Wexford village remains divided over walking trail amid allegations of ‘unjustified online attacks and character assassination’

By Simon Bourke, Wexford People

The national planning authority has ruled that a walking trail in Kilmore Quay, Co Wexford should not be constructed due to its potential impact on the environment and, in particular, to native species like the otter.

In a case which has divided the local community and led to allegations of online abuse and name-calling, An Coimisiún Pleanála (ACP) has ruled in favour of the some 58 local residents who signed a 67-page document objecting to the development of the proposed 2.29km recreational trail, two car parks, and new footbridge, on the outskirts of the village.

An application for the project was initially submitted to Wexford County Council (WCC) by the Kilmore Quay Community Development Association (KQCDA) on May 17, 2024. It was subsequently granted planning permission, subject to conditions, in February of this year.

However, on March 19, an appeal was lodged to ACP by a Ms Patsi Bates and a Ms Cola Fox which was supported by a number of signees. Accompanying this appeal was the aforementioned document which outlined the reasons why Ms Bates, Ms Fox and the signees, believed the proposed trail was not fit for purpose.

In their appeal, the objectors argued that the plans submitted by the KQCDA did not fully address the potential for flooding in an area which has, in years, experienced major flooding events. Criticising the flood risk assessment (FRA) conducted by the applicant, the appellants claimed a “lack of detail regarding mitigation measures and implementation in the event of a flood event”, the failure to address the impacts of “long-term climate change”, and the omission of “monitoring and review measures”.

Taking a number of technical issues with the proposal, the appellants argued the trail did not align with Sports Ireland guidelines, that it would potentially encroach upon a special area of conservation, that the drawings presented at public meetings were not included in the planning documented, that the 22-space car park at Ballyburn could “attract anti social behaviour” and that the trail head would be better located at Stella Maris Centre, where facilities already exist.

Continuing their objection, the appellants said that a Cultural Heritage Impact assessment was not carried out and the project would “adversely impact upon the setting and character of the village” in its current guise. Keen to stress that they were not opposed to a walking trail in the village, but that they had issues with the proposed design, the appellants supplemented their appeal with a number of references including Sport Ireland technical notes, a solicitor’s letter, and photographs showing native species inhabiting the area at night.

An independent observation from the Department Local Government referenced the “redirection of the trail route through the special area of conservation (SAC)” located at Ballyteigue Burrow.

"Such a change in route was not assessed in the original Appropriate Assessment (AA). Any conclusions drawn from the original AA cannot be considered for any new route proposal,” it said.

The canal in question that will be affected by the installation of a new walking trail in Kilmore Quay. Pic: Jim Campbell

Responding to these concerns, the KQCDA noted that the project had been submitted to the Department of Rural and Community Development for approval and a grant of €500,000 had been secured for the works. The deadline to draw down this funding had originally been due to expire earlier this year but, following consultation with WCC, the department had extended the deadline date to November 2025.

Having inspected the site in May of this year, ACP inspector Stephen Rhys Thomas recommended that the appeal be upheld and permission to develop the trail be denied. Addressing the construction of two new car parks at either end of the trail, Mr Thomas said that the applicant has not “fully justified the need for the two car parks at each end of the trail route, other than to indicate the convenience of starting and finishing an excursion by car”.

“The provision of two car parking areas adds a significant element to the overall piece of infrastructure for little or no benefit to the overall environmental credentials of the scheme,” he continued. “The route is relatively short and is therefore not necessarily a point to point activity, exploring and returning the way you came is entirely possible, without the need to accommodate car parking areas at either end . . . . . in this instance, I am not satisfied that the location and need for the car parks have been adequately considered from a planning perspective and that impacts on the natural and built environment have not been fully identified or quantified.”

However, Mr Thomas rejected the notion of the trail becoming a hotspot for antisocial behaviour and said the scheme was "not without its merits”.

“It is evident that the route along an open drainage channel and within open countryside is an appealing prospect. I encountered no other walkers on the day of my site visit, but I did observe cyclists heading northwards along a posted cycle route. The proposed trail route would coincide with a European wide cycling route known as the Eurovelo 1 Atlantic Coast cycling route, or locally as the Norman Way.

"In that context, the proposed trail would provide a significant off road cycling experience and be part of a Europe wide cycling network, and this is to be welcomed. I am satisfied that the proposed development would align with wider objectives to provide off road and safe walking and cycling routes and this development fulfils these objectives.”

But ultimately the inspector returned to the aspects of the development that caused him “concern”.

Stating that he was “not satisfied that the proposed development, specifically the construction of a car park and other works yet to be determined at the southern end of the site, would not be likely to have a significant effect on the Ballyteige Burrow special area of conservation (SAC) and special protection area (SPA)”, Mr Thomas paid particular attention to the welfare of native wildlife in his ruling.

“It cannot be determined with certainty that the development as proposed would not give rise to continued increased disturbance to wildlife, including otters (which are a protected species), from human activity in what was formerly a relatively undisturbed area of the overall site,” he said.

