index

everything else links off the Homepage

report 1 - PART 2

Ms Joyce said she was an Associate of MC O'Sullivans, Consulting Engineers, she had

14 years experience since graduating from UCG and was the Project Engineer for the

Clonee to Dunshaughlin and Navan By-pass Sections of the M3 Scheme which included

Ms Joyce said that the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section commenced at the end of the

existing Clonee By-pass and headed generally in a north-westerly direction to by-pass

Dunshaughlin on the west and crossed various County roads, 3 Regional roads (R157

Dunboyne road, R156 Ratoath road and R125 Kilcock road) and the existing N3 along its

route and joined the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section to the north-west of Dunshaughlin.

Ms Joyce said that the scheme details for this section were shown in Volume 3B. (These

were also displayed at the Hearing and a Set of the Aerial photographic Maps used in this

display was taken by the Inspector on Day 25 and is listed in Appendix 4 of this Report.)

Ms Joyce then gave a detailed description of the route of the proposed M3, which is

generally set out in Section 12 on pages 21 to 23 of this Report and is not being repeated

Ms Joyce said that the mainline levels had been kept as low as it was feasible to reduce

the environmental impacts and that, in general, it was the flood levels, levels of the water

table and existing streams and the drainage design which dictated the extent those levels

could be lowered, with the requirements for underpasses and the geometric design criteria

resulting in some local raising of the alignment levels. She said that the flood plains of

the Tolka and Skane rivers were the determining factors for the mainline levels in this

Section. She said the M3 would run directly over the River Tolka for some 350 metres

which required the diversion of the river at that location and the proposed road would be

constructed mainly on embankment from Clonee to Rathbeggan due to its proximity to

Ms Joyce said that the Pace Interchange would be a rotary type interchange with two

bridges and with two-lane merge/diverge lanes to the south and single lane merge/diverge

lanes to the north, and that it would link with the proposed Dunboyne By-pass and the

realigned N3 at a new Roundabout to be constructed to the east of the Interchange, with

the Interchange being constructed with sufficient clearance to facilitate the future reopening

She said that the M3 would follow the route of the N3 from the Pace Interchange to the

Blackbull junction where an overbridge took the R154 Trim road across the M3 to join

with the realigned N3 and the R155 Ratoath road at a new Roundabout to the east of the

M3. She said access to the houses along the existing N3 and the L-5026 would come

from the realigned N3 and for those on the Flathouse road L-22161, it would be given

from a realignment of the R154. She said that a minimum distance, to allow for antidazzle

Clonsilla to Navan Rail line along this stretch where they ran in parallel. The Toll Plaza

would be located immediately north of the Blackbull junction with the Service buildings

being located where the "old N3" was and Ms Joyce said that the realigned N3 would be

constructed before the M3 to facilitate traffic management while the M3 was being built

afterwards. She said that the realigned N3 would also provide an alternative route for

Ms Joyce said that in the Rathbeggan area the route crossed the disused rail line which

would necessitate the provision of an alternative route for the the rail line if this was reopened

in the future, this followed from the need to mitigate archaeological and stud farm

impacts. She described the Dunshaughlin Interchange as being of a "dumbbell" shape

consisting of a single overbridge and two roundabouts on either side with a two-lane

south facing ramp and all other ramps being single-lane for merge/diverge movements.

She said this Interchange would connect the M3 to a new realigned R125 and a new Link

to the existing N3 just north of Dunshaughlin at Cooksland, which would also be the link

into Dunshaughlin along the Dunsany road L-2208 from the new Roestown roundabout.

She said the existing R125 would beome a cul-de-sac as it would be severed by the M3.

Ms Joyce said that the existing Clonee Grade Separated Junction would be modified to

provide a north bound merge ramp from the existing Roundabout on the R156 Dunboyne

accommodated on this modification which would link into the realigned N3 via the

Ms Joyce listed the following as the significant new junctions which would be provided :-

Ms Joyce said that four significant Link Roads had been included in this Section of the

Scheme to connect the Motorway with population centres and described each of them.

Summerhill road at Newtown Bridge to join the R157 Maynooth Road at Castlefarm. The

Loughsallagh to Piercetown Link Road extended from the R156 at Loughsallagh to the

Pace Roundabout, crossing over the M3 at Bracetown and extending from Pace to the

Blackbull Roundabout parallel to the M3 and on from Blackbull to join with the existing

N3 at Piercetown, a total of 4.84 kms in length of which some 0.75 kms was on the

existing N3. She said the new R125 Trim Road started at the Dunshaughlin Interchange

and ran westwards to the south of the existing R125 to join with the R154 at Merrywell

and it crossed over the disused Clonsilla to Navan rail line at Drumree where clearance

was allowed for a future re-opening of the rail line, the total length of the new R125

being 2.26 kms. The Dunshaughlin Link extended as a continuation of the New R125

Knocks Roundabout, then turning north-eastwards and intersecting the Dunsany Road at

Roestown Roundabout and connecting with the existing N3 at Cooksland Roundabout on

Regional and County Roads that would be affected by the scheme and said that in all

cases the new carriageways would be at least as wide as the existing roads. A number of

these works would arise from the location of over or under bridges where the road was

(L2209), Dunsany Road (L2208), on the existing N3 at Bracetown and by the Dunboyne

required to re-connect roads being severed by the M3 to the new network. These included

R155 and Trim Road R154. She said there would be a realignment at the Clonross road

(L6208) junction with the Derrockstown road and that the Right of Way at Readsland on

the R125 would be Extinguished with local traffic diverting through Leshamstown Lane

or along the proposed New R125 via the Merrywell Roundabout and through traffic using

Ms Joyce said there would be 10 Overbridges and 4 Underbridges to be constructed on

this Section as well as culverts to accommodate water courses crossed along the route.

She listed the Road Overbridges as Bracetown, Blackbull, Raynestown, Derrockstown

and Dunsany with Kennedy Road being the only Road Underbridge. She said there were

Ms Joyce said the details of the Motorway cross-section had been given already by Mr.

Guthrie (See page 69 in section 17.1 of this Report) and she gave the following details for

the other roads in this Section. In the case of the dual carriageway from Clonee to Pace,

there would be 4 no. 3.5 metre lanes (2 in each direction) with a 4 metre median, 2 no.

2.5 metre hard shoulders and 2 no. 2 metre verges, plus a weaving lane in each direction

of 3.5 metres, or 34 metres overall excluding side slopes. For the N3 realignment from

Pace to Blackbull, there would be a wide single lane carriageway of 10 metres with 2 no.

2.5 hard shoulders and 2 no. 3 metre verges giving a total excluding side slopes of 21

metres, with the same carriageway profile proposed for the Dunboyne By-pass and the

Trim Road New R125 based on predicted traffic flows. For the other realignments, the

N3 Loughsallagh to Pace and Blackbull to N3 tie-in and the R125 Dunshaughlin Link, a

standard single lane carriageway of 7.3 metres would be used, with the same widths of

hard shoulders and verges, having an overall width of 18.3 metres. The Regional road

cross-section proposed was for a 7.5 metre carriageway, 2 no. 0.5 metre hard strips and 2

no. 3 metre verges giving an overall width of 14.5 metres, with the verge widths being

reduced to 1.5 metres where restricted by houses on parts of the R156 and R157. Two

cross-section types would be used for County roads with all except the Dunsany road

being of a 6 metre carriageway with 2 no. 2 metre verges for a 10 metre overall width,

while the Dunsany road would be a 7 metre carriageway, 2 no. 0.5 metre hard strips and 2

Ms Joyce said that the cross-section proposed for the slip roads (ramps) at Interchanges

depended on the merge/diverge traffic flows and said that at both Interchanges the

carriageway, a 0.5 metre offside hard strip and a 1 metre nearside hard strip plus 3 metre

verges outside these. For all other ramps the carriageway would be a 4 metre single lane

with the same width of hard strips and verges. She said that the landtake varied with cut

and fill conditions with side slopes generally being of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal and that

an 8 metre strip of land running parallel to the fence line was reserved generally for

constructing toe/cut-off drains, a maintenance track and for working space at the

boundary fence. She said this 8 metre strip was reduced to 5 metres for the Regional and

Ms Joyce said that the Southern Toll Plaza, located between Chainages 4560 and 5100,

would have 5 lanes in each direction with access to the Toll Booths being via an

underground tunnel and that road lighting would be from 12 metre high columns. She

said an administrative building would be provided beside the Toll Plaza with a local

access road to be constructed from the realigned N3 north of Blackbull Roundabout and

there would be car parking and percolation areas adjacent to this building. She said the

Service Building would be about 7 metres high, two stories, with a floor area of about

580 sq. metres and would have a brick and glazes fa�ade with a sloping glass roof to

Ms Joyce said that the estimated some 535000 cu. metres of material would be excavated

of which up to 140000 cu. metres could be unsuitable and this would have to be disposed

of off-site or used in landscaping on the site. They estimated there would be a deficit of

fill material requiring the importation of some 2.5 M cu. metres into the site. She said the

location of the borrow pits for this fill material and any disposal sites for the unsuitable

material would be the responsibility of the Contractor and both disposal sites and borrow

pits might require that prior Planning Permission be obtained by the Contractor for their

She said that the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section lay for the most part within the Tolka

River catchment, with part of it in the upper catchment of the River Skane and the

motorway and ancilary roads crossed the Tolka several times, as well as crossing

numerous drainage ditches and some small tributaries of both Rivers. She said their

Appropriate outfall points had been identified for various sections of the roads

Attenuation measures to be implemented at each outfall point had been identified.

Ms Joyce said that the proposed M3 scheme would not have a significant impact on the

hyrdology or hydraulics of the Tolka River but there would be localised minor impacts

through increased road run-off and increased velocities around culverts. She said both of

these impacts could be mitigated against by the use of attenuation ponds or similar

methods at outfall locations to slowly release the extra run-off and by increasing the

Ms Joyce then outlined the program of Public Consultation which they had used in their

study to identify and address the views of the public, which she said, included meetings

with interested parties and the public, the display of possible route options at different

centres and the distribution of a brochure and questionaire. She said written submissions

had been received from Residents Associations and Interest Groups as well as from

individuals and businesses all of which were considered in the Route Selection process.

She said the first Public Consultation Meting was held in Dunshaughlin Community Hall

on 28 & 29 June 1999 with the second in the County Club on 8 & 9 December 1999 and

that at these meetings the possible routes were presented, the likely impacts identified,

the public views and reactions were obtained and queries were responded to in the

advertised in local papers, on local radio and at Parish Churches with about 6000 leaflets

also distributed and that about 1100 people attended the two consultation meetings.

Ms Joyce then outlined the Route Selection procedure and said that the Section had been

divided into three segments -- 1. Clonee to Blackbull, 2. Blackbull to Dunshaughlin and

3. Dunshaughlin and that a number of route options were identified in each section,

taking into account the constraints identified in the Constraints Study, with these initial

route options being outlined at the first public Consultation in June 1999. Ms Joyce

described the various options displayed, the options considered and how 10 routes, which

consisted of combinations of the section options, were brought forward for further

economic factors to identify a preferred route. Ms Joyce said they had concluded that

Route 2, the Green Route, was the preferred option and she outlined the reasons for

Note -- The comparison of possible options, the analysis to identify a preferred route and

the reasons for selecting the Green Route are all given in sections 4.2.1, 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 at

pages 32-36, 42-43 and 47 in Vol. 2 of the EIS and are not repeated in this Report.

Ms Joyce also described the Route Selection procedure used to select the Link Roads and

said that for the Dunboyne By-pass, 9 options were considered with the principal

She said the Selection process examined each route under the same headings as were

used for the mainline and an assessment matrix was developed for the various options

from which it was concluded that Option 7 was the Preferred Route for the Dunboyne

By-pass since that route had the least impact on the archaeological site at Bennetstown

and was slightly more cost effficient than the other routes. She said the need for a Bypass

was justified in terms of traffic demand, safety, access to Dunboyne and its future

development and the predicted reduction in travel times which would benefit the local,

Ms Joyce said that 13 route options were considered for the New R125, Trim Road Link,

three of these coming from submissions made from the public and the publication of the

Meath CDP 2001, with some of the options being based on a revised location for the

Dunshaughlin Interchange which was relocated to reduce the impact on agricultural

holdings and to facilitate balanced development around Dunshaughlin to meet the 2001

She said the Selection process examined each route under the same headings as were

used for the mainline and an assessment matrix was developed for the various options

from which it was concluded that Option 11 was the Preferred Route for the New Trim

Road as this was the safer and more direct route to the M3, had the least impact on people

and better facilitated the objectives of the Meath CDP 2001 as amended. She said the

development of Dunshaughlin and the predicted reduction in travel times which would

Ms Joyce said that in responding to environmental need and the public's concerns the

alignments of some of the roads in the Section were re-examined and, that in some cases

the design was refined or revised with the more important measures which mitigated

significant adverse effects as identified by the EIS process were incorporated into the

Scheme. Ms Joyce then listed 27 revisions or amendments they had made to the Scheme

as a consequenceof this review. These are all listed in Section 1.1 of Vol.3A of the EIS

consideration at all stages of the project, with a Constraints Report which identified

environmental sites on the route corridor being produced prior to the Route Selection

process. She said that the EIS on the likely impacts on the environment had been

prepared in accordance with section 50 of the Roads act 1993 as amended by the EC

1999 and that this EIS contained a description of the proposal, alternatives examined, the

receiving environment, as well as assessing the principal beneficial and adverse

environmental effects that would arise from the construction and operation of the

Scheme. She said it gave details of the measures proposed to mitigate likely significant

adverse impacts as well as the beneficial environmental consequences and she then

outlined the principal findings on the various impacts. These are dealt with in more detail

in the Evidence presented by the other witnesses for the Council and reported on in the

Ms Joyce said that if the tolling proposal did not proceed the main difference would be an

alteration in the traffic flows and that a greater number of vehicles would be attracted

onto the M3, which would require some minor alteration to traffic lane layouts at some

junctions. She said that, while air quality and noise impacts were dependant on traffic

flows, the flow changes in the Clonee to Dunshauhghlin Section were not sufficient to

Ms Joyce said that there were 33 Public Rights of Way and 10 Private rights of Way to be

Extinguished and the details were attached to her Brief of Evidence. (These are included

in the Lists set out in Appendices 6 and 7 attached to this Report.) Ms Joyce confirmed

that it was necessary to extinguish all those listed for the purposes of the Motorway

Scheme. She said that the landtake required for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section was

some 207.9 Hectares of which about 69 Hectares were required for the actual Motorway

with the balance for non-motorway works and she confirmed that the acquisition of all of

this land was necessary for the M3 scheme. Details of the reasons for acquiring each plot

identified in the Schedules were given in Appendix D in Ms Joyce's Brief of Evidence.

