessary in order to protect scientific study areas and ecologically sensitive areas from public access. The details of such zoning, and the degree of protection required have yet to be discussed and, under such circumstances, the provision of the proposed Visitor Entry Point Shelter must be considered to be premature. In any event, the proposed "Entry Point" will be well within the most vulnerable area of the National Park, where it cannot (nor should not) serve as an entrance, which by definition should be on the margin or periphery of the Park.
The Burren Draft Management Plan recommends that any visitor and interpretative facilities for the Burren and for the National Park itself should be located in the villages and towns on the periphery of the Burren. The former proposal for a Visitors' Centre on this site, which was made by the OPW in advance of a management plan for the Burren, would have been in direct conflict with the strategy now recommended. It is our understanding that were it not for the existence of the partially constructed Visitors' Centre, the current application for an Entry Point on this site would neither have been made nor considered.
It is therefore clear that the proposed Entry Point for the National Park at Gortlecka is premature until the Burren Management Plan (which must be viewed as a strategic plan still in draft stage) has been adopted, and until a more detailed action plan for implementation of the Management Plan's recommendations has been produced and accepted. Clare County Council will be aware of the number of submissions commenting on the draft, some of which would have directly addressed the issue of entry points for the park. Many of the conflicting issues raised in these submissions have yet to be resolved, and a final draft of the Plan has yet to be released.
The planning application for the proposed Visitor Entry Point at Gortlecka should not be considered further by Clare County Council until certain other recommendations of the Management Plan have been carried out. For example, if the proposed development is constructed in advance of the recommended upgrading of the existing centres at Kilfenora and Ballyvaughan, there is a strong possibility it would become a focal point for visitors to the National Park, and for park management services. There is a risk that if the proposed Entry Point is developed, there would be renewed demands for a larger visitors' centre at Mullaghmore which would be highly damaging to the conservation objectives of the Burren National Park.
In the meantime, in order to assess the degree of such risk, the applicant should be required to state whether or not it is his intention to make any further planning applications for visitor facilities for the Burren National Park and, if so, at what locations will these facilities be provided ? The applicant should also be required to provide a prediction of the number of visitor to the Park who would be expected to use such further facilities.
The 1988 Clare County Development Plan is the statutory development plan for the location in which the proposed visitor entry point is to be located and, in considering the current application, Clare County Council is bound by the provisions of the Plan. The plan contains a number of provisions and objectives with which the proposed visitor entry point may be wholly or partly in conflict:
In view of the provisions listed above, the granting by Clare County Council of planning permission for the proposed Visitor Entry Point would be a clear contravention of the Development Plan. Furthermore, the proposed development would adversely impact on this unique area of high scenic amenity and scientific importance, and could set a precedent for further such developments within the area zoned as being of Outstanding Amenity in North Clare (Map 3 attached to the County Development Plan 1988).
Given that the present application includes retention of significant elements of the previously proposed Visitor Centre, it is our belief that the two earlier EISs (or at least the relevant portions of them) should have been submitted in support of this planning application. The "Gortlecka Environmental Background Document" (RPS Cairns, October 1996) is not an Environmental Impact Statement, nor does it claim to be one. The lack of an EIS which would describe the positive and negative impacts of such a contentious development proposal is a serious omission which should be rectified by the County Council requesting such additional information from the applicant as necessary to fulfil the requirements of the EU Directive and the Regulations (S.I. 349 of 1989; S.I. 25 of 1990; and S.I. 86 of 1994) on Environmental Impact Assessment.
This additional information should include:
It is our belief that in view of the planning history on this site, the legal status of the existing works, the ecological importance and vulnerability of the site and its immediate surroundings, the uncertainty of planning for the National Park as a whole, and the absence of detailed proposals for other visitor facilities, this current application should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Study containing the information listed above. Clare County Council has discretionary power to request such as EIS, especially where it is likely that the proposed development will have significant effects on the environment.
The original proposal for a Visitors' Centre included a complex multi-stage effluent treatment system comprising a grease trap followed by five stages of biological treatment (two anaerobic and three aerobic), clarification and settlement, phosphate precipitation by the addition of iron sulphate, two stages of carbon filtration, ultra-violet sterilisation, anti-scalant dosing, reverse osmosis, mixed bed ion exchange, and final disposal of the treated effluent by percolation through soil.
