Greystones traffic measures defended

Access to the new marina, shopping and residential areas of the proposed Greystones harbour development emerged as among the most contentious issues of the €300 million scheme at a Bord Pleanála hearing yesterday.

A submission from local residents also questioned the location and health implications of a precast concrete manufacturing plant which will be built on-site during construction of the new harbour, 375 new homes, marina and other facilities.

Addressing transport and access issues, Owen Shinkwin, a representative of the Dublin Transportation Office, said they had concerns about the safety of "vulnerable road users" such as cyclists and pedestrians.

The scheme's backers, the Sispar consortium, involving Wicklow County Council, John Sisk and Park Developments, have said the construction traffic will include 30 lorries an hour during peak times.

Mr Shinkwin referred to a narrow railway bridge located at a bend near the site entrance, which had been identified as the preferred route for construction traffic. The lorries would pose a threat to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists, he said.

Responding, Donal McDaid, of Arup consulting engineers, said road improvements were planned at the bridge. These would increase the width of the footpath and would include a barrier between the footpath and the road. Mr McDaid said a cycleway would be created on a shared footpath with the road, a system which had worked elsewhere.

On access for vehicles to the development, Mr McDaid said modelling had shown that the extra traffic, public transport and private cars could be accommodated at a junction in front of the Beach House pub.

He also said junctions at Church Road/New Road and Rathdown Road could take the increased traffic, particularly as, when the development was complete, traffic would migrate towards employment zones at Charlesland, at the other end of Greystones.

However, hecklers in the audience maintained there was no employment or likelihood of it at Charlesland. At this point, Dermot Flannagan SC, for the developers, asked planning inspector James Carroll to intervene to ask members of the audience to refrain from laughing. "It is tiresome and extremely disrespectful and I do object on behalf of my client," he said.

Mr McDaid concluded that the road network was able to handle the anticipated traffic. "It is a level of service issue, not a capacity issue" he said.

Dr Nessa Roche of the Department of the Environment took issue with the height of a proposed four-storey block at the entrance to the development facing the Beach House pub and Bayswater Terrace. While contrasting architectural styles were acceptable she felt the building was too close to the existing Victorian styles in the area.

However, she was told by architect Michael Hussey, for the developers, that the distances had been carefully calculated to link the new development to the old around an access square.

Eilis O'Driscoll, of the Mount Haven Residents' Association, said it was proposed to locate a precast concrete manufacturing plant on-site, immediately to the rear of the houses in her estate. She said there had been serious health warnings about the dust from such a plant and she felt the developers had not investigated this fully.