Mr. Keane said he now proposed to have Ms Joyce go through the objections that still

remained as having been submitted but not withdrawn and said they had available for

each of these objectors a report that contained a copy of the objection, a summary of the

objection and the Council's response. He asked Ms Joyce to deal with the first objection,

Ms Joyce said that a written response was given by the Road Design Office to Gaynor

Corr, the Objector's agent, which said " -- Further to your submission to An Bord ---- I

can respond as follows, -- the numbers relate to those used in your letter to An Bord.

1. Adequate access for property owners will be maintained during construction of the

2. The Employers requirements will provide for contractual obligations with regard to

private or public owned supplies orservices. The contractor will be obliged to take

measurements for the support and full protection of all such services or supplies.

3. I would refer you to page 93, Section 4.6 of Vol.3A of the EIS for general details of

the mitigation measures proposed during construction to control noise and vibration.

Iin terms of blasting, please note the commitment on page 97 that " In the vicinity of

the blasting site, all buildings and structures liable to damage will be surveyed and

5. In cases where the lowering of the water table as a result of the construction of the

scheme has adverse effects on gardens in the vicinity, this will be dealt with in the

6. See Chapters 4 and 5 of Vol.3A of the EIS. See also Figure 2.1 of Vol. 2 of the EIS.

8. The detailed drainage design will cater for existing land drains and surface water runoff

9. (a) No traffic calming measures are proposed at the strart of the scheme. The extent of

the speed limit restrictions will be looked at as part of the detailed design phase.

(b) Provision for footpaths has been included in the Overbridge design. The verge

widths are suffucient to allow for the Local authority to provide footpaths in the

12. Where sections of the existing public roadway are severed, the redundant portions of

landscaped area, subject to the agrement of adjoining landowners and commitments

13. It is envisaged that the existing boundary to the properties will not be affected.

14. It is envisaged that Leshamstowmn Lane will only be used for local traffic and that

the proposed Drumree Link road will provide a more attractive alternative for most

15. A separate Hearing into the tolling aspects of the scheme will be held in due course.

16. The EIS has been prepared in line with statutory requirements and current Irish

In reply to a query by Mr. Keane, Ms Joyce explained that in this area the M3 was in a

cutting and the water table might be lowered as a consequence and the EIS said the wells

would be monitored and if the water table was lowered, the well could either be deepened

or they could be connected to the Council water main. Ms Joyce then went on to the next

Objectors, Joseph & Ann McKillen, Plot 119 also submitted by Gaynor Corr where 0.017

hectares, all on the public road were being acquired, and she read the main objections as

15 EIS does not adequately reflect impact on the local environment and landowners

1. Adequate access for property owners will be maintained during construction of the

2. The Employers requirements will provide for contractual obligations with regard

to private or public owned supplies or services. The contractor will be obliged to

take measurements for the support and full protection of all such services or supplies.

3. I would refer you to page 93, Section 4.6 of Vol.3A of the EIS for general details of

the mitigation measures proposed during construction to control noise and vibration.

In terms of blasting, please note the commitment on page 97 that " In the vicinity

of the blasting site, all buildings and structures liable to damage will be surveyed

4. Provision will be made in instances where domestic wells are adversely effected to

5.In cases where the lowering of the water table as a result of the construction of the

scheme has adverse effects on gardens in the vicinity, this will be dealt with in the

6.See Chapters 4 and 5 of Vol.3A of the EIS. See also Figure 2.1 of Vol. 2 of the EIS.

8.The detailed drainage design will cater for existing land drains and surface water runoff

9.(a) No traffic calming measures are proposed at the start of the scheme. The extent of

the speed limit restrictions will be looked at as part of the detailed design phase.

(b) Provision for footpaths has been included in the Overbridge design. The verge are

12. Where sections of the existing public roadway are severed, the redundant portions of

landscaped area, subject to the agrement of adjoining landowners and commitments

13. It is envisaged that Leshamstown Lane will only be used for local traffic and that the

14. (a) The correct depth of cutting at the Dunsany Road Overbridge is approx. 6.5. The

potential impact of the proposed route on the groundwater environment and they are

satisfied that the assessment was carried out using the correct survey data. Figure 8.1

was produced after the assessment had been carried out and did not influence its

position of the survey location exactly, due to a drafting error, but we can assure you

that the correct position of their well was used when carrying out the assessment.

15.The EIS has been prepared in line with statutory requirements and current Irish

Ms Joyce said that the reply at point 14(a) referred to the Errata List given with Ms

Dempsey's evidence previously (See pages 143/145 in this Report at Section 23.1) and as

she was about to read the next objection, the Inspector intervened and said he presumed

confirmed this, the Inspector said that he considered the interest of people present at the

Hearing who wanted to ask questions would not be served by having every detail like

these last two read out to the Hearing, since that could take up to four hours or more to go

He said these last two objectors had already indicated through Gaynor Corr that they

wished to make verbal submissions to the Hearing and that their original objections

The Inspector asked Mr. Keane to confirm if a written response had been sent out to all of

the objectors and the date it was sent. Mr. Keane said that responses had prepared for the

Hearing to all objections but only some of these had been sent out during the last week of

July to certain Objectors, with copies of all of the Council's responses being contained in

the Files he would be handing in to the Hearing. Asked if responses had been sent to all

Objectors in the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section, Mr. Keane said he would have to check

this and would report back. The Inspector said some objectors had asked to make a verbal

or additional written submission to the Hearing, some objectors had advised through their

agent that their original objection still remained, some had withdrawn their objections

and many of those Mr. Keane would be referring to were not present. He said that, rather

than have a lengthy and repetitive reading of the objections and the Council's responses,

as well as handing in a copy of the File of Objections and Responses, a copy should be

placed on display at the Hearing where people could consult it themselves. The Inspector

said he did not consider it necessary to have all of these details read into the record of the

Hearing at that stage and that Mr Keane need only confirm what had been done about

each objection. Mr. Keane said that if people wanted to get copies of the response to their

particular objection, if they contacted the Council staff at the Hearing they would be

Ms Joyce then confirmed that responses had been sent to M/s Gaynor Corr as their agent

No. 118, 119, 120, 121 in part, 123/124, 148, 150, 155, 157, 162, 163, 166, 173, 174,

195, 215, 218, 221in part, 222, 223, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239,

240, 241/242, 257, 280, 320, 321, 329, 331, 339 and 342. All were sent between 22 & 31

No.121 in part, 139/144, 149/160, 171, 172, 183, 188, 189, 221 in part, 233/251, 255,

256, 264, 294, 301, 308, 325/337, 326, 330, 332, 340, 346, 350, 353, 371, 375, 429, 450,

464, 467, 468, 470 and 475. The Inspector said those responses should be given to any

Objector at the Hearing who was waiting to cross-examine her, naming those present.

She said they had no details of the objections, other than a general objection to the route

selected for Plot 293 and Mr. Keane said they also had responses prepared to the general

Ms Joyce then gave details of the additional response prepared for Plot 121, Thomas &

Mary Byrne, submitted by Paul Brady & Co. Solicitors, a summary of which is given on

page 30 in Section 13 of this Report. She said the land take here was 0.037 hectares or

Level of compensation with the landowners and failing agreement the determination

2. NRA/Co.Co. jurisdiction -- It was unclear what was being referred to but they

4. Order not made in Law -- It was unclear what was being referred to as in 2 above

5. Order premature and plan impractical on financial and other grounds -- Again it

estimate of �462M. and a base year of 1996 representing very good value for money.

6. Order not part of a Plan approved by Local Authority -- The Scheme was part of

7. No notice of timescale of works -- The approx. time frame was given in para 5.5 of

Non-technical summary of the EIS and this was quoted from as being about 3 years.

10. Road Lighting impacts -- There were no proposals for lighting at the landowners

boundary. The nearest lighting was at the Dunshaughlin Interchange 500 metres away

11. Impact on individual site boundaries -- Final boundary locations would be agreed

12. Drainage proposals inadequate -- The Contractor would be required to provide

adequate drainage and typical clauses in the contract to ensure this was set out. They

said the detailed design would ensure no surface water from the road would enter

properties affected by the realignment of the Dunsany Road and the Council would

13. Surplus land being acquired -- The land being acquired was needed to construct the

14. Access details unsatisfactory -- Access details would depend on the Council's

discussions with the landowner and final details of the crash barrier design at the

overbridge. Pedestrian access would be maintained at all times but there might be

restricted vehicular movements at this location during construction of the bridge and

if so, alternative arrangements would be made and every effort made to minimise this

16. Soakpits would be affected -- In the event of interference with his soakpits, they

17. Noise Mitigation needed -- Noise was considered in Chapter 4 of Vol.3A of the EIS,

necessary after construction. Measures set out in Section 4.6 of Vol. 3A would be

18. Dunsany road overbridge visually intrusive -- The visual impact was addressed in

the EIS and a Specific Landscape Measure was included, see SLM 36 on Figure 5.1.8

19. Routing of Construction traffic -- The construction contract would specify that

Scheme traffic could only access the site and off-site areas using the following roads:-

The N3, N51 & N52 ; the R125 excluding the section between the junctions with the

R163; R164; and Local roads L-1005 Collierstown for 600 metres northeast of Ross

cross roads; L-2201 Dowdstown road for 1100 metres west of Garlow cross roads and

L-8001-10 Pheonixtown road from the N3. Use of all other roads would be prohibited

20. Traffic Calming proposals -- As this was a rural road traffic calming was not

21. Temporary road access -- A temporary road alignment would be required for about

9 months while the overbridge was being constructed and this would allow for access

22. Stone boundary wall required -- If An Bord approved the scheme the details of the

23.Working Hours -- Normal working hours were set out in Vol. 3A of the EIS as 0700

details of temporary screening could be discussed with the Council as part of the

25. Impact on Water supply/water table -- Referred to section 8.4, 8.5 & 8.6 in EIS on

impacts on ground water in Dunsany road area and mitigation measures proposed to

wells within the zone of potential impact shown in Figure 8.1 of Vol.3A and if the

landowners well was adversely impacted by the construction work, the Council would

26. Structural damage to property -- It was not envisaged that there would be any

structural damage caused but a pre-construction condition survey would be carried

27. Compensation not agreed -- If the Order was confirmed this would be dealt with

The Inspector said that a copy of that response should be sent to M/s Brady & Co and that

present and who would be cross-examining Ms Joyce later on. Asked about Plot 293

owned by Mr. Yorell, Ms Joyce said they had no details other than their agent's objection

"that there was a better alternative route available elsewhere which would have a lessor

impact on the holding with a more detailed submission to be given later" . The Inspector

said that was the standard objection submitted by Mr. Gunne on behalf of all of his

Clients and, when asked on this by Mr. Keane, Ms Joyce confirmed it was her opinion

that the route selected for the M3 Scheme and its ancillary roads was the best route at that

Ms Joyce then dealt with the response to Plot 189, Seamus Cassidy, which had been

holding was being acquired and said the main objections were that the severed lands

would be left without water or electicity services making them useless and that there

would be virtually no road frontage left after the access was cut off from the existing

road. She said that alternative services would be provided if that became necessary and

that access was being provided as shown in Figure 9.4 in Vol.3B and the issues could be

Referring to Plot 221, John O'Sullivan, Ms Joyce said a reply had been sent to Gaynor

Corr but there was also a submission from M/s Rennicks Solicitors, which had not been

answered so far. Ms Joyce said the main point in that submission related to a piece of

land which would be severed by the M3 and for which access was being provided off the

Raynestown Lane and that was one of the matters objected to by the Residents. The

Inspector asked that a map be handed in to show this access and the severed land as it

was an issue for the Residents, who were suggesting there was another way across fields

to those lands and they were saying there was no need for this access off their Lane. Ms

Joyce said that as far as the Council could establish, there was no alternative legal access

available to this land, which was Plot 251, when it would be severed, and it was for that

reason they provided the access off the Raynestown Lane as this was the most practical

location for it. She added that there might have been an unofficial way across some fields

used but this was not a legal right of way as far as they knew. The Inspector said Mr.