The design was unusual in its complexity, and had been developed in response to criticisms of an earlier treatment system based on a combined Biocycle/Puraflow wastewater treatment plant with discharge of the effluent to the soil. The earlier treatment plant design and proposed effluent quality had failed to take account of the sensitivity of the site and the fundamental constraints imposed by the nature of the soil and underlying limestone rock, and these issues were addressed only after questions had been raised by Clare County Council and by objectors to the proposed Visitors' Centre.
In responding to the questions and criticisms, the developer did not fundamentally review the problem of how to protect the vulnerable and unique system of surface water and groundwater which characterises the Burren, but instead chose to add a sequence of "technological fixes" to the original plant design. These would possibly achieve a higher standard of final effluent, but at the cost of making the treatment process unduly complex, liable to failure, and difficult to operate to the required standard.
A licence to discharge trade effluent was granted by Clare County Council on 18 March 1993 (Reference WP 81); it was appealed to On Bord Pleanála by An Taisce and another appellant, and the Board refused the appeal on 11 August 1993. Many of the conditions attached by Clare County Council to the licence granted on 18 March 1993 would appear to be no longer relevant in view of the significant alterations and material changes in the proposed development, and therefore the planned Visitor Entry Point Shelter will require g new effluent discharge licence. In our view, Clare County Council should require the Commissioners to submit immediately a new application for a trade effluent discharge so that it may be considered in parallel with the planning application. This is particularly relevant since the proposed development will not require an Integrated Pollution Control Licence from the EPA under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992.
In passing, it should be noted that the changes made to the design of the proposed wastewater treatment system during 1992 and 1993 resulted in the system for which the licence was granted being very different from that described in the EIS and the initial planning application.
In the current application, it is intended that effluent from the proposed Visitor Entry Point Shelter will be treated by a Biocycle unit and transported to an off-site effluent treatment plant for disposal. The Biocycle-treated effluent will be collected in a 15 cubic metre tank which will be emptied at intervals varying from monthly in the off-season to twice every three weeks during the peak visitor period of July and August (letter of 10 October 1996 from the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to Clare County Council). The Biocycle effluent will be taken by road tanker to a local authority sewage treatment plant, provided that a plant can be found with sufficient capacity.
In a letter to the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht dated 18 October 1996, the Sanitary Services Department of Clare County Council responded that only the Clarecastle Treatment Plant may have the capacity to accept the effluent from the proposed Visitor Entry Point Shelter. Other sewage treatment plants did not have sufficient capacity to deal with the volume of effluent, and even in the case of the Clarecastle Plant, further investigations would be necessary before the County Council could agree to accept the effluent. If, for any reason, the effluent could not appropriately disposed of, this would have serious public health implications which the County Council should address.
In our view, these important matters should be clarified before the planning application is considered further, and the applicant should be required to show that a sufficient amount of sewage treatment capacity is available by formal agreement or contract to deal with the effluent under all circumstances including peak visitor periods. Such a pre-condition is normal in the case of private developments involving intensive animal production, the applicant being required to demonstrate that he has entered into formal agreements with landowners holding a sufficient acreage on which to dispose of the effluent by landspreading in accordance with regulations end guidelines.
The proposed 15 cubic metre collection tank referred to in the correspondence is inadequately described, and there appears to be a conflict between this proposed tank and a statement in the Gortlecka Environmental Background Document No. 1 (RPS Cairns, October 1996, Section 8.3, page 23; and figure TF1 on page 24) that four tanks (selected from the original nine tanks comprising the Biocycle system) with a total capacity of 39.2 cubic metres would be utilised for storage of the treated effluent. These tanks would provide only 6.3 days storage capacity at peak design flow of 6.27 cubic metres per day, and would require emptying more frequently than suggested in the letter of 10 October 1996 from the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to Clare County Council. Clearly, these inconsistencies should be clarified before the application is further considered.
Furthermore, when treated sewage effluent is stored in a closed tank for any period of time (even as short as 6 - 7 days), anoxic conditions may develop, leading to the production of anaerobic decomposition products and offensive odours. This possibility does not appear to have been addressed by the applicant.
