Greystones Harbour funding

[The Accountant]

[size=7]DEPOSITION OF RETIRED GARDA SEAMUS FALLON REGARDING THE OLD DUMP AT GREYSTONES HARBOUR[/size]

While serving in the Garda Siochana I was stationed at Greystones between 1967 and 1984. The nature of my work caused me to pay regular visits to the town dump which was located at the North Beach on the site which forms part of the development proposal of Sispar and Wicklow County Council.

The purpose of my visits included:
• Searching for lost property
• Searching for stolen property
• Engaging in regular patrols of all parts of the town as part of my duties.

As a result when visiting the dump I often had cause to examine its contents closely. I can confirm that the dump contained large quantities of domestic refuse of all kinds as well as a considerable quantity of commercial refuse. Included among these would be:
• Car batteries
• Dry cell batteries
• Whole cars (From which oil on occasion leaked)
• Garden waste
• Food, cooked and uncooked
• Household chemicals (bleach, polish, cleaning agents)
• Bulbs
• Cosmetics (Shampoo, hair cream, soaps, sun cream)
• Shoe polish
• Broken electrical equipment (radios, TV’s tools)
• Kitchen appliances (Fridges, cookers, vaccum cleaners)
• Old toys

Among the commercial refuse deposited there was.
• Paints
• Oil cans
• Pharmacy products

In addition I recall observing various containers, (boxes, cans, drums) whose contents I did not investigate but which were unlikely to have contained domestic waste and were more likely to have contained commercial waste.

I believe that all of the above items were to be found in substantial quantities. There were no restrictions, that I am aware of, on the material that could be deposited in the dump. Much of the material was deposited by the employees of Wicklow County Council however private individuals and local businesses also had access to the dump to deposit waste. I frequently visited the dump to find the gate open and no one checking the entry of vehicles. It was common practice for locals when servicing their cars to drive to the dump and drain the oil into the ground as well as disposing of engine parts being replaced.

Indeed there was no awareness in those times that certain waste ought not to be disposed of in a landfill of this kind. It was generally perceived that it was a disposal site available to all for all kinds of waste.


[size=7]Seamus Fallon
Retried Garda[/size]

[Lennon]

[size=7]The Dump at Greystones Harbour and North Beach - Observations on various documentation[/size]

• The information provided in the EIS in regarding the old dump was very sparse and limited. A detailed geo-environmental appraisal of the existing landfill referred to on page 237 was omitted from the EIS and not made available for public inspection.

• At the oral hearing in March 2006 the brief of evidence of Sean Mason (Arup Consulting Engineers stated in section 5 “Soils and Geology” that “the landfill ceased operations in the early 1980’s”. A report consisting of an investigation and assessment of the old town dump issued by Arup to Sispar dated September 2005 was referred to at the oral hearing by Sean Mason. This report was not made available to the public for inspection.

• The information provided to the EPA on 11/9/06 in the Environmental Engineering Assessment of Existing Landfill report “EEAEL” was misleading and incorrect in a number of areas:

1. The claim made that the dump was closed in 1976 – the EIS stated consistently that filling into the old-landfill ceased in the early 1980s.

2. It claimed that the dump contains only “domestic waste” while admitting that it had no details in the files on the composition of the waste that was deposited in the dump.

3. It claimed that the dump is ‘generally inert’ even though the EEAEL report the revealed that it contains quite significant concentrations of both heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which exceeded Dutch “Intervention” values.

4. The proposed engineering approaches included materially inaccurate information regarding truck movements.

5. Their preferred option 1 did not mention that 9000m3 of material was to be relocated from the southern end of the dump to the northern end in order to facilitate the building of houses.

6. This option also failed to mention that the proposal effectively involves moving the dump northwards onto uncontaminated land. A view of the development layout provided to the Board which shows the extension of the dump was not provided to the EPA. This option also places the dump into an area more at risk from erosion.

7. The proposed engineering approach did not include any details as to how the dump is to be protected from erosion into the sea.

• The information provided to the An Bord Pleanala on 25/10/06 was materially incomplete and misleading as follows:

1. Environmental Engineering Assessment of Existing Landfill report was omitted from the additional information provided to the Board and was as a result not made available to the public for inspection.

2. The GPDA eventually obtained a copy of the EEAEL report on 13th January 2007 following requests to the EPA and Wicklow County Council.

3. No details were provided of the elevated heavy metal and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons concentrations.

4. No mention was made that Dutch soil remediation guidelines were exceeded in samples from the dump.

5. No reference was made to the need for gas protection measures to prevent lateral migration for houses within 50m of the landfill.