O'Sullivan was also part of the Raynestown Lane Group who made a Verbal Submission.

A number of the Plots where replies had not been issued at that part of the Hearing had

the objections withdrawn subsequently and it is not necessary to report on those

responses and some of the others were left over as they had indicated they wished to

cross-examine witnesses for the Council. Ms Joyce then referred to Plot 308 owned by

SERLA Print whose objection is summarised on page 33 in Section 13 of this Report and

she acknowledged the scheme would have a severe impact on the property in Plot 308 as

all of it, 0.427 hectares, was being acquired but said the only alternative to using the

which would have involved even more impacts elsewhere both on property, the railway

corridor and the Tolka. She said that compensation would be negotiated if the Oreder was

jurisdiction, Plan not having been approved and prematurity of Motorway by referring to

The objections by the owners of Plot 332, Richard, M.J. & Doris Bruton are detailed on

page 34 in section 13 of this Report and Ms Joyce said the Dunboyne By-pass divided

their holding with some 5.382 hectares or 6.9% of the holding being acquired and that the

impact would be dealt with by compensation and accommodation works. She said the

roundabout had been designed to the NRA DMRB standards and access to the retained

lands could be provided safely and this could be discussed in the accommodation works

negotiations. She said the EIS had dealt fully with all the relevant maters relating to

pollution. In the case of Plot 340, owned by Sean Boylan who complained about the

severance effects and that this could not be compensated for, Ms Joyce said 1.339

hectares were being acquired here or about 19% of his holding and that the lands were

divided in two equal parts by the M3 with access being given via the realigned N3 from

an access road near the Bracetown Overbridge and this would involve an extra journey of

about 1.8 km. and that compensation was a matter for negotiation and, failing agreement

Ms Joyce then dealt with the objection by John Connaughton Ltd., owner of Plot 346

who said the landtake compromised an objective of the CDP by effectively severing his

access to the Tolka river for surface water drainage disposal. Ms Joyce said 4.976

hectares was being acquired here or about 11% of the holding with no severance by the

Scheme. She said the landowner would still have access to the River Tolka over about

200 metres on the southeastern boundary and about 400 metres on the northern boundary

as was shown on Figure 6.2 of Vol.3B and the drainage issue could be discussed with the

accommodation works. The Inspector said the Objector's main concern was to ensure he

could drain the land being zoned and asked if she could confirm that was feasible and Ms

Joyce said she would have this checked out and would come back with the details.

Mr. Newall said he had two objectives in the requests he had made to the road Design

staff, the first was he wanted a wall all along the new Link road and back along the

Dunsany road to replace the privacy they would loose when their hedges were removed

and the second was for a roundabout entrance instead of the one proposed as he thought

that one was unsatisfactory and a roundabout would also service in the future housing,

the GAA development and other tracffic requirements in the longer term. He asked Ms

Joyce if she was familiar with the privacy of their holding which was mainly an equine

establishment and they could have up to 40/50 horses there and asked if she thought that

the post and rail fencing proposed would give the farm adequate protection with the

hedges gone and people walking up and down the road outside. Ms Joyce replied that the

details of the accommodation works were a matter for the Council to discus with him if

the Order was confirmed but that a timber post and rail fence was the normal type of

fence being provided along roads like the Link road. She said it was essentially a rural

road and issues of security were matters that would have to be sorted out with the Council

as part of the accommodation works negotiations. Mr. Newall asked her to define a "rural

road" and Ms Joyce said it was a road going through green fields with hedges along it.

Mr. Newall then asked if there were houses next to the road would she class it as other

than a rural road but Ms Joyce said the boundary treatment would be associated with the

development not with the road. Asked if there would be a footpath along the Link road,

nearby, she said that was a matter of the planning with the Council but was not related to

the motorway Hearing and repeated that the actual boundary treatment was something

A lengthy debate followed about the issue of a wall as compared to the post and rail

fence; accommodation works discussions with the Council; whether and to what extent

context in which the Link road as a rural road should be serving adjoining developments

or only as a link between the M3 and Dunshaughlin. Ms Joyce said there was a verge on

the Link and a footpath could be put there in the future if that became a requirement and

that the alignment of the road was designed to facilitate a future link with the south of

dunshaughlin but that was also for the future. Mr. Newall suggested the Link road would

have a "local" effect and this should be included in the present design to facilitate and

benefit the Town's future development. He asked if the NRA and the Consultatants

looked at local requirements or did they design the roads to a standard brief without local

aspects being in their brief, Ms Joyce replied that she would not say that, and when Mr.

Newall said he was raising the issue of the local effect of the M3 on Dunshaughlin, Ms

Joyce said they were designing a road from Clonee to North of Kells and were providing

community aspect as much as it was for the security of their bloodstock and said the

character of the approach to Dunshaughlin was important and that the road was local to

an urban area and the image of the Town should be attended to in the design and asked

what aspects were making this either different or the same as any other link road. Ms

Joyce said the link road was a high speed road with the only access allowed off it being to

his fields and theTrim section beyond the Interchange also had no asccess off it so she did

not see people stopping to walk along it. The Inspector suggested he moved on or he

could deal with this by way of a submission. Mr. Newall asked how they could move

bloodstock across this high spped road as they were not being given an overbridge or a

path at the side of the road. Ms Joyce said the gates were positioned to allow ease of

management and said the issue of inconvenience was a matter for compensation and that

this was also an issue he could ask the Agricultural Consultant about later on. When Mr.

Newall suggested that there was a high pedestrian usage of the roads around Readsland

that would justify a footpath, Ms Joyce said the counts were very low and did not justify

Mr. Newall then referred to the roundabout as an alternative access to Readsland House

and said the earlier entrance proposed was off that Link road but when the Interchange

acknowledged they had moved the Interchange further south from a review of the R125

Trim road link, he suggested the new entrance conflicted with the proposals he had been

discussing with the designers to plough in the old Trim road and make a larger field there

to compensate for the disruoption from the M3. Ms Joyce said she was aware of what his

farming preference was but that from a road design aspect putting the entrance on the

quieter Dunsany road was preferable. Mr. Newall said there appeared to be a conflict

between the various design sections and wanted her to comment but Ms Joyce said she

Mr. Newall said he had prepared a a map of their land which had a point marked on it

Interchange and he asked Ms Joyce to assume the road was built and she was standing at

that marked point. He then took her through a series of 5 minute or 500 metre "walks" in

the due north, east, south and west directions asking her to indicate where these ended.

Ms Joyce agreed with his suggestions that at the north end there was a pending planning

application for housing, at the south end was the interchange, east was in an existing

housing estate and west was at the sewerage works. He suggested this showed it was not

a rural road by these results but Ms Joyce said she could read a definition of a rural road

as a response. Mr. Newall then said the two gates proposed were roughly at this marked

point and asked if it was alright to allow animals to cross there why he could not get an

entrance for Readsland at that point. Ms Joyce replied that all of the severance impact

assessments on Readsland were based on using the R125 as the access and the use of that

could be discussed with the Council as part of the accommodation works. She said that a

roundabout on the link as an access to a single property was undesirable but the Council

might be open to an access off the Link if the Order was confirmed again as part of the

options for the entrance were made by MC O'Sullivans and the solution approved by the

The Inspector intervened and established that Mr. Newall was seeking a wall only along

one side of the Link road, that the Link road was designed as a single carriageway road to

the general speed limit and that Mr. Newall controlled sufficient land to allow for a

roundabout, if one were to be built. The Inspector said that Ms Joyce had answered his

questions as far as she could go and he suggested that he should suspend his crossexamination

and discussing the issues he was raising, and that he could come back again if these did

Mr. Kieran said he was a dairy farmer in Drumree and that he would be leaving the

Council's response to his objections for his advisors to deal with and asked if she could

give him some details of how the petrol and oil traps referred to in her Brief of Evidence

would work and what was involved in the long term maintenance and Ms Joyce said that

their Drainage Engineer, David Wilson would answer that. Mr. Kieran asked if the rail

line referred to was crossed by the road or was it near to it and Ms Joyce replied their

Brief was not to prevent its re-opening and outlined how they had accommodated the rail

corridor, including a proposed crossing of the rail line by the R125 Trim road where they

had provided sufficient clearance for the railway to go under the Trim road in the future.

Mr. Kieran then asked what role she had in ensuring the planning laws regarding the CDP

proposals were complied with in her Brief and Ms Joyce replied those were a matter for

the Council's planners. Mr. Kieran then referred to the Route Selection process for the

R125 and asked if the Dunshaughlin Interchange was an important Interchange. When

Ms Joyce said it was, he asked if that was the focal point for all of the design up to

further south in November 200. Ms Joyce explained that this came from a review of the

options, of which there were 13, following from the public consultations and from

requirements. Mr. Kieran suggested that if the CPO had been made in October 2001 the

"original" position of the Interchange would have been used but Ms Joyce would not

agree and said the review would have preceeded the CPO anyway. After some further

discussion on this aspect, Mr. Kieran asked for copies of all of the options considered and

the option matrix as he was materially affected by the R125. And Ms Joyce said she

Mr. Kieran then referred to the quotation in Mr. Killeen's evidence from the Platform for

Change about the relocation of road space accompanying new roads and asked if this

would mean they were providing footpaths and cycleways on the local roads linking in to

the Link roads and Motorway and mentioned the Drumree road as an example. Ms Joyce

said that what was meant by Mr. Killeen was that a new motorway scheme was being

built and this would transfer traffic from the existing roads which would release space on

them and make it more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. Mr. Kieran asked what

would this do for the R125 and Ms Joyce said the New R125 would mean that only local

traffic would now use the old R125 through Drumree village and this would be a better

environment for cyclists and pedestrians. She said that there would not be footpaths put

on it and while Mr. Newall might not agree with her, it was a rural road and it would not

be normal to put footpaths along it. When Mr. Kieran said this did not make the Drumree

road any safer as it had far too much traffic on it at present and he asked if that road

would be brought back to the state it should have been in if it did not have all of the extra

traffic on it recently. Ms Joyce replied that was outside her Brief and its maintenance was

At the end of Mr. Kirean's cross-examination, Mr. Keogh of Druker Fanning & Partners

handed in a written submission by Gerry & Christine Corry, Crosskeys, Drumree, Plot

Arising from a query by Mr. Macken about when he might be able to present the case on

behalf of his Clients, the Inspector said that while it was usual to take all of the Council's

evidence before hearing evidence form the Objectors, having heard the way in which

some of the cross-examination had developed, he had now come to the view that it would

be more helpful for every one if the Council's evidence and the counter-arguments of the

Objectors evidence were not separated by a lengthy period. He said for that reason he was

now suggesting that the evidence by Objectors in the Clonee to Dunshaughlin section

would be taken as soon as the Council's evidence for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section

was completed. He said he accepted this could lengthen the time the Council's expert

witnesses would have to remain at the Hearing or be available for this but he felt this was

the most practical way of dealing with the situation that had become apparent as the

cross-examination had been developing. He said it would be his intention, if this was

generally acceptable to those present, to follow on for each of the other Sections in this

manner. No objections were raised to the Inspectors suggested "Order of Evidences"

Mr. Macken said he would read from the letter which his Client's solicitor had handed in

on the first day of the Hearing as Ms Joyce did not seem to have referred to this in the

Council response which he had been given -- the Inspector confirmed having received

that letter (which is listed at Day 1 in Appendix 4 of this Report ) and said it was the

same as one received by An Bord in May. He then read the letter, the first paragraph

saying that creating an access from adjoining lands to the overbridge was unacceptable in

terms of animal disease control as it would facilitate movement of animals from a

different herd onto the Morrins land. Mr. Macken said the adjoining lands were those of

Mr. Delaney ( Plot 159). The second paragraph said that the Council did not have the

right to force the creation of rights of way over Morrins land in favour of another

landowner and that An Bord should omit this adjoining access from the overbridge if they

approved the acquisition. Mr. Macken said he did not know why there was a reference to

Plot 149 since all of the acquisition was on Plot 160 and that the Council had only

responded to some of the objections and while the second point might be regarded as

somewhat of a legal issue, he wanted to signal a couple of matters in case they would

have to be dealt with by other witnesses. He then referred to the specific landscape

measure SLM 31 which was described in the text with Figure 5.1.8 and also to a river

diversion at C 25 in figure 7.3.4 and asked if the two could be combined as they seemed

Mr. Macken referred to the discussion with Mr. Newall about the Link road being a high

speed road and to the possibility of a future link to the lands to the south of Dunshaughlin

with this link being envisaged in the Dunshaugfhlin Area Action Plan and Ms Joyce said

the design facilitated a future connection but that was not part of the present Scheme. Mr.