The Gortlecka Environmental Background Document No. 1 (RPS Cairns, October 1996, Section 8.3, page 25) states that "the Biocycle treatment plant will require continuous management to ensure its efficient operation". There is no indication of how this "continuous management" could be achieved, especially in the context of seasonal operation in a relatively remote area. The planning authority should therefore request the applicant to provide details of how such management would be carried out and assured, bearing in mind especially the need to observe the precautionary principle in such a sensitive location.
Dependence on a road tanker to remove the treated effluent for final disposal also creates a further road traffic impact, and carries the risk that the tanker may not be available when needed. The trade effluent discharge licence issued on 18 March 1993 required the licensee to ensure that an adequate supply of spare parts was always on hand to maintain un-interrupted operation, but this requirement does not apply to the road transport element of the total treatment and disposal system. A new trade effluent discharge licence should therefore be required, as already suggested earlier in this section.
The Gortlecka Environmental Background Document No. 1 (RPS Cairns, October 1996, Paragraph 2.5.13, page 6) states that one large plastic bag of paper wastes would be generated per day during peak visitor periods. The size of the bag or estimated weight of the contents are not given, nor is there any indication of how the likely amount of solid wastes has been estimated. Furthermore, wastes other than paper are likely to accumulate in and around the proposed Entry Point; and such wastes would be likely to include food wastes (from picnickers), used disposable infant nappies, drink cans and bottles, and a variety of containers. The proposal that these accumulated wastes should be stored in a basement pending removal by a contractor is unsatisfactory.
Construction wastes will also be produced during the building of the Entry Point ((RPS Cairns, October 1996, Paragraph 2.5.7, page 5), and the stated intention is that these wastes will be "disposed of to the local landfill". In such a case, the applicant should have confirmed by a written agreement with the appropriate sanitary authority that these construction wastes can be accepted in its landfill.
It is understood that picnic facilities would be provided at the Entry Point, and that visitors would be encouraged to take their own litter way with them. Unfortunately, not all picnickers will do so, and litter will be produced which could have damaging impacts in this sensitive area.
The proposed development will generate significant additional traffic on a narrow network of county roads which unsuitable and cannot be upgraded without seriously damaging their environmental quality. Nevertheless, it appears some further road widening and/or realignment is already under consideration by the applicant and the road authority (RPS Cairns, October 1996, Section 2.3), and this will have to take place at an early stage in order to facilitate construction traffic (Section 9.3).
The suggestion that Clare County Council will review "any further improvements necessary" is unacceptable since such a review would take place outside of the public domain, thus preventing any effective third party comment. The applicant should therefore be requested to state at this stage which sections (if any) of the access roads (County Roads 102 and 103) would need further improvement, and in particular how many passing bays will be needed on the road from Kilnaboy, in the event of the proposed Entry Point being permitted. The condition of the existing roads, and details of roadside vegetation, should also be should be provided on maps at a scale of 1:1000 to facilitate public comment.
The Gortlecka Environmental Background Document No. 1 (RPS Cairns, October 1996, Paragraphs 9.2.3 and 9.2.4, pages 27 and 28) does not indicate any parking spaces for touring buses, and states that visitors will be encouraged to use cars and mini-buses. However, no public transport from local population centres is envisaged, and there appears to be no way in which buses can be prevented from using the public roads and parking on the roadside verges within the National Park. The contrast between the number of car parking spaces proposed (72) and that for bicycles (not given; Section 9.2.4), together with the lack of any specific consideration for visitors arriving on foot, suggests that the applicant is of the view that the vast majority of visitors to the Entry Point would arrive by private car.
This primary emphasis on making provision for visitors arriving by private car should be compared with policy in the Tourism Strategy Plan for the Burren which recommends a shift from visitors arriving by bus (coach) and car to walkers, cyclists and guided mini-bus tours, and which discourages the construction of large car-parks at heritage sites as a means of reducing pressure and visitor concentration (Recommendation 18, page 37).