6. Confusing and irrelevant reference was made to “the Proximity Principle”.

7. No mention was made of the Precautionary Principle which is a key principle on which current waste management legislation is based.

• Dr Jonathan Derham (EPA) letter (12 September 2006) was
used by Wicklow County Council/Sispar in their publicity materials and in the submission to An Bord Pleanála as vindication that the their proposal for dealing with the old dump has received a “seal of approval” from the EPA.

• Jack O’Sullivan (Environmental Management Services) letter (19th January 2007) to the EPA on behalf of the GPDA raised very serious concerns such as:

1. The misleading assumptions made regarding the contents of the dump

2. The failure to consider the possible sources of contaminated materials identified in the dump.

3. The sudden change in the date the dump ceased operating from the mid 1980’s in the EIS to 1976 in the latest information.

4. The fact that the dump was unregulated, uncontrolled and largely unmanned when in operation.

5. The incorrect conclusions in the Arup report concerning whether the dump was chemically inert. Evidence of serious contamination was ignored.

6. Shortcomings in the dump testing procedures.

7. Risks of environmental contamination arising from the mobilisation of contaminants under the developers preferred option.

8. Risks of ground water contamination in breach of EU Directive 80/68/EEC

9. Conflict with European Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC

10. Jack O’Sullivan recommended:

• Leave the undisturbed land-filled wastes in place. Any wastes which had to be removed (for genuine reasons) should be exported from the site

• Requested the EPA to re -consider its previous conclusion and to recommend that disturbance of the old land-filled wastes should be minimised, that undisturbed land-filled wastes should be left in place, and that any wastes which had to be removed should be exported from the site.

• Determining the amount of waste to be removed from the site should be based on the need to protect the landfilled material from coastal erosion exacerbated by rising sea levels, and not by the developer’s desire to maximise the extent of residential development on the lands available.

• A more appropriate solution and a Better Practical Environmental Option would be to recommend removal from the site of all the deposited wastes by seaborne transport (as suggested by An Bord Pleanála), or to leave the deposited wastes in place, undisturbed, with adequate protection from accelerated coastal erosion caused by rising sea levels.

• The second course of action should be considered only after a detailed study had been carried out to show that this option of leaving the buried wastes in situ was practicable and safe, and would prevent any continuing or further pollution of soil or groundwater

• Dr Jonathan Derham (EPA) letter (2 February 2007) in response to the letter from Jack O’Sullivan appears to repudiate any reliance the developer is attempting to place on his letter of 12th September 2006 and states that:

1. Their determination was premised on the following caveat:-
“The pollution risks associated with the fill are negligible in the context of the solution proposed.”

2. Under the development principle “the burden to ‘prove’ the caveat noted above rests with the independent consultants for the developer and An Bord Pleanala.”

3. Any concerns Jack O’Sullivan may have in relation to the technical assessment reports “should be addressed to An Bord Pleanala.”

4. “If the developer’s proposal fails to guarantee compliance with the cited caveat, then the replacing of the waste could be considered a non-recovery activity and be classed as landfilling – requiring an EPA licence.”

5. “If the Greystones site was proven to be actively accepting waste for disposal after July 1977, then it would fall into the category of site that will be subject to the retrospective assessment and authorization legislation whenever it is introduced.”

6. “If the Greystones landfill was a ’77-97’ facility, then the proposed legal remedy being considered by the State will apply regardless of the waste relocation and remedial strategy currently being advanced by the Greystones developers.”

[size=7]Conclusions[/size]

• The developer provided inaccurate and incomplete to the EPA in their letter of 11th September 2006 in an apparent attempt to obtain a favourable determination on their proposed solution for the old dump.

• In particular they misinformed the EPA regarding when the dump ceased to be operational in an apparent attempt to avoid the requirement of having to obtain a retrospective licence.

• The request made by An Bord Pleanala to remove the dump was ignored on the basis of the letter dated 12th September 2006 from the EPA.

• The EPA has subsequently effectively disclaimed any reliance that the developer had placed on their letter of 12th September 2006

• The detailed results of tests carried out on the dump were omitted from the EIS and again from the additional information provided to the Board.

• The significant contamination revealed by the tests carried out on the dump were incorrectly summarised by the consultants acting for the developer as being “chemically inert with a few minor exceptions”.

• The preferred option of the developer was motivated by their desire to maximize the number of residential dwellings in their development and minimise their cost rather than for environmental considerations.