Macken then referred to noise and said Johnstown House did not seem to have been used

as a location for noise measurements and when Ms Joyce said it was not used, he drew

attention to the comment by the Agricultural Consultant of a possible effect on cows

during milking by road noise in the report on page 218 in Table 10.6A for plots 160. 149

& 171 and Ms Joyce said that was an issue for discussion with Mr. Dilworth their noise

Mr. Macken said the Council had responded to their objection to a combined access on

the overbridge by saying the bridge provided for a rationalised access to both the Morrin

and Delaney severed lands and to their suggestion Mr.Delaney's lands could be accessed

off the R125 Trim road by saying direct access off the R125 was not recommended. He

pointed out that Mr. Newall was being given two access points off the same high speed

road but Ms Joyce said the traffic levels were very different on the two sections of the

R125 with those on the Link, where Mr. Newall's connections were, being 6400 AADT

in 2024 while that for the Trim road would be 18700 AADT. Responding to his further

query Ms Joyce said the Trim road had been reviewed several times, it had been raised to

provide underpasses to avoid direct access and, as the traffic flows indicated it, was close

to the threshold for a dual carrigeway and might be so in the future so they had designed

A lengthy discussion followed about the possibility of an alternative access off the Trim

road for Mr. Delaney being "fitted in" but Ms Joyce was not convinced by Mr. Macken's

suggestions saying there were only two locations on the Trim road where the road was

raised, at the future rail line crossing at Knockmark which also facilitated another shared

underpass and at the Interchange and that Mr. Delaney had to be given a second access to

get at some of his other severed land. Mr. Macken said his Client was a dairy farmer with

500 cattle and needed to milk twice a day which would involve frequent crossing of the

overbridge while Mr. Delaney was principally in sheep with beef cattle and so would not

Macken read extracts from the Council's response that "it was not considered the bridge

would be used by the two farmers at the same time and there would be segregation of the

ramps but not on the bridge" and asked how this would work in practice, Ms Joyce

suggested their Agricultural Consultant would be better able to respond but she accepted

there was a issue. Mr. Macken suggested some legal agreement would need to be put in

place by the Council since they were providing a joint facility but Ms Joyce said that was

something for the Council to respond to as she could not give a commitment on a farm

management agreement. Mr. Macken said this was a private facility as distinct from a

public road situation and asked if this issue was going to be addressed and Ms Joyce said

their Agricultural Consultant would be better able to deal with it than she could.

Mr. Gunne said his Client was taken aback by the new turn in the Morrins objection as

they had thought the Morrins were seeking a segregation across the bridge which would

avoid the need for a shared access. He said the initial location for this bridge was on the

boundary of both properties and asked why it had been moved and when Ms Joyce said

this was primarily to facilitate the dairying enterprise, Mr. Gunne said they had pointed

out at the time of this move there was little difference between the severed areas in size.

He said Mr. Delaney had about 620 breeding ewes and in the winter months when Mr.

Morrin's cattle would all be housed these sheep would be crossing the bridge four or five

times daily but he accepted that Mr. Morrin would be using it frequently in summer

months. Mr. Gunne pointed out the inconvenience to Mr. Delaney by the relocation of the

bridge already and said a further 3 km journey if the Trim road became the crossing was

untenable. Mr. Gunne asked if she was aware of problems from these type of shared

agricultural flyovers elsewhere but Ms Joyce said she had no knowledge of that but the

Mr Gunne, addressing the Inspector, said their preference was for the overbridge to be

moved back to its original position on the boundary and that they could not see how Mr.

Morrin asked for the bridge to be brought southwards knowing this would inconvenience

Mr. Delaney by the longer journey and now to ask for him to be excluded from its use.

The Inspector asked if a separated access across the bridge was what was being sought

and Mr. Gunne said that was what they had thought Mr. Morrin would be seeking and

Mr. Delaney was quite happy with that. Mr. Macken asked if the bridge could be widened

to provide for segregation and Ms Joyce said there could be a landtake problem. The

Inspector said the issue had been clarified and the Agricultural Consultant had notice of

what was being raised with enough information available for Meath and their Consultant

to address the issue of the bridge when he came to give evidence. Mr. Macken said he

wanted to make it clear they were not ruling out a widening of the bridge and only

Mr.Walsh asked if local conditions were taken into account when the roundabout at the

Summerhill Road junction was being designed and Ms Joyce said that his house and the

house diagonally opposite were the key constraints for that roundabout and they made

every effort to put it equi-distant between them. Mr. Walsh said he doubted it was equidistant

but was not going to push it on his neighbour and asked what was the capacity for

the road. Ms Joyce said the 2024 design year figure was 9700 AADT and the figure given

to him by Ms Dempsey was the 2004 figure. Mr. Walsh then asked what was the capacity

of the roundabout and Ms Joyce replied that the size was dictated more by the approach

roundabouts. Asked if this was the safest option, Ms Joyce said the roundabout had been

designed to meet the standards in TD 16/93 which was the current accepted design code

for a roundabout. Mr. Walsh asked had calculations been done for the traffic flow using

the new road and what pedestrian and cyclist flows used the R156 from Dunboyne there.

Ms Joyce replied that the pedestrian counts were quite low. Mr. Walsh asked if a

roundabout that could take 2500 vehicles per hour could be regarded as safe, Ms Joyce

replied the roundabout was designed to meet the codes and the design principles meant it

was safe and Mr. Walsh suggested that if they had done some research instead of placing

a 50 metre roundabout on a map they might have got the safest design. Ms Joyce said

safety was a primary concern in all road design and Mr. Walsh explained that he had

smaller ones and while he accepted 10 to 20 metres might be too small, he felt that a

roundabout of 30 to 32 metres would give up to 9 metres on either side and this would

mean almost 29 feet less being taken from the bottom of his garden and they could build

Ms Joyce asked was he requesting a reduction in size to 30 or 32 metres and the Council

still achieving its objective and when Mr. Walsh said that was what he wanted, she said

that having heard his previous questions to her colleagues, they had spent some time to

see if this was possible. Ms Joyce pointed out that the roundabout in the CPO was

actually 60 metres in diameter and said they had tried a design for a 40 metre roundabout

and could not get the access track in. Mr Walsh asked if that meant traffic would have to

slow down but Ms Joyce said it meant that one could not achieve all of the arms in the

design. Mr. Walsh then suggested changing the alignment of the approach arms and a

debate continued about the design methodologies for roundabouts until the Inspector

intervened and asked Mr. Walsh if his main point was clarification on the roundabout

itself. When Mr. Walsh said yes to this, the Inspector said that a debate about the

principles of roundabout design was not going to necessarily advance his request for

clarification. He said Mr. Walsh had obtained some information on roundabouts, the

Council had the TD 16/93 codes and he was suggesting the debate would be suspended

suggesting to see what was the minimum the diameter could be reduced to. The Inspector

said the Hearing would be continuing the following week and that should give Meath

time to look at the situation and that Mr. Walsh could resume his cross-examination when

Emer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh said she was Bernard's wife and that their land was incorrectly

sometimes the maps were wrongly marked. She said their garden went down to the river.

The Inspector said the Council should clarify that also and Mr. Keane undertook to do so.

25. 8. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne, Ashling, Roestown, Dunshaughlin --Plot 121 :

Mr. Byrne asked what were the likely timescales for the different elements of the

construction works that would be in progress near his property and Ms Joyce outlined

these as ranging from 3 years for the overall Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section to about 12

months for the temporary road and overbridge on the Dunsany road, with a lengthy

discussion following on the programing of the works themselves and the possibility of

slippage in the timescales occurring. Mr. Byrne asked about the working hours and Ms

Sundays or public holidays. Asked about access to his house during construction on the

road outside Ms Joyce said pedestrian access would be always available but there could

be some disruption to vehicular traffic for which he would be given notice. A discussion

followed about the type of surfacing on the temporary access and on speed control on the

temporary road with Ms Joyce saying these were issues he could discuss again when the

accommodation works were being negotiated. Asked about the depth of the excavation,

Ms Joyce said it was about 9 metres from existing road level to the foundation depth and

that rock was some 3 metres down, Mr. Byrne then asked if the actual working site for

the bridge construction was large enough, with some 650 sq. metres being designated for

this out of 3400 sq. metres, and Ms Joyce said their Structural Engineer had assured her it

Mr. Byrne asked how construction traffic would access the bridge site and was told that

there would be no use of the Dunsany road with all construction traffic using the line of

the M3. He then asked what type of machines would be used in the bridge construction

and when told there would be a crane for lifting, wanted to know its height. Ms Joyce

said that was something the Contractor would decide but that it would be a substantial

crane and Mr. Byrne still pressed for a height since this would be the first thing he saw

each morning for possibly a year and Ms Joyce said she would obtain a possible range of

finished bridge height above the levels shown and suggested this might be pushed up a

further metre but Ms Joyce said the variance would only be in hundreds of millimetres

and explained the design process involved. When Mr. Byrne said he had thought the EIS

was meant to look at the impacts of such construction on the environs of where people

lived, the Inspector commented that the thickness of a line on a drawing could represent

several inches there had to be some tolerance but this did not extend to a variation of one

Mr. Byrne then referred to the possibility of surface water flowing into his drive and

when Ms Joyce said the detail of this was not yet developed but that there would be a

facility to catch the surface water and prevent flooding of his drive, Mr. Byrne asked if he

could discuss this with the Council and Ms Joyce said their drainage engineer would be

available for this. The Inspector suggested to Mr. Byrne that issues like those he was

raising were issues that could be sorted out during the negotiations that would follow if

Mr. Byrne asked which direction the construction traffic on the line of the M3 would be

likely to head for with a large fill to the north of his house but Ms Joyce said there was

fill also in the Dunboyne direction so it would depend on the Contractor's program.

Asked if rock would be blasted or drilled out, Ms Joyce said that if there was blasting this

would have to be kept within the limits specified in the EIS. When Mr. Byrne said the

M3 was quite high relative to his house as the M3 headed north of him but Ms Joyce said

that was at a quite a distance from his house. Asked what sort of equipment would be

used in the excavation Ms Joyce said large excavators and dump trucks were the most

likely to be used. Asked what mitigation measures other than those in the EIS could be

used to further reduce the impact, Ms Joyce said the measures in the EIS were adequate

but she acknowledged the impact on his property were severe and that further mitigation

could only be in monetary terms. Asked about post-construction noise from the M3 Ms

Joyce said there was no requirement for noise mitigation. Asked about "uneven drying"

following from the depth of excavation near his house and the long term effect from

pumping during construction, Ms Joyce said she had not come across this problem.

Mr. Byrne returned, after Mr. Ward had concluded his evidence, to state that he had been

given a very detailed response to his objection which, if he had got it earlier, would have

saved him from asking some of his questions but the response raised some further queries

which he assumed he could ask other experts about. He said he should have been given

Inspector had suggested but all responses were available to those who wanted them. The

Mr. Robinson said they were unwilling vendors and that they expected the EIS to have

fulfilled its legal duties when they were being impacted on by the motorway and that,

despite the comprehensive answers they had only now been given to their objections,

there were still areas where answers were being passed over and the EIS itself had holes

in it. He said that one of his objections was that in the assessment of the routes the impact

on river crossings was predicted as moderate negative with Section 4 saying that Route 2

crossed 4 rivers and elsewhere routes 4 and 5 were described as crossing 4 and 3 rivers

respectively, with there being major negative and severe negative impacts from a lessor

number of crossings. He said the answer he was given said that Route 2 crossed 12 rivers

respectively. He said there was no mention of streams, which could be crossed by a pipe,

in the EIS and he expected the impact in crossing a stream would be much less than that

in crossing a river. He said that part of the EIS was wrong and he had been given

Ms Joyce replied that the report where those rivers were counted was the Route Selection

Report and that was not the EIS. She explained that at the Route selection stage they were

looking at a large numbr of route options, they identified rivers and streams from old

Ordnance survey maps which were the best source for that type of information and they

were trying to compare routes, not assessing them. She said the Tolka River had an

extensive network of tributaries and they had developed a matrix to compare the options

and there were about 50 different headings looked at in comparing the various route

options. Mr. Robinson said the matrix should have had the relative impacts weighted and

not just identified as "slight moderate or positve/negative" as this made it easy to say "we

want Route 2 so we will make it come out". He said if he applied for permission for a

house he would have to have all of the details correct and said the route Selection Report

was not included in the EIS and they only saw it when it was handed over to another

party at the Hearing. He questioned why counting the number of houses within 100

metres was used as this assumed there would be a lessor impact where there were fewer

houses and that did not always follow. Ms Joyce said she accepted he was frustrated but

there was a misunderstanding of the role of an EIS as this was not intended to be a route

selection report of itself. She explained that an EIS was done on the final scheme and that

there was only a summary of the significant choices and changes considered and that the

EIS was only a summary of the 50 headings in the matrix for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin

section. She said that counting the number of houses within 100 metres was the method

procedure used on all road schemes in Ireland as the distance was significant in terms of

visual, noise, air and other impacts. She said the Route Selection Report was done for the

Council to be satisfied about the choice of route they made and was not usually made

documentation. She said it was not a statutory requirement as a part of the EIS.