The Gortlecka Environmental Background Document (RPS Cairns, October 1996) contains in Section 6.2 a visual impact assessment of the proposed Visitor Entry Point. The report recognises the Burren as a region of high landscape and environmental value, within which any development must be subject to the strictest design criteria to minimise visual impact, especially where such development is not indigenous to the area. Potential causes of visual impact include:
The report describes a number of ameliorative measures designed to reduce adverse visual impact, while noting that visual intrusion from parked and moving vehicles within the car park and along adjacent roads would be inevitable.
Of considerable significance however is the absence in the report of any visual analysis, site lines or photomontages showing the proposed development from an appropriate selection of viewpoints, including the view from the slopes of Mullaghmore. Without such an analysis it is not possible to determine to any degree of realism or accuracy the visual impact of the proposed development or the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
The applicant should therefore be requested to provide sighting poles at the location of each of the elements for which permission is being sought, to the height of each proposed structure, so as to assist the planning authority to determine the visual impact of the application. The applicant should also be requested to supply 35 millimetre photographs of the siting poles from specific locations such as the highest point of the road above Lough Gealáin and Knockaunroe Turlough on County Road 103, and the highest point on County Road 102 as well as from the summits of Glasgeivnagh Hill and Mullaghmore mountain.
In Section 2.3.11 of the County Plan (page 35), reference is made to the fact that the Council adopted a report on the Burren from the County Development Team in 1986. This report did not recommend the provision of facilities at Mullaghmore or Gortlecka as is proposed by the applicant.
An important document, entitled Tourism in the Burren: A Strategic Plan, commissioned by the County Council and other official bodies including the applicant, was published in 1994 in draft form after the adoption of the current County Plan. It is significant that the first reference in this document to a Visitor / Interpretative / Entry Point Centre such as that proposed by the applicant appears in recommendation number 35 on page 50 (See also Draft Action Plan on page 18).
Since all the recommendations in the Tourism Strategy Plan require the adoption of the Management Plan for the Burren, this application is premature pending the completion of such a Plan. The emphasis in the draft Tourism Strategy Plan is on making the best use of existing resources and facilities, together with a "soft" approach to interpretation. The applicant should be requested to explain how the proposed Visitor Entry Point to the National Park can be integrated with existing facilities as required by the Tourism Strategy Plan. The applicant should also be requested to explain how the proposed Visitor Entry Point can be related to the core concept of Environmental Tourism which is defined on page 19 of the draft Tourism Strategy Plan:
"...The central focus in attracting people to visit is thus the highly valued natural and man-made environment of the Burren itself, together with small-scale and community based local tourism products. This focus will be reinforced through the establishment of a high conservation status for the area".
Brady Shipman Martin were also retained by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to report on strategies for the National Park in the context of the North Clare area. They produced four draft reports which were published by the Minister in February 1996; the area covered by these reports is effectively the same as the spatial area of the 1994 Tourism Strategy Plan. Due to the significant expressed support for the conceptual approach in the Tourism Strategy Plan (1994), the 1996 Burren National Park reports developed these concepts further rather than departing significantly from them (see Section 2.12 on page 3 of the draft Burren National Park Study: Draft Executive Summary --- hereinafter referred to as the Draft Executive Summary).
Section 2.22 of the Draft Executive Summary presents the following vision for the area in terms of visitors and interpretation:
"Presentation and interpretation of the natural environment, and of the National Park, should be integrated with other aspects of the North Clare story through a combination of methods that include existing visitor centres and a series of small facilities, co-located with other attractions and services. Kilfenora, Corofin and Ballyvaughan have been identified as the best locations in terms of their position on the road network, and are also well located in relation to the areas of particular interest to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The development of centres at these locations will require significant funding from a number of agencies, amongst which the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht would have an important role."
The applicant should be asked what are its intentions in the context of the above recommendation that the three population centres of Kilfenora, Corofin and Ballyvaughan should be developed as the major interpretative centres for the Burren area. This query is particularly relevant since this planning application appears to be made in isolation from any other proposals the OPW may have for the these three centres of population, and the OPW and the NPWS are no longer within the same Government Department (the NPWS is now under the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht).