“The board is not satisfied, on the basis of the submissions made in connection with the planning application and the appeal, that adequate information has been provided on the impact of the proposed development on hydrological or other conditions within the Annexed habitat and the resulting implications for wildlife and flora.

“It is therefore considered that the Board is unable to ascertain . . . that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of a European Site and it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

An additional assessment of the site was carried out by senior ecologist Maeve Flynn on November 5. In her report, she states that “there is no evidence of a mammal survey, breeding or wintering bird survey being undertaken despite records of otter in the area and the proximity to the SPA designated for wintering birds.”

“It is my professional opinion that the consideration of impacts on protected species is inadequate,” she continues. ”The proposed development includes a number of physical interventions along the main drainage channel, and while relatively minor they include a footbridge, installation of concrete headwall and piping and works around five existing bridge crossings. There is no indication that these areas were examined for otter activity, and no mitigation measures are proposed to prevent or reduce potential disturbance.”

ACP has therefore decided to refuse permission, generally in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendations.

Welcoming the “meticulous” work of Mr Thomas, the group of residents who objected to the walking trail said ACP’s ruling has confirmed their “deep-seated concerns” regarding the proposed project.

“The decision to publicly appeal to ACP was not taken lightly but was deemed absolutely necessary,” they said.

In what has become a recurring theme, the objectors say they have been subjected to “unjustified online attacks and character assassination” in the wake of ACP’s decision.

"There were accusations of celebrations which are absolutely not true. There is no cause for celebration in light of the huge divide the trail project has created. While (our) representatives have done everything in their power to moderate language and remove aggressive comments on (our) own Facebook information page, there have been online comments elsewhere inciting hate against (us) such as ‘entitled backward arseholes’, ‘disgusting rotten people’, and ‘ignorant narcissists’.

"One comment in particular we thought was threatening, saying ‘we know who you are and the village won’t forget’.”

Describing the level of abuse they have been subjected to as “unacceptable”, the objectors allege that local businesses in Kilmore Quay were also “slandered and shamed” during the process and that they themselves were “accused of harassing” supporters of the proposal.

Addressing ACP's ruling, the objectors point to the recent flood event in Bridgetown as proof that further investigation is required before committing to a project such as a recreational trail.

“The proposed trail route, like Bridgetown itself, lies within a flood-risk zone. Residents and businesses in the area are actively working to future-proof against flooding and are calling on Wexford County Council to prioritise investment of taxpayers’ money in flood-defence infrastructure.

"In this context, it is questionable to invest in a recreational trail located in a flood-prone area, particularly as communities continue to suffer the impacts of climate change and increasingly frequent flooding.”

Looking ahead to the future, the group maintain that they would like to see a trail developed in Kilmore Quay, but only if it is done correctly.

“We now look forward to new plans to be created, in a completely new, collaborative and transparent approach that respects ACP's findings, addresses crucial non-planning hurdles (such as outdated costs and landowner consent), and delivers an amended, high-quality trail that Kilmore Quay residents can proudly support.”

Although not directly responsible for the application, the Kilmore Quay Community Trail Information (KQCTI) group have actively supported the project and provided updates to the public during the planning process. And following ACP’s decision to refuse planning, a spokesperson for the group has expressed dismay at how a walking trail has proved so “contentious”.

“It seemed like a no-brainer until it sparked a group of residents to mobilise against the proposal,” the spokesperson said. “What has raised many eyebrows is the strength of negative sentiment towards the trail on the grounds of its impact on biodiversity when there are already a number of industrial operations on the land adjacent to the proposed trail as well as plans for much bigger developments in the area including a wind farm at sea, a field full of solar panels and a massive hotel complex.”

Describing themselves as “very disappointed with the decision” the group say that, upon further reading of the report, there was a “glimmer of hope” for the future.

“It was noted that the walking trail would bring great benefit and could in fact enhance biodiversity,” the spokesperson claimed. “It stated that the trail was in line with national and international policy on recreation and sustainability. ACP did not uphold objections based on lack of community consultation or in relation to land ownership. It was satisfied with information supplied on these matters.”

Accepting that a lack of technical information regarding the impact on wildlife had, in effect, forced ACP’s hand, the group said the ruling had highlighted how difficult it is for communities to compile complex reports and analyses.

“Overall, the main reasons for the rejection seem to be a lack of more detailed plans and assessments. This is one of the challenges faced by community volunteers trying to improve their community. We lack the technical expertise to know what is or isn’t enough detail in technical reports such as those required for planning applications of this nature.

“Kilmore Quay Community Development Association submitted the planning application for the walking trail in partnership with Wexford County Council and we are committed to continue working with them to get our walking trail. We are still committed to getting this resource for our community and will be looking at ways to address these issues.

“We want to preserve our local environment for all our kids to enjoy, as we have all enjoyed growing up and access to natural spaces is key to that."