Mr. Robinson said he was not sure the public would be satisfied with that information

and went on to refer to meetings they had with the Council designers and suggested the

changes that had been made related to issues of access and security but not to noise. Ms

Joyce replied there had been several changes to the alignment through their property with

it being lowered significantly but there was no specific requirement by the M3 for noise

barriers at this point. Mr. Robinson pointed out they had a fishery at the Lake and it was

very quiet there but the motorway was going to be very close and there had to be an

increase in the noise from this. He said he could see an effect already with anglers asking

was it worth renewing their membership with the M3 coming. Ms Joyce said there was a

noise assessment done along the route and accepted his statement of the measurement

being taken in his yard and not at the fishery and that their noise expert would be better

able to comment. Mr. Robinson said there would be farmyard noise in the yard and said

he saw the EIS as being flawed when there was no evidence of an assessment having

been made on the effects on the fishery. He referred to the absence of details on

"production processes" and quoted fron the EIA Regulations 1999, paragraph 2A (2) to

support this and said the EIS did not contain what it was required to do so under the

Statute. Ms Joyce said the EIS was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the

Roads Act and what he was quoting from was for an EIS for a general development and

not one for a road. The Inspector told Mr. Robinson he could cross-examine the noise

Mr. Ward said he had a long exprieence of dealing with the Council on road schemes as a

new road was built in 1968 where the attenuation pond was to go now and in 1970 a

further realignment towards Clonee was built on their land with part of the Clonee Bypass

consultation for those works and he had learned a bit about the Council's methods from

each experience and now in 2002 they were ripping up what was built in 1968 for this

Mr. Ward referred to the typical cross-section where there was an 8 degree slope on the

grass margin and said he wanted this built at a bank of 40 degrees which would prevent

what was recurring at the end of the Clonee By-pass where an itinerant camp ran for most

of the Summer. He said the Council was effectively building a linear camping site from

Clonee to Kells with a nice surface at 8 degrees slope. Ms Joyce said illegal camping was

a matter for the Gardai and the verge design was to the NRA standards. Mr. Ward quoted

from the Housing Act Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2002 to show that did not apply to

public roads and said the Council had already had to bank up margins at the Clonee

roundabout to prevent parking there and that the existing parking was causing a hazard on

the dual carriageway. Ms Joyce repeated the cross-section was in accordance with NRA

standards. A lengthy discussion followed on the "problems" which might arise from

similar "experiences" that had occurred in the locality with Mr Ward saying the road

followed and that enforcement of legislation by the Authorities was outside of her brief.

The Inspector suggested Mr. Ward could make a comment on at the end of his evidence

if he wished and that the Council's landscape expert might look at his suggestions about

Mr. Ward asked if planting could be undertaken at the back of the directional signs as

these would be very high, particularly at Pace and he did not want to see " large lumps of

signs sticking up out of nowhere" when he was working in his fields. Ms Joyce said this

was something he could discuss as part of the accommodation works as there were no

plans for planting at the backs of the directional signs. Mr. Ward raised the problems he

had had with the various types of fencing erected by the Council along his lands since

1968, with seven different types being used there. A lengthy discussion followed about

the type of fencing proposed, the NRA/IFA discussions on heights and types, fixing

methods, specifications used and their enforcement and when Ms Joyce explained the

Road Authority would be responsible for maintenance of the fences along the Motorway,

Mr. Wards queried the frequency of this maintenance and when repairs would actually be

done and suggested an additional railing be placed inside his fence to reduce problems

that he foresaw. Ms Joyce suggested he discuss that as part of the accommodation works.

Mr. Ward went on to raise issues relating to his request for underpasses to facilitate his

movements of animals and Ms Joyce, while conceding it was technically feasible to

provide these where he indicted, pointed out the underpasses were normally provided

either for frquent movements of dairy herds or where no other access to locked land was

possible, neither of which applied in his case. Mr. Ward raised issues about the location

of gates being provided and wanted more gates off roundabouts to avoid having to stop in

the middle of the road but Ms Joyce pointed out that traffic flows would be greatly

timescale for rebuilding his farmyard, which would have to be demolished for the Pace

roundabout, and wanted assurances he would get adequate time for building his new

farmyard at a new site before he would have to vacate his existing farmyard. Ms Joyce

said the Council could give him that detail and suggested the compensation would be

management as the Contractor could not close off the existing N3 withpout an alternative

being in place. Mr Ward felt this would put more pressure on him to move out and he

referred to his need for time before putting silage into the pit etc and the Inspector told

him he could have all of these details set out in the Contract of Sale with the Council as

the CPO, if confirmed, did not supercede the need for a Contract between them to deal

Mr. Scott said he wanted to register a protest at finding out, almost by accident, earlier

that day there was a reply to his objections and wanted to know why his previous letters

of 29 April were only being answered at this stage of the Hearing. Mr. Keane said the

responses had been available at the Hearing during the previous week, Mr. Scott said he

responses were prepared for the purpose of the Hearing and were issued to people as an

assistance to them to consider rather than simply giving oral evidence about their

submissions. Mr. Scott said this was being evasive but Mr. Keane said there was no

evasion of his question, he had stated the factual position as Mr. Scott had not been

present when the responses were announced as being available and if he wished for some

time before cross-examining, this could be provided but Mr. Scott said he would proceed.

Mr. Scott asked why the Pace roundabout was chosen as a particular solution and when

environmental terms, asked if alternatives had been considered and Ms Joyce outlined the

options considered. Mr. Scott asked if the capacity for peak traffic was there and when

told the roundabouts had all been checked for peak flows and met these, he asked where

were these peak flows shown in the EIS so he could assess whether they were adequate.

Ms Joyce said the AADTs were in Vol. 2 but the peak flows were not given in the EIS as

the AADT was considered to be adequate for the purpose of the EIS. Mr. Scott asked if

she was familiar with statistical sampling techniques as in a representative sample and

when Ms Joyce said she was not, he suggested she could not be in a position to evaluate

whether the traffic predictions were accurate. Ms Joyce replied that the traffic model had

been produced by Mr. Richardson, who had been available for cross-examination earlier

in the Hearing, and she relied on his expertise for the traffic requirements and the design

Mr.Scott then asked if she was familiar with the concept of statistical bias and Ms Joyce

said she was not but assumed it would put a slant on information. Mr. Scott said that was

so and referred to page 18 in Dr. O'Cinneide's report of September 1999 where it said

surveys should be taken on average weekdays in late spring or autumn to be reasonably

representative and asked what was an average weekday. When Ms Joyce suggested that

Friday and Monday were probably not "average" days Mr. Scott said they had used both

of those days in their predictions. Ms Joyce suggested there were statistical factors to

convert those days to "normal" days but Mr. Scott said she had accepted she was not

personally able to evaluate the statistical relvance of the figures. Ms Joyce replied that the

person who produced the figures was sufficiently able to do so and had done it. Mr Scott

then questioned the choice of Spring or Autumn over Summer or Winter and Ms Joyce

referred to the availability of conversion factors. Mr. Scott then asked if she recalled

Wednesday 24 March 1999 and when Ms Joyce said she could not, he suggested there

could have been a series of events that day which would make it untypical. Mr. Scott then

referred to the traffic count taken that day and the comments of it being abandoned in Dr.

O'Cinneide's report due to tailbacks developing and, after some further queries and

debate, suggested that three elements of bias had been introduced, the results were then

expanded to represent 365 days and the error was compounded by projecting this forward

for 20 years. He suggested the cost of carrying out further traffic surveys was a very

small part of the Scheme cost. Ms Joyce replied that if Dr. O'Cinneide did not consider

the approach undertaken to be acceptable he would have advised the Council of this. Mr.

Scott then quoted other extracts from Dr. O'Cinneide's report in support of his contention

that inadequate surveys were carried out to be able to statistically predict the future traffic

Mr. Scott asked her to explain the "all or nothing" concept referred to in Dr. O'Cinneide's

report and when Ms Joyce replied it meant assigning all of the traffic to the one route

demed most appropriate with no percentage split, he said she had omitted the one

important aspect which was spelled out in the report, namely "to the fastest route". Ms

Joyce replied that the traffic model described by Mr. Richardson did not have an all or

nothing assignment and its assignment was reflected in traffic terms. Mr. Scott said that

in that case the Council had given him misleading information since he had been told,

following a written request, that the O'Cinneide reoprt was the basis for the predictions.

Ms Joyce replied it provided the basis but it was the model that actually produced the

predictions. Mr. Scott said that if the underlying assumptions were wrong then everything

else was wrong and it was pointless to discuss it and he wanted to establish if reasonable

care had been taken in making the predictions. When Ms Joyce said a reasonable amount

of care had been taken, Mr. Scott suggested it had not and that he would prove that point.

Following some discussion about the traffic model and the effect of tolls on the fastest

route, Mr. Scott referred to the congestion at Blanchardstown in the mornings and

suggested that having paid a toll on the new M3 a driver would come to a full stop at the

Mulhuddard exit a few miles further on and would not take that option the following day.

Ms Joyce explained about the upgrading of the M50 and the Clonee By-pass and said

each scheme was dealt with separately but all were interlinked and each element added to

the overall improvements. Mr. Scott said tailbacks at Blanchardstown made the basis for

selecting the M50 as a route invalid, that his concern and that of his neighbours was that

they would have to traverse three roundabouts before they came to the M50 and they felt

these roundabouts would become congested at peak periods and so people will opt to go

down the N3 with traffic from Ratoath and Trim all getting caught up at the Pace

roundabout. Ms Joyce replied that the traffic levels on the N3 in a "do nothing" scenario

woul reach 52400 in 2024, more that double its present level and the N3 could not cope

A lengthy discussion followed about various comments in a further O'Cinneide report

Impacts" on the capacities of side road junctions. Mr. Scott then quoted from another

O'Cinneide report " N3 Traffic Predictions from National Roads Needs Study Values" on

the need to transfer from private cars to public transport in hinterland areas and asked

what was being done for buses, refering to problems that he said affected traffic from the

congestion at the three roundabouts. Ms Joyce did not accept that they were ignoring

public transport, referring to the provision for clearance for the rail line and said it was

not necessary that a bus lane had to be provided in order that busses could be used. She

also referred to pending improvements to the Clonee By-pass, where she accepted there

Mr.Scott suggested that tolling of local roads was implied in one of Dr. O'Cinneide's

reports but Ms Joyce said that his reports were done in advance of the development of the

Scheme, that it was not until June 2001 that the NRA indicated tolling, that the model

was based on Dr. O'Cinneide's work but took tolling into account and that all of this had

been discussed earlier whem Mr. Richardson had been cross-examined. When Mr. Scott

repeated that people should be aware of local tolling being considered, Ms Joyce said

there were toll booths at both ends of the scheme and she was not aware of tolling of

local roads being considered as a solution to flows in excess of capacities. She said Dr.

O'Cinneide's reference could well be to tolling on the N3 since he would not have been

Mr. Scott then referred to the problems which the M3 would create for bus users from the

Woodpark Road area where he lived. He said his children and others could walk down

the L22161 and get the bus into town at present and asked how they could do this with

the M3 in place. Ms Joyce said they could still get to a bus but the bus-stop might be

moved somewhat. When Mr. Scott said it was not on the plans and how could he access

it, Ms Joyce suggested the bus-stop would be on the realigned N3 and a discussion

followed as to how people would get from the Woodpark area to the N3 through the

roundabouts in between. Mr. Scott asked if a pedestrian bridge could be provided in the

L22161 location, Ms Joyce said a bridge there would have to span both the M3 and N3

and would be expensive, Mr. Scott suggested this would be small part of the overall

scheme and that the alternatives were a lengthy walk to either end which would be very

inconvenient. A further discussion followed which returned to the cost of traffic surveys,

traffic congestion at Blanchardstown and traffic prediction calculcations with Mr. Scott

suggesting that their predictions were invalidated, the scheme would isolate people in

Piercetown and in Pace, that local tolls were being considered and that the predictions

made were a mathematical nonsense. Ms Joyce refuted these points and the Inspector

Mr. Scott then asked where he would find specific details of the noise abatement

proposed and Ms Joyce indicated the locations in his vicinity with a 1 metre barrier being

on the west side of the carriageway near his house. Asked what was the relative road

level there, Ms Joyce said the M3 was about 1.5 metres above the existing road and Mr.

Scott asked what the noise level would be and was told the barrier would reduce it to

68dB at most. Mr. Scott asked what was the barrier made from and when told that was a

matter for the contractor but the material must reduce the noise, he said the documents

presented did not have sufficient detail to assess them. Mr. Keane intervened and read

the details on page 10 paragraph 4.5 in Vol 3C on mitigation measures which set out the

details of the barriers. Mr. Scott maintained he should have been given more details to

Mr. Scott referred to the Council's response to his request that sewage disposal facilities

to replace the septic tanks in the area should be put in place as part of the proposed

scheme since the new road when in place would prevent this from being done and said

the reply he had been given was not a matter for the Hearing but when he put it to the

Council they had said it was a matter for the NRA. Ms Joyce asked him to read the reply

and, when he had read it, asked him was he seeking a sewage scheme as part of the M3.

Mr. Scott replied that provision should be made for a future scheme by putting pipes in

under the road. Ms Joyce said that was a matter for the Council to deal with and

following some discussions on the merits of making provisions for future connections

while the construction work was in progress, she said that the Council might look into

this. Mr. Scott maintained that was all the Council had said to a previous request and Ms

Joyce replied that it may not have been feasible. Mr. Scott concluded by asking how far

his house was from the M3 and when told it was between 500 and 600 metres asked was

his the closest house and Ms Joyce said there were many others much closer and to his

query if measurements were taken at his house, she said the noise expert would be able to

The Inspector asked Ms Joyce to have a cost estimate made of a pedestrian/cycleway

overbridge at the L 22161 location and details of the number of houses on the Woodpark

road or a pedestrian count if one was available for that area. He also asked for details of

the additional reports by Dr. O'Cinneide referred to by Mr. Scott since only the report of

Mr. McBreen said he lived near the proposed Newtown Bridge Roundabout in the third

house of a group of four and that he had beeen alarmed by some of the answers to his

previous questions to Ms Dempsey. He referred to the Tolka River Flood Study Report

where the scope was "to conduct a full hydrological study to assess design flows at

critical points" and highlighted a number of issues where he felt enough attention had not

been given to prolem locations. He said that the catchment area of the Tolka River and its

tributaries was given on page 29 and this showed that the Castle River was almost one

third of the overall area which indicated to him that one third of the flow going into the

Tolka and Clonee was from the Castle River that flowed past them at Newtown Bridge.