The draft Burren National Park reports published in February 1996 include a draft Park Management Plan containing five basic objectives for the National Park . These are summarised in Section 3.5 of the Draft Executive Summary (Page 7). The applicant should be asked to explain how the current proposal relates to these objectives as follows:
The applicant should also be requested to demonstrate:
The Gortlecka Environmental Background Document No. 1 (RPS Cairns, October 1996, Paragraphs 9.2.2, page 27) gives a conservative estimate of the numbers of visitors as 35,000 per annum, based on OPW and Bord Failte experience. In view of the significant impact which would be caused by such numbers of visitors converging on a single site, the planning authority should request a report from the applicant describing the precise basis on which the above estimate was made. It should be noted that none of the other National Perks in Ireland which have visitor facilities received less than 70,000 visitors in 1995.
In the absence of public transport to the proposed Entry Point building, the applicant should also be asked to reveal the basis for providing 72 car spaces in the context of the visitor numbers referred to above, and to identify the "peak visitor days" envisaged for the proposed facility.
The report by Brady Shipman Martin entitled "Tourism in the Burren: A Strategic Plan" states that "the Strategy for the Burren seeks a truly integrated approach, so that individual capital projects and development programmes contribute to an overall plan for the conservation of an internationally important area, and for sustainable economic and social development of the local community". The report highlights the need for "sustainable tourism" which is defined as tourism which "aims to meet the needs and aspirations of the host area and its people, holiday-makers and operators alike, in a way which respects them all and those who will follow on".
This definition has clearly been derived from the well-known definition of sustainable development produced by the Brundtland Commission, i.e., "development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Unfortunately, the Brundtland definition is open to a wide range of interpretations and does not adequately recognise the intrinsic right of the environment and its living creatures to their own existence, independently of any service they may provide to humankind, i.e., it is far too anthropocentric.
We therefore prefer the definition of "sustainable development" given in "Caring for the Earth: a Strategy for Sustainable Living", IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991) as "improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the Earth's supporting eco-systems". Under this more meaningful and ecologically appropriate definition, sustainable tourism must take into account the carrying capacity and vulnerability of the natural environment. In such an internationally important area as the Burren, this objective of maintaining tourist numbers and impacts at an environmentally acceptable level must be the primary aim of a sustainable development policy. This policy would also be consistent with the priority objectives of the Burren National Park, the draft management plan for which states that the objective of nature conservation must take "precedence over the other objectives, should any conflict arise" (Burren National Park Study, Draft Executive Summary, paragraph 3.5, page 7).
It is not clear from the information supplied how the proposed Visitor Entry Point will contribute to sustainable tourism development while at the same time ensuring that the capacity of the Mullaghmore area to absorb visitor numbers is not overwhelmed by the increase which will result from the construction of the Entry Point. On the converse, it appears that the proposed Entry Point could lead to unsustainable numbers of visitors being attracted to it. However, neither of these issues can be resolved until the capacities of the Mullaghmore area and the Burren as a whole to absorb visitors without environmental damage have been determined.
On behalf of the Burren Action Group we would urge Clare County Council to refuse planning permission to the Commissioners of Public Works for the proposed Visitor Entry Point at Craig Road, Gortlecka, for reasons including:
6 December 1996
Page 2 - Section 2.1
Note: Park Management Plan is still only at Draft stage therefore this proposal is premature pending finalisation of the Park Management Plan.
2.2 Note "the car park is in place" - it should be made clear at the outset that any existing development on the site is unauthorised due to the Supreme Court judgement in Howard and others -v- Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland?
2.1 Does the applicant intend to lodge any planning applications for any further visitor facilities for the Burren National Park and if so at what locations will these facilities be provided? What scale of visitor numbers would any other facilities be designed to cater for?
2.2. Would the applicant please comment on the contradictions between "The Service Yard will be reinstated" in the text on page 3 and Fig. 3, Document 2 by RPS "Service Yard area to be retained".
2.3. Access Road
Why has the applicant not determined which sections of the access roads (County Roads 102 and 103) will need further improvement?
2.4. Trails
Which "natural materials of local origin" will be used to surface the two proposed nature trails, and where will these trails be laid ?
2.5.3. Topsoil/Overburden
From where is it intended to source the 1,000 cubic metres of topsoil that the applicant would require for the proposed Visitor Entry Point?
2.5.7. Construction Traffic
Does the applicant have the written agreement of the local sanitary authority to accept any "waste construction materials" in its landfill?