• The old dump at Greystones should be removed fully removed in accordance with the EPA Code of Practice by seaborne transport (recommended by An Bord Pleanala) because it:

• there is a risk of environmental contamination arising from the mobilisation of contaminants dumped in the landfill

• is not engineered to modern standards;

• is located on an eroding coastline;

• lies next to a Candidate Special Area of Conservation and on lands proximate to existing or planned residential development.

[Spurdog]

Eh, Lennon, Could you repeat the bit about the dump again, please?

[birthday]

bump!
Has anyone any information on how the harbour is going?

[carlowman]

bump!
Has anyone any information on how the harbour is going?

Why don't you contact an elected Wicklow Co Councillor from the area?...I doubt you'll get any answers via the above route

[Lennon]

bump!
Has anyone any information on how the harbour is going?

THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SISPAR has refused the demands of the Greystones community to open the harbour to the public for the summer and to take down the ugly hoardings which have blighted the area for 43 months now.

Sispar, in a statement at a liaison meeting on Tuesday 5 July which it repeated in a letter to GUBOH, has refused to open the harbour before mid-September at the earliest.

The company also insists that the longest stretch of hoardings, from its site office at the harbour past Sweeney's Cafe and on up to the club compounds, will have to stay up for at least another 14 or 15 months until late 2012.

The company gave as its reason for retaining the hoardings the possibility that it will start constructing a 3,000 sq metre commercial block just opposite these club compounds, perhaps from mid-September.

If alternative loan funding for this part of the project can be arranged, the block will include what is described as a Primary Care health centre, HSE offices, 11 apartments, retail space, and other office space.

What GUBOH had sought from Sispar was:
1. That the company open up the south end of the harbour for the summer; at latest by 1 August.
2. All the hoardings to be taken down pending the start of any further phase of construction.
3. A commitment from Sispar to remedy the desolate site so as to make Greystones a visitor magnet again and give a lift to the local economy.

What Sispar has committed to is:
1. Extremely limited opening of the south harbour area two weeks or more after summer is over.
2. Extremely small public space within this open area.
3. Removal of a small stretch of hoardings, with most remaining.

This does nothing for our kids this summer, it does nothing for the people who will have to put up with ugly hoardings in front of their houses for another 14 months minimum, and it does nothing to restore the tourism potential of the immediate area or lift the local economy, beyond creating a number of temporary jobs on the construction site.

Of course, all this is far more than was on offer before GUBOH came on the scene.

At the Town Council meeting on 31 May, Sispar made it clear that its sole plan was to remove about 70 metres of hoarding from the Cliff Road and replace them with stainless steel railings, so that the community and visitors could have view of the building site rather than of ugly grey hoardings.

So there has been progress, but it amounts to table scraps and it has been achieved in a process akin to pulling teeth. The community has given this company a prime asset free, gratis and for nothing — 37 acres of land to build on. What the community has been given in return is not a willingness to cater to its concerns, but complete unwillingness to engage with it on the key issues of the timing of reopening the harbour and the removal of all hoardings.

The public is to be barred from enjoying this traditional amenity for the fourth summer in a row, and the residents and businesses in the area are expected to endure the blight of the hoardings for another 14 months to a year and a half.

In addition, while Sispar has said it will discuss further work on the huge area of the site north of the public slipway, it has not committed to or begun any work to restore the beauty of the area by landscaping the future public park or the residential area which will not be built on for years, nor to providing quality pathways from the Cliff Walk to the harbour area.

Instead, tourists and visitors, as well as locals, will continue to be repelled by the ugly appearance of a ghost building site and Guantanamo Bay-style compound which greets them at present, not to mention the 'Turd Walk' between the fences and the interesting decorative plastic bags attached to them.

GUBOH understands that Mayor Tom Fortune has written to Sispar to say that while some of their proposals are acceptable and the news of possible progress on the commercial block is welcome, their failure to provide public access for the summer is not and he expects them to improve both on the timing of the re-opening of the harbour and on the extent of the very limited public areas which they have proposed to date.

GUBOH supports the Mayor in this. We ask all our supporters to email the rest of the Town Councillors requesting them to support the Mayor's position and force Sispar to act now to fulfill the desires of the community

[ShoutingIsLeadership]

Plain sailing for 'Nama developer' Cotter in Caribbean as marina lies in limbo back home - National News - Independent.ie



This country is a sick joke

[Burnout]

Plain sailing for 'Nama developer' Cotter in Caribbean as marina lies in limbo back home - National News - Independent.ie



This country is a sick joke

I was just reading that, How much do we take? So sickening.