Ms Joyce said their Drainage Engineer who prepared the study was available but Mr.

McBreen replied he had spoken to him on the previous evening and felt he had difficulty

in accepting their concerns. Mr. McBreen referred to the Flood Plain maps at page 24 and

said the By-pass ring road was not considered in the tudy, Ms Joyce confirmed that it was

outside the study scope and Mr. McBreen asked how high above the existing bridge was

the new road going to be. Ms Joyce said the By-pass would be at a higher level than the

existing Summerhill road and Mr. McBreen said that in flood conditions the bridge was

unable to take the flow and water backed up, flowed into the adjoining gardens, along the

Summerhill road and across the road into the fields. He showed photographs taken in the

2000 flooding and Ms Joyce acknowledged there seemed to be a flooding problem at

Newtown Bridge. Mr. McBreen said that if the water had risen by a further 2 inches on

consequences from the new raised road was that he and others would be flooded in the

Ms Joyce said they recognised there was a problem there and they were providing an

increased size of culvert but having discussed the issue with him on the previous evening,

they were now going to increase the size further. A discussion followed on the size that

had been proposed, what the Council now intended to install and Mr. McBreens concerns

doubled in size, Ms Joyce replied she had understood he had been given the revised

dimensions and the Inspector suggested Ms Joyce might need time to consult with her

Drainage Engineer on this issue and Mr. Keane said the Council would undertake to

install a culvert of 10 sq. metres in area which was almost 100% increase over the present

size of circa 5.5. Mr. McBreen expressed doubts that this size would be sufficient and

referred to the 1986 and 2000 floods and where those flood waters went and had concerns

that the 100 year flood would still cause them problems. Ms Joyce said there would be an

opportunity at the detailed design stage to refine the figures used in the preliminary

Mr. McBreen then referred to the effect of increased traffic on the road from 1800

vehicles now to 5000 when the by-pass is there and said he could not see how there could

be a reduction in noise levels predicted of 3 decibels for the two houses on either side of

nothing" scenatrio when the traffic on the Summerhill road would increase significantly

and said their noise expert would be better able to advise him on that matter. Mr.

McBreen said they in the Residents Association had questioned the need for a roundabout

and for the By-pass to be as wide as was planned and he referred to his reading of

research into roundabout design in other Countries such as Sweden, France and the UK

and suggested more consideration be given to the safety aspects of pedestrians and

cyclists with the large numbers going to the soccer field. Ms Joyce said she had read the

documentation given to them by one of his Residents and that the cyclist count they had

got at the bridge was 14. She referred to page 18 in the Swedish National Road and

Transportation Research Institute document which said that for an intersection of 10000

vehicles, which was about their design flow for the By-pass, and where there were 1000

crossings of cyclists daily, where they had counted 14, the expected annual cycle accident

rate was 0.2 or 1 every 5 years. Ms Joyce pointed out that there was a substantial

difference between 14 and 1000 and that even if more cyclists used the road the accident

roundabout had been designed to recognised codes and standards and that the roundabout

also had to be able to accommodate HGVs as there was a 15% level of these on the

Maynooth road. Mr. McBreen concluded by suggesting there was a mistake in the traffic

flows given on page 20 in Vol. 3C since the same number was given for the R156 west of

Newtown Bridge as on the R156 Clonee to Dunboyne section and from his experience

the Clonee to Dunboyne end carried far more than west of the bridge. Ms Joyce said she

Note -- Mr. Walsh cross-examined Ms Joyce initially during Day 6 of the Hearing (See

Section 25.7. above) and, following discussions with the Council and their Consultants

returned, as suggested by the Inspector, to cross-examine her again during Day 10.

Mr. Walsh asked what type of road had been in mind when the roundabout was being

designed and Ms Joyce said the road was designed primarily as a wide single carriageway

but with provision for an upgrade in the future. Asked if that was the reason for the 60

metre diameter in the roundabout, Ms Joyce said the 60 metres accommodated the wide

single ideally and also allowed for an upgrade. Asked if 50 metres would allow for an

upgrade, Ms Joyce said it would but only just as the radius was just minimal and not

desirable. Asked why the link road was planned, Ms Joyce said it was planned as a bypass

mainly coming from Maynooth and going towards Drogheda. Mr. Walsh asked if a short

term solution would be to put weight restrictions on the R157 and force HGVs to go onto

the M4 at Maynooth and on via the M50 to Drogheda as he accepted something needed to

be done in Dunboyne. Ms Joyce said that was not realistic without a by-pass and when

that was in place there would be opportunities for traffic calming in Dunboyne. The

Inspector intervened to say it was illegal to put weight restrictions on a Regional Road

but if the by-pass was in place the road through Dunboyne would be reduced in status to

Mr.Walsh ssuggested it would be possible to have a 40 metre roundabout if the By-pass

was reduced to 7.5 metres normal carriageway and Ms. Joyce agreed but said the traffic

flows would only allow for a level of service of "C" without allowing for the increased

development expected. The Inspector asked to be reminded of the predicted traffic and

Ms Joyce said it ws 9700 AADT. Mr. Walsh suggested it would be possible to build a

smaller roundabout of 30 to 40 metre diameter if it was not for the plans to upgrade the

road to a dual carriageway but Ms Joyce said they had looked at numerous options,

starting with 60 metres and reducing this to 50 after considering the reactions they

received from the public including himself. She outlined the options available and said

accommodate a dual carriageway if that was required in the fiuture. Mr. Walsh suggested

if a standard road and a 40 metre roundabout was put in place that this would work but

Ms Joyce said it would not give the required level of service. The Inspector commented

that at 10000 AADT and a 7.5 metre carriageway there would be regular congestion on a

40 metre ICD roundabout. When Ms Joyce said they had never hidden the possibility of

upgrading, Mr. Walsh asked where did this leave the EIS which made no reference to a

dual carriageway and the Inspector said a proposal for a dual carriageway in the future

would require a further EIS to be prepared, that Ms Joyce was only saying they had taken

account of the possibility in their design and if they ever wanted to do it, there would

Mr. Walsh said his cursory research showed that it would not be possible to build a 50

metre roundabout on the Continent as the maximum allowed there was 35 metres. Ms

Joyce doubted that there was a maximum size specified on the Continent, saying she had

driven through larger than that there. She said the Code for roundabouts in Ireland was

TD 16/93 and that achieved all of the safety documentation he had circulated. She said

there were 5 arms and possibly 6 to the roundabout and these dictated the size and it took

45 metres with the 5 arms to achieve the same geometry as his 32 metre one did. She said

the two critical ones were the arm on Mr.Walsh's road and the entrance into Mr. Bruton's

land and a drawing she had prepared of the truck movements on a 32 metre showed a

truck could not come off the existing R156 and negotiate the roundabout. Ms Joyce said

she had shown this to him earlier and hoped he could accept that, their design was as tight

as it could be got within the minimum geometric standards and that, basically, the

Diameter). She said that in terms of Mr. Walsh's house it was a difference of 2.5 metres

further from the house and while she acccpted that was of significance to him, it did not

mean a 2.5 metre difference in the landtake, as that was determined by the Tolka

The Inspector said he did not need to see the tracking diagram she had produced as he

was aware of those requirements already and commented that some examples quoted in

continental documentation were for roads with restricted vehicle controls and not for

information about the design being for a dual carriageway would have been useful earlier

roundabouts ( Note- these are listed at Day 10 in Appendix 4 of this Report). He said that

roundabout sizes, he was giving these for her information. Mr. Walsh asked if she would

quote from Section 4.9 in TD 16/93 that dealt with two wheeled vehicles and Ms Joyce

acknowledged that roundabouts were not friendly for cyclists and said that roundabouts

were an accepted junction type where, in this case, the count was of the order of 14 per

Mr. Walsh said research had shown that if people were not encouraged to cycle they

would not do so and if you had bigger faster roads and people would be put off and he

felt that TD 16/93 was being used as a constraint. Ms Joyce replied that it was not just

TD 16/93 but it was a recognised standard that produced a safe road design and that if it

was reduced to 32 ICD trucks would not be able to go around the roundabout and you

could not get the pedestrian islands that were so important. When Mr. Walsh said he saw

roundabouts smaller than 32 metres all round the country, Ms Joyce said not with 5 arms

and wide single approaches and the Inspector said he was basically saying he wanted the

roundabout reduced and Ms Joyce was pointing out the difficulties in doing this and he

was now suggesting that sufficient information had been provided on which he could

Mr. Walsh then asked if the Council would build some sort of wall around his property as

he now thought he would have to fence himself in from this roundabout and road. Mr.

Keane replied he was not at that time able to give that commitment but it could be

discussed at the compensation stage. The Inspector asked if he was saying he wanted a

wall around his property and Mr. Walsh agreed he was and Mr. Keane said the Council

Newtown Bridge and Ms Joyce said they were discussing with the Council the possibility

of using these stones in a local project in the Dunboyne area if the shapes of the stones

were suitable for re-use. Mr. Walsh concluded by asking what the possible sixth leg was

for and Ms Joyce said that Mr. Eamon Walsh (Plot 475) was seeking an access to his land

Note -- Mr. Scott initially cross-examined Ms Joyce on Day 8 (See Section 25. 11.above)

Before Mr. Scott commenced his cross-examination the Inspector told him that he had

asked the Council to carry out a count of pedestrian movements at the Bus Stop, located

near the Ratoath road junction with the N3, arising from Mr. Scott's cross-examination of

Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch and that report had already been handed in by the Council and he had

asked the Council to give a copy to Mr. Scott. The Inspector said he had also received

Mr. Scott's Fax of 4 September about the traffic figures being statistically invalid and

thus requiring an additional origin and destination study to be conducted in a statistically

manner and that this would be treated as an additional written submission from him.

Mr. Scott said he had asked how high above the existing ground would the new road be

built and Ms Joyce said it was 1.007 mtres higher at his house. He said he had sought the

number of houses closer to the road than 50 metres and she said there were 9 along the

mainline, excluding on link and side roads, between Clonee and Dunshaughlin. Asked

about the cost of pedestrian bridge she replied it was �900000 excluding VAT. Mr Scott

referred to his query about the closure of L2216 and her response that people could use

the accesses at either end of the Woodpark road and asked if she had checked the extra

distances. When Ms Joyce said it was about 1.6 kms, he asked how long it would take to

walk that distance and Ms Joyce suggested 10 to 12 minutes and Mr. Scott asked if it was

reasonable to expect a pedestrian seeking a bus to have to add 15 minutes to their journey

at each end. Ms Joyce replied that there were only a few properties there and a bridge

would cost a million Euro and Mr. Scott said that was saying the few did not matter. Ms

Joyce disagreed with this suggestion and said it was an economic decision. Following

some exchanges on the use of economics, Mr. Scott put it to Ms Joyce that the addition of

20 to 30 minutes to a bus journey would discourage the use of public transport which

everyone wanted to see being used more and Ms Joyce accepted there was inconvenience

Mr. Scott then referred to the traffic count taken since his last time at the Hearing and

questioned why the times of 15.15 to 19.30 were used, saying his study overlooked the

road and that if it had been done earlier in the morning it would have got different results

with school children accessing the road for public transport. Ms Joyce replied that the

study had been requested by the Inspector and the times and location were as agreed with

him. When Mr. Scott suggested that it did not take account of student traffic, Ms Joyce

meaning a longer walk, would give a bridge and a safer crossing of two roads whereas at

presenrt people had to dash across in between traffic to get to the bus stop. A discussion

then took place about the lengths of time taken to cross the N3 and the use of the

alternative involving crossing roundabouts. Mr. Scott acknowledged receiving a drawing

by FAX from Ms Joyce after his previous cross-examination and, having been told there

would be pedestrian refuges on the islands at the roundabouts where they would cross, he

asked if there would be lights or a zebra crossing there. Ms Joyce replied there was no

requirement for zebra crossings at these type of locations and he suggested people would

have to "dart" across the traffic lane to reach the refuge and repeat that to get to the other

side. Ms Joyce disagreed with his suggestion saying there would be adequate time to

cross and pointed out on a drawing shown to the Hearing the different routes people

A lengthy discussion followed on the difficulties, as Mr. Scott saw them and with Ms

Joyce explaining what was being provided, for pedestrians moving from one side of the

M3 to the other via the Pace and Trim Road roundabouts. Mr. Scott suggested a footpath

should be provided instead of people having to walk on the grass verges and Ms Joyce

pointed out that the motorway scheme could not solve all the existing problems along

every road with footpaths and lighting for every road. The Inspector intervened and

suggested that as there were a number of roads being closed in this area this did put some

additional journey time on people it seemed to him that some sections of footpath could

be constructed at certain stretches where people might have some difficulty in deciding

what route they should use to get from one side to the other. He suggested that Ms Joyce

should have a specific footpath route identified at each end of the Woodpark road for the

Black Bull Roundabout area and the Pace Interchange area which would make it easier to

follow what was being proposed and Ms Joyce agreed to have a drawing prepared. Mr.