2.5.8. Electrical Services
Does the applicant have contracts with the service providers for such facilities in the event of a grant of planning permission for this proposal?
3.1. Which previous studies (title, author, page reference and date of publication needed) are referred to in the first sentence and have they been lodged with the planning authority as part of this application? If they have not been lodged they cannot be considered in the context of this application.
The page from which the extensive quotation is made on page 7 should be supplied by the applicant.
3.1. In the context of the paragraph regarding access to the National Park which areas for conservation purposes will not be accessible to the public?
4.1. Regarding the survey referred to in this paragraph is it intended to provide a copy of this survey or surveys to the planning authority so that it can be considered in the context of making a decision on this application?
4.2. Why has a complete list of the species referred to not been supplied by the applicant? The planning authority should request a full list of such species to enable it to decide on the impact of the nature and extent of the proposed development.
4.3. Why has the applicant not supplied a complete list of the distribution of vegetation types around the "main car park"? The planning authority should request a full list of such species in addition to those requested in question 4.2 above.
4.4. In terms of its "reinstatement" - what species would the applicant intend to plant at this location and from where would these species be sourced?
4.5. Same question as 4.4. above.
4.6. Same question as 4.3 above.
4.7. Which "previous ecological surveys on the road" are referred to here? The applicant should be asked to provide this documentation to enable the planning authority to consider whether or not it should grant permission for these works.
4.8. What proportion of the vegetation that has recolonised the banks in percentage terms is native to the Burren? The applicant should be required to provide a detailed map of "the works indicating the precise area and extent of recolonisation by calcareous species native to the Burren? Regarding proposal No. 2 - which banks are intended by the applicant to be maintained as "species rich grassland"? The applicant should be asked to supply a map of same at a scale of 1:100. Regarding proposal no. 3, have these suggestions been accepted by the applicant and if so how does the applicant intend to implement them and over what precise period of time?
5.1. Has the applicant supplied the "4 archaeological constraint maps" for consideration by the planning authority? If not the planning authority should request these maps to enable it to determine this application.
5.2. Who is the applicant relying on in terms of field walking to determine that there are no insignificant archaeological remains at the proposed entry point?
5.2.1. In what locations are the "sheepfolds as representing typical features of the Burren landscape" being recommended for preservation?
5.2.1. The applicant should be requested to undertake a geotechnical survey of the site (0.7 hectares) where it is proposed to retain or create new structures so as to assist the planning authority to determine whether there are any archaeological features of this area which may require preservation. The applicant should be requested to provide a report on the archaeological significance of the site area.
5.2.3. The provision of any services within the application site requires permission therefore the planning authority should request a report from the National Monuments section of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to assist it in determining whether any such services should be permitted at this location.
6.1. The applicant should be requested to provide siting poles at the location of each of the elements where permission is being sought to the height of each proposed structure to assist the planning authority to determine the visual impact of the application.
The applicant should be requested to supply 35 millimetre photographs using a standard lens of the siting poles from specific locations such as the highest point of the road above Lough Gealain and Knockaunroe Turlough on County Road 103 and the highest point on County Road 102 as well as from the summits of Glasgeivnagh Hill and Mullaghmore mountain.
6.2. The applicant should be asked to supply a copy of the "comprehensive survey information end detailed design proposals which were made available and utilised in assessing the impact of the development" on page 11 of RPS Cairns Document 1 to enable the planning authority to determine the visual impact of this proposal. Which sections of the road leading to the entry point from Kilnaboy is it intended "to widen and straighten for safety reasons" and what documentary justification has the applicant provided for these proposed works?
6.3.2. How does the applicant explain the difference between the statement on page 18 re "Entry point Building" with some walls extending slightly above existing ground level and the picture in Figure 8 in RPS Document 2 which shows the walls are clearly visible above ground level.
6.3.2 "Road Widening".
Where precisely does the applicant intend to create "new boundary walls"?. The applicant should be required to provide a map of the proposed additional boundary walls to a scale of 1:100 in order to assist the planning authority in determining this application.
6.3.3. Why has the applicant not provided documentation as to whether or not the Fire Authority consider the reservoir as necessary in the context of this application. The planning authority should request a report from the Chief Fire Officer for this area as to what fire prevention requirements are necessary in the context of the applicant's proposal.