Scott said that was the only clarification he required on those points. (Note -- Ms Joyce

handed in drawings of the footpath routes at the end of Day 11 and these are listed in

Reps of Patrick Peters Plot 294 and P.J. Roche Plot 470, the Inspector noting that copies

had also been sent to the various parties. (These are included in the two Files of

Responses to Specific Objections listed at Day 10 in Appendix 4 of this Report )

Mr. Keane asked her to outline the costings for providing the footpath and lighting along

Leshamstown Lane as requested by the Inspector after the submission by the residents

there (See Section 40 of this Report). Ms Joyce said the footpath was costed at � 28575

and the lighting at � 89000 including 12.5% VAT. Ms Joyce said the cost of inserting a

additional costs for the approach roads and for upgrading the Roestown roundabout. She

said that there was not sufficient clearance for a bridge there and the approach roads

would have to be raised by about 3 metres and this could cause a problem as there might

not be enough land taken to cater for building the bridge within the CPO take as the land

footprint there was minimal. Asked about the Council's intended use for the closed

section of the R125 at that point, Ms Joyce said that it was intended to use the section of

the existing R125 between the eastern side of the M3 and the junction with the Dunsany

road as the new driveway to Readsland House with this giving access to the Newall

family lands. Mr. Keane suggested this would allow the fences to be removed and the

Newalls could have easy access across the drive for their horses and Ms Joyce said that

option would be available for them if they wished. Asked about the effects on traffic if

the existing R125 was left open, Ms Joyce said part of the benefits of the new R125 was

to remove through traffic from Drumree village and if the existing road was left intact,

there was the possibility of some traffic staying on the existing R125 and the Scheme

Mr. Keane referred to Mr. Newall's comments about the use of the Link Road on the

other side of Readsland being used by pedestrians and people coming from housing

estates. Ms Joyce replied that there was a grass verge proposed along this Link Road

which serviced the Interchange and there was no intention or need for pedestrian usage

there. She said that the existing road within the edge of Dunsghaughlin would be a

shorter route for people wishing to reach the GAA grounds rather than use the new Link

boundary adjoining those estates which would remain untouched by their scheme. Asked

about the planning application he had referred to, she said that on examining this she

found that it referred to lands that were mainly located north of the Dunsany road with

only some 70 to 80 houses to the south of that, with the lands being adjacent to Mr.

Newalls but running away from the Link Road . Asked about lands to the east of the Link

developed he would have to sell them or develop them himself and she suggested that

Mr. Keane asked if she had researched Mr. Byrne's concerns about "uneven drying" and

Ms Joyce replied that the geotechnical advice was the soil was a glacial till that was overconsolidated

matter had been fully investigated in the Kildare By-pass " Raised Fen" case and the

lowering of the water-table and the conclusion there was of it being a very very low risk

to services. The Inspector said they should pass that informationon to Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Keane asked Ms Joyce to hand in the letters from the Eastern Regional Fisheries

Board indicating their general approval, as requested by the Inspector ( See Section 34.3.

of this Report ) and Ms Joyce said there were a number of letters from the Board as there

Ms Joyce confirmed having re-calculated the quantity of fill to be imported and, in

response to a query by the Inspector, that such traffic would be confined to using only

Extracts from 1994 and 2001 Meath CDPs; Sections 3.5.10 and 3.6.5 i from 2001 CDP;

Copy of Maps requested (1) showing County with CDP 2001 landscape classification

with TP 02 and other markings as sought; (2) showing route of M3 as in CDP 2001 as

varied; (3) showing indicative by-passes in 1994 and 2001 CDPs; Ditto for Navan and

Copy of letter sent by NRA to various County Managers with a copy of the Press Release

Mr. Keane also asked Ms Joyce to hand in a definition of a rural road that the Inspector

had asked for but the Inspector said that had been sought by Mr. Newall and suggested

they give him a copy. Ms Joyce also confirmed that mammal passes would be provided in

the larger culverts, as would badger passes as stated in the EIS, but she said it would not

Mr.Keane then referred to costing the pedestrian bridge at the Woodpark road, raised in

Mr. Scotts cross-examination (See Sections 25.11 & 25.14 above) and Ms Joyce said this

was estimated at � 900000. She also handed in a survey of pedestrians and cyclists taken

on the previous afternoon by Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch as requested by the Inspector and said

copies of that were available for others (See Sections 25.14 & 30.4. of this Report)

Mr.Keane then read an extract from Section 69 (1) (a) of the Roads Act 1993 which

relates to the powers for removing temporary dwellings from motorways which arose

from comments made by Mr. Ward. The Inspector said he could hand that in if he wished

but he did not think it would resolve Mr. Ward's concerns from what he had said.

(All of the above documents handed in are listed at Day 10 in Appendix 4 of this Report)

Mr. O'Donnell asked how close was the new road to the Peter's house and Ms Joyce said

she had written to Mrs. Peters with that information on 5 August 2000 and said the road,

which was the N3 realignment, was about 50 metres from the nearest corner of the house.

Asked how far was the motorway, Ms Joyce said that was a further 34 metres which

would put it about 84 metres from the house. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the realigned N3

carriageway, that it would service the Ratoath area and that the traffic in 2024 would be

some 19000 AADT. She agreed it was an alternative road to the tolled M3 and that traffic

suggested that one of the most heavily trafficed section of the road within 50 metres of

Mrs. Peters house and Ms Joyce agreed but said the road which passed her house at

present would be carrying 50000 vehicles in 2024 if the M3 was not proceeded with in

the do nothing scenario. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the whole road was being brought

closer and Ms Joyce accepted it was closer and that part of the system was designed to be

within 50 metres of the house but said the motorway was being built substantially along

the line of the existing N3 at that section and this meant the realigned N3 had to be placed

Mr. O'Donnell asked what was the difference in level between the existing and new roads

and when Ms Joyce said the two were at much the same level, he asked why the road

could not have been moved in the other direction where there were no houses. Ms Joyce

replied that this had already been explained in a letter to Mrs. Peters and said the land

there was the disused railway corridor of the Clonsilla to Navan Railway line and they

had to keep that clear under the SPGs. Mr. O'Donnell said that line was disused and it

identifying an alternative route for the railway and move their road away from the Peters

house. Ms Joyce said they had looked but that there were houses on the other side as

well. Mr. O'Donnell asked who did the survey to see if the railway could be moved and

when Ms Joyce started to explain what had been done, he asked her to name the actual

person. The Inspector intervened and said that there had been considerable debate at

several stages about the railway corridor, with some saying it should be left there and

others saying it should be shifted, and he said that Ms Joyce should be allowed to explain

Ms Joyce said their first approach was to preserve the corridor as it stood but this was not

practical since the existing N3 opposite Mrs. Peter's house was already on part of the

corridor from an earlier realignment. She said they then looked to preserve the width but

this had implications for houses, including Mrs. Peter's, so they tried to minimise the

impact and the road was moved about 10 metres away from the initial position at Mrs.

Peters location. She said that their instructions were that a railway corridor must be

preserved. Mr. O'Donnell questioned why no consideration was given to moving the road

further but Ms Joyce said they had moved it as much as was possible by refining the

design of the road and median and the corridor in consultation with Iarnrod Eireann. Mr.

O'Donnell repeated his suggestion that the road would be extraordinarily close and that it

would be heavily trafficed and Ms Joyce accepted the road was within 50 metres and that

it was close but said the realigned N3 would be less trafficed, while agreeing the

Mr. Farrelly said he had a degree in Agricultural Science and had been in practice as a

Consultant for 24 years and had given expert evidence in a number of road schemes, with

his Company being one of the largest agricultural consultancy practices in Ireland. He

said his Brief was to carry out a detailed assessment of each farm along the selected

routes impacted by the proposed M3 for inclusion in the EIS and to assess the macro

effect of the proposed scheme on agriculture locally and nationally for inclusion in the

EIS. He said that when the final route was selected it was then possible to identify each

farmer who would be affected and to quantify the effects the development would have on

Section with each of these visited by a consultant who interviewed each owner or

occupier, using a set questionaire for all of them, with a map of each farm showing the

M3 impact prepared and a report prepared for each farm. He said that report covered the

impact; the main farming enterprise; the total area of the farm; the area being acquired;

the percentage lost; the presence or otherwise of severance; the nature of the impact and

what mitigation measures were possible. He said these reports were summarised in

Mr. Farrelly said they examined the nature and style of agriculture along the proposed

route corridor in the macro report, which commented on the soil types encountered and

specifically on the Soil Associations in the effected area, and that agriculture in the DEDs

along the route was examined and compared to agriculture locally and nationally. He said

the macro report examined the route length; the number of farm entities along the route;

the area of land and buildings being acquired; the number of farms severed; the number

severely severed and the enterprise of effected farms. He said that no farming enterprise

along the route was so severely severed as to render it non-viable and that no farm of

national or local importance was being impacted in a way that would make it non-viable.

Mr. Farrelly said the the impact of the scheme would be felt by individual farmers and

farm units rather than nationally or regionally and that the area being acquired was

insignificant in terms of the national agricultural area or the agricultural area in Co.

Meath. He said the total area of 197 hectares being lost to agricultural production from

the road scheme, while significant for individual farmers was not significant on a county

Mr. Kieran asked what function he had with the Council after the Notice to treat was

served and Mr. Farrelly replied that he could be involved as the Council's Agricultural

advisor in the negotiations for accommodation works but the Council were free to

employ some one else if they wished. He confirmed the reports had been up dated to

involvement was to report on what he found on the ground and that he was not involved

in advising where the route should go, Mr. Kieran said his questions would have to be for

other witnesses as he had problems about the shared access with five others and Mr.

Subsequent to the evidence of Professor Dodd and his cross-examination by Mr. Macken

(Section 27.3. refers) Mr. Keane recalled Mr. Farrelly and asked him to comment on the

suggestion that some sort of management plan should be put in place for the shared

overpass in the context of other shared facilities presently in use elsewhere. Mr. Farrelly

replied that sharing of facilities was very common and while there were not very many

shared under or overpasses from new roads in existence yet, it was quite common for four

or five farmers to share access to their lands through a common laneway or through a

short narrow roadway. He gave as an example the Land Commission practice of dividing

very large holdings into smaller holdings with the access to those holdings being left by

means of a very narrow lane which would be shared by several farmers and sometimes as

many as five. He said there were almost no farm along the roadway where a farmer was

in a self contained block and all farmers were used to moving cattle along from one

section of land to another. He said that in modern day terms it did not stand up that

farmers would be walking cattle on these shared passes in a very frequent basis and one

would not expect animals to be crossing over and back very often. Asked if in his

experience it was necessary for a third party to impose conditions Mr. Farrely said he had

not come across any place where this was done as it was something to be achieved by

agreement between the landowners themselves. He said that in practical terms if one

farmer comes to a shared facility and sees another man's animals approaching on it he

The Inspector said that while Mr. Farrelly's comments were useful and Professor Dodd

had given evidence on the Department of Agriculture views there had been a number of

objections where the landowners did not want to share the facility. He said that the

Council should still make the inquiries he had suggested about the usage in other existing

locations and he would like to hear something further on this before the Hearing ended.

Mr. Keane asked about the drainage of the farm service roads that Mr. Kieran had raised

(Section 35.4. refers) and Mr. Farrelly said the drainage there was the same as on any

other farm roads that he would have through his existing farm and it would probably not

be necessary for any specific drainage mechanism to be put on either side of them.

Professor Dodd said he was a statutory lecturer in the Department of Large Animal

Clinical Studies in the Veterinary Faculty in UCD and he specialised in the epidemiology

of infectious diseases. He said he had been requested by the Council to prepare an

assessment as a response to the concerns expressed by some stockowners along the route

of the new road where it was proposed to use shared underpasses or bridges to move

livestock from one side of the road to the other. He said this was of particular concern to

dairy farmers as they might have to use an underpass twice daily for milking or else they

would have to change their farm management system whereas other cattle enterprises,

such as sucklers or dry stock, would be grazed on a paddock rotation system for longer

periods and would not need to traverse the road as frequently as dairy cows. He said

sheep and some horses were also involved but their movements would not be frequent

Professor Dodd said that there was always a risk of disease being introduced through the

passage of wildlife such as badgers and foxes carrying tuberculosis from one farm to

another, from infected brucella placentas, from shared watercourses carrying salmonella

or simply trading patterns of farms even where there was no shared underpass proposed.

He said farmers had a risk aversion preference which was largely aspirational as their

wish for zero risk remained largely illusory and unattainable. He said the critical question

Professor Dodd described the specific hazards of shared underpasses might be as a point

of direct contact between animals from different herds or indirect contact from faeces or

urine or other secretions/disacharges deposited by one herd and left there to be walked

over by another herd some time later. He said infectious diseases were of two types, those

having statutory provisions for control such as Tubercoulosis or Brucellosis controlled by

the Department of Agriculture and those of lessor national importance but of vital interest

to herd owners such as Leptospirosis and Salmonellosis. He said that Foot and Mouth

disease which was not present in Ireland represented an external threat which the State

paid attention to prevent its entry here by way of animal tagging, traceability, animal

movement records particularly at Ports and other points of entry. He said that as the risks

underpasses/bridges on the Motorway represented no extra risks over the residual risks

He said where diseases subject to statutory control occurred the herds sharing an

underpass should be treated as a single unit for disease control purposes and should be

TB and Brucella tested by the Department of agriculture as a "block unit" which, he said,

was the most efficient method and incorporated the worst case scenario where one herd

suffered a TB breakdown and the other did not. Professor Dodd said if both herds sharing

an underpass were clear there was no problem, if both were broken down both were

locked up and it was only critical if there was a mis-match between herds where one was

broken down and the other clear. He said that because there could be a time lag between

the time of infection and detection, since a TB test might not happen until some time had

passed, there could be a continued use of the underpass in good faith by both parties. He

said that in such a scenario the risk of transmission might increase over the background

level of residual raisk of infection from a contiguous herd i.e. one separated by farm

boundaries. He said best practice in such cases would be to restrict both herds until the

He said he had queried the Department of Agriculture on this situation and he understood

Department policy was that an underpass did not represent an unacceptable risk of the

spread of TB or Brucellosis provided there was no mingling of herds and that reasonable

steps were taken to prevent the build-up of faecal matter at the underpass over and above

that which would be passed by the animals themselves as they traversed the underpass.