6.3.4. The applicant should be asked to indicate on a map of scale 1:100 the "two locations along Crag Road, opposite the entrance to the car park looking east, and opposite the entrance to the car park looking west, where due to a slight rise in the road level, narrow views are possible into the mini-bus park in the hollow." (page 20). The applicant should also be requested to supply 35 mm colour photos using a standard lens to illustrate the views from these locations to assist the planning authority in determining the visual impact of this proposal.
6.3.4. In view of the applicants final statement regarding future movement of traffic within the car park and since the applicant is seeking retention of unauthorised development -the applicant should be requested to provide photographic documentation of traffic including buses accessing the car park as well as a full car park to assist the planning authority in determining whether it should permit the retention of such a facility in the context of the proper planning and development of this location.
7.1. Reference is made here to two reports the applicant commissioned from Dr. David Drew in 1995 and 1996. The planning authority should request the applicant to supply copies of this documentation so that it can determine for itself the significance of the information referred to in Sections 7.1. to 7.2. inclusive and to assist it in determining the water quality impacts of this proposal.
7.1. Where is it proposed "to effect chlorinating of the water supply" by the applicant? The applicant should be requested to provide a report indicating what impact chlorination could have in the event of any chlorinated water reaching Lough Gealain and Knockaunroe Turlough, particularly on any species of flora or fauna which are protected under the 1976 Wildlife Act, and what specific measures are required to prevent these water bodies which are so significant from a conservation perspective receiving chlorinated water.
7.3.(1). What is the known geographical extent of the aquifer and recharge areas referred to here?
7.3.(2) The planning authority should request the applicant to provide "the existing baseline database consisting of over 7,000 individual analysis results from 20 sites (spanning the period January 1992 to July 1996" to assist it in determining the impact of the proposal. The planning authority should request the applicant to supply a groundwater protection plan for the area within the site of this application to assist it in determining this application.
7.3.(5) The planning authority should request the applicant to identify the "alternative sources of water supply" to "be explored as contingency measures" and should request the applicant to supply a report from a professional hydrogeologist indicating the impact of their utilisation as a contingency measure particularly in the context of preserving the water bodies of Lough Gealain and Knockaunroe Turlough for conservation purposes as part of the Burren National Park.
Section 8 Waste
In view of the correspondence of 10th October 1996 from Mr. Sean O'Cofaigh of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the reply by G. Corbett A.S.O. of the Sanitary Services Section of Clare Council on 18th October 1996, how and where does the applicant intend to effect "The disposal of this waste water is to be agreed with Clare County Council"? The planning authority should request the applicant to provide an indication of how the applicant would envisage in detail the provision of "continuous management to ensure its efficient operation" to enable it to determine if this is possible at this location bearing in mind the need to observe the precautionary principle in relation to proper waste management.
9.2.2. Visitor Numbers
The planning authority should request a report from the applicant as to how precisely they computed the figure of 25,000 visitors per annum considering that none of the National Parks which have visitor facilities received less than 70,000 visitors in 1995.
The planning authority should request the applicant as to how the visitor numbers stated in 9.2.2 particularly for peak hours can be reconciled with "the revised design load" stated in 8.2 on page 23 and what implications this has for sewage treatment.
9.2.3. In the absence of public transport to the proposed entry point building the applicant should be asked what is the basis for providing 72 car spaces in the context of the visitor numbers referred to in 9.2.2.
9.2.4 The applicant should be requested to provide a precise number of bicycle parking spaces to enable the planning authority to determine this issue.
9.2.5. The applicant should be requested to provide a map of the proposal to "set back over a distance of 3,500 metres" of dry stone walling on a scale of 1:100 to enable an assessment of the impact of this element of the proposal.
9.3.(1) The applicant should be requested to identify the "peak visitor days" envisaged for the proposed facility.
9.3.(2) The applicant should be requested to state the number of car parking spaces that would be considered necessary to service the "holy well and cross".
9.3.(3) Where does the applicant consider it would be desirable to provide passing bays and this information should be supplied on a map of 1:1000 to enable an assessment to be made of this element of the proposal.
9.3.(6) The applicant should be asked how this proposal can be reconciled with its status as a public road accessible to all.