He said he would expect the Department would review any particular case on its merits

and take into account the history of the herds sharing an underpass, the disease status of

the locale and whether it was a black spot or not. Professor Dodd said for diseases that

were not subject to statutory control the matter was less acute as those diseases could be

adequately controlled by vaccines in the case of Leptospirosis, which dairy farmers did at

present, and by preventing the build-uop of faeces in and around the underpass. He said

these measures would require good co-operation between all of the users of the underpass

so that the separate herds would never meet and mingle in the first place and with each

user accepting the obligation to clean and disinfect the underpass of gross faecal

contamination after passage by his animals. Professor Dodd concluded by saying that

each user should leave the underpass as he would expect to find it and that, if this good

neighbour policy was followed, then the risk would be kept to an absolute minimum as

Mr. Kieran said his herd was a closed herd as they had not bought in animals since the

1970s and as it was a dairy herd of over 200 animals he was very concerned about

brucellosis but not so much about TB even though there were TB problems in the area

and he quoted Brucellosis figures for Meath. He asked about the transmission patterns,

progression and cure for Johnes disease. Professor Dodd explained that transmission

pattern was usually from mother to calf with the vast majority of cases being in very

young calves, that it was a slowly progressive disease incubating over a two to three year

period with no cure. Asked if it was an imported disease, Professor Dodd said it was a

low level indigenous disease that had been here for decades and decades and he agreed it

was difficult to control but said the transmission window was much narrower than for TB

of Brucellosis. Asked if sharing an underpass would be a risk, Professor Dodd replied

that he had asked the Department of Agriculture about the risk level for Johnes which

was a statutory controlled disease and they did not think it represented any extra risk

more than if a contiguous herd had broken down with one of thoses diseases when they

would test you more frequently but would not restrict just because of being a contiguous

herd. Mr.Kieran asked if there was a greater risk when using shared facilities and

Professor Dodd replied that it was difficult to say but the Department would say they had

not seen any increased level with the use of underpasses. He said they saw them as the

same as two farmers walking cattle on the same stretch of road and that the best practice

would be to regard it as a single disease unit. Mr.Kieran said he had five chances of a

Mr. Kieran then asked about the status of animal waste collected from a shared facility

and would it have a different status being from different herds. Professor Dodd said it

would depend on the staus of both herds and would only be a difficulty if there was a

possibility of licences becoming necessary to spread slurry on some one else's land and

what would be the implications for "mixed" slurry from a shared underpass but Professor

Dodd said the quantities would be small and that best practice would be to regard it as a

single unit with all of them restricted if one broke down. When Mr. Kieran said the

implications were horrendous as far as he was concerned, Professor Dodd said there was

no evidence of this happening where these facilities were in place but there always was a

possibility and it would have to be taken on the merits of the particular case. He said if

there was a history of breakdowns that might be regarded as different to a case of a

Mr. Kieran asked about the risk of disease spread from badgers saying that there was

some evidence of badgers setts being disturbed by road building giving rise to increased

TB in the area. Professor Dodd replied that badgers used a habitat of about 120 acres that

did not respect farm boundaries, that roads created a disturbance for them and they

tended to move away from a disturbance. He said badgers persisted in trying to cross a

road which was one reason dead badgers were seen on new roads and that generally there

was a risk of badgers crossing farm boundaries and spreading TB or brucellosis from one

to the other but that was always a residual risk. He said leaving the underpass as one

expected to find it was the key but he accepted Mr. Kieran�s comment of that being fine

Mr. Macken asked if he had visited any of the farms and Professor Dodd said that he had

not, his brief was to make a general report on the possible risks associated with shared

Mouth and other exotic diseases, asked if he was saying that a "scare" on one of two

farms sharing an underpass or an overbrige should have both being treated as a single

unit and Professor Dodd said that was the best practice to have an area control rather than

just boundary control on the one farm. Mr. Macken said that if a sheep farmer adjoined a

dairy farmer, both sharing an overpass and there was an outbreak in the sheep herd was

he saying that both should betreated as one unit. Professor Dodd replied that would

depend on the disease, Mr. Macken suggested Foot and Mouth and Professor Dodd said

every herd within a 5 mile radius would then be locked up, not only the two adjacent

Mr. Macken then asked about TB or Brucellosis and Prodfessor Dodd said the whole

basis of statutory control was that there was no mingling of herds. Mr. Macken asked

who would ensure there was no mingling of herds and Professor Dodd said that would be

for the farmers involved to organise, that no farmer wanted mingling to occur and they

would have to come to some arrangement. Mr. Macken said he was saying Mr. Morrin

would have to agree with Mr. Delaney about the usage of the shared bridge and when

Professor Dodd said that was so, he suggested that the NRA and Council were offering

this facility when they were severing the farm and asked why they did not have to

provide some sort of management structure for the shared facility. Professor Dodd

thought that in practical terms it would be up to the herd owners to work it out

themselves. Mr. Macken asked if that was likely to be acceptable to the Department of

Agriculture to prevent mingling of herds and Professor Dodd replied that if there was

evidence of mingling taking place the department would immediately regard them as one

herd. Mr.Macken asked how the different herd numbers could be regarded as a single unit

and Professor Dodd accepted that was a dilemma that was there. Mr. Macken referred to

his comments that reasonable steps be taken to prevent a build-up of faecal matter at the

underpass and asked did that put some obligation on each farmer to clean the surface or

otherwise there would be a risk contamination. Professor Dodd replied that if an animal

was carrying a variety of a disease and defecated on the surface, when the next herd came

along and came in contact with it there was a residual risk depending on the health status

of the herd so that, in a sense, one was hostage to your neighbour and that was the

overbridge and he asked Professor Dodd to go through the difference between "restricted

movement" and a "locked up" herd. Professor Dodd said restricted could mean resticted

within the farm or to particular areas in the farm which could mean that animals could be

confined to the yard or they could be kept away from paddocks bounding anotherr farm.

Mr. Gunne suggested it was normal practice where a herd with TB or Brucellosis had

gone down in a number of tests that adjoining herds were spot tested and Professor Dodd

scenario it was 1967 for the occurrence before that of 2001 and the 1940s before that

again. He asked if there was much chance of a cross spread of disease where one farm

had several hundred dairy cows and the adjoining had sheep with 20/30 cattle and

Professpor Dodd replied that for indigenous endemic diseases there was little chance of

that. Mr. Gunne asked if it would be the practice where two farmers used a country lane

that they were both not going to run their cattle down the lane at the one time. Professor

Dodd said that was so as they were going to prevent them mingling at all costs. He also

said that from a disease spread viewpoint there was little chance of disease carrying

through from one side of a hedge to the other since the cattle would not be defecating

across the hedge or sharing a watercourse. Mr. Gunne suggested a scenario where a dairy

farm and a small dry stock outfit were adjoining that the dry stock movement would be

very periodic and Professor Dodd said the movements would be far less than the dairy

Mr. Macken said that on a previous occasion it was suggested Mr. Delaney needed to

move sheep twice daily in wintertime and asked Mr. Gunne to comment. Mr. Gunne said

Mr. Delaney carried 620 ewes plus followers and his point was that between ewes giving

birth, bringing these out to the fields, back in and out again he would need to use the

bridge for the intensive sheep operation for most of the year. He said that from an

indigenous viewpoint they could not spend all of the time taking a Foot and Mouth line as

if that was in the Country, everything was at risk. Mr. Gunne asked what was the risk

from a farmer crossing over with sheep and the other farmer when they would be separate

except when on the bridge. Professor Dodd said it was very remote and that there were

only a few diseases that were common to sheep and cattle and Listerosis was one of

these. Mr. Gunne asked if that would require a restriction on movement but Professor

Dodd said it would not as Listerosis was of importance only to the farm that had it. Asked

if there were any known indigenous diseases that could create problems, Professor Dodd

said there were some parasite worms but he did not think these would be a problem on a

concrete surface and he again confirmed that a common sense approach to have no buildup

structure, were shared underpasses, shared laneways and shared rights of way common

around the country and Professor Dodd agreed they were. Asked if farmers around the

country had reached very good and effective arrangements whereby they did not mingle

their cattle, Professor Dodd replied that farmers did not want their herds mingling from a

disease point of view and that all of the national disease control strategy was to prevent

that and so farmers were familiar in keeping herds apart. Asked if this was something the

Council should be imposing a set of rules about, Profesor Dodd said that he did not think

so as ordinary good farming practice would take care of that. Mr. Keane said the bridge

surface would be impervious and asked if the removal of gross faecal matter would be

Professor Dodd replied farmers would not want a build-up of any material that might

The Inspector asked what holding facilities should be provided at either side of the shared

impervious hard standing and a proper camber to prevent it becoming mucky in winter.

The Inspector said he had in mind the provision of holding pens assuming both came to

the bridge together. Mr. Keane said the Council view was that was a matter for the

accommodation works negotitions with both farmers in due course and that generally

there would be a gate put up some way back from the ramp so they could be held in the

passages. The Inspector said that this problem of shared facilities would be coming up

again and he was trying to establish what the Council envisaged as part of the"trimmings"

for the shared facility. Mr. Keane said there were a number of options from gates or

holding areas constructed by the farmers themselves as part of the compensation or other

arrangements that could be discussed. The Inspector agreed that each would be an

individual sitiuation but that he was trying to establish what was being proposed as

distinct from what could be negotiated since a shared facility was being proposed and

concerns about disease risks had been raised in the objections to the CPO. When Mr.

Keane said that the Council did not wish to be seen as imposing a specific arrangement

on a farmer, the Inspector asked if there was a commitment by the Council to provide

holding facilities on the farmer's land as part of the use of a shared facility rather than

saying the shared ownersip was there and the details will be worked out. Mr. Keane then

The Inspector asked Professor Dodd to expand on his comment about the Deparment of

Agriculture view on shared underpasses and he said the Department view where there

was a breakdown by one and not by the other was that the situation was the same as for

contiguous farms using the same roads. He said their view was that if one breaks down

they did not restrict everyone along that road. Asked if he had any information about the

number of shared underpasses on other By-pass Schemes presently in existence Professor

Dodd replied that in relation to the Portlaois and Maynooth By-passes the Department

said their experience was that they were not an unacceptable risk as far as their controlled

Schemes had used shared under or over passes and to get some details of the numbers,

Mr. Osbourne said he was a qualified Veterinary Surgeon and after general practice for

about 12 years he became the General Manager of the Irish National Stud and after that

spent 4 years as a Vice-president of North Ridge Farm in Kentucky, USA before working

as General Manager for Sheikh Mohammed al Maktoum in Kildare and in Dubai until he

retired about 18 months ago. He said he had been asked by the Council to make an

assessment of the effect of the proposed road on a number of Stud Farms along the route.

Mr. Osbourne said that briefly the methodology he used commenced with an examination

of the maps followed by farm walks, discussions with the owners and design team and

the consideration of good farming practice and horse health. He discussed the impact of

landtake, land severance, access to the severed lands and the future operation of the

enterprise with the owners, as well as possible alleviating measures to reduce the impact

of the motorway on the equestrian enterprise being discussed and documented at these

visits. He said he then compiled a detailed report on the health and welfare of the horses

recommendations for specific areas. He said that some of the impacts identified were :-

Mr. Osbourne said the principal mitigation measures he identified to reduce the impacts

of the motorway were based on common sense, good farming practices and practical

reasons and these varied from farm to farm and were generally of the following :-

Mr. Osbourne said that on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section the first farm was owned

by Michael Manning outside Dunboyne (Plot 334) and all of his farm was taken up by the

road; the next was Basil Brindley of Rathbeggan House (Plot 258) which was a big

operation but he understood a settlement had been reached here. He said that the next was

David and Ronald Robinson also in Rathbeggan (Plots 255/256) who had a small horse

involvement with a couple of ponies as well as a fishery and the impact was minor on the

horse side. After them were the Newall brothers in Readsland (Plots 139/144) where the

Mr. Newall said that Readsland had sufficient privacy and good hedging at present and

he suggested this was essential for bloodstock especially as more than half of their hrses

were young or breeding stock and Mr. Osbourne agreed with this. Mr. Newall said that

when Mr. Osbourne was in Readsland and they had looked at the Link road it was in the

context of it being a rural road but now that there were housing estates being built there

asked if he thought a post and rail fence would be sufficient for them to maintain even a

residual bloodstock enterprise on the lands adjoining the Link road. Mr. Osbourne replied

that when the road was at the same level as the land, which it was in this case, it was a

50/50 situation between the risk of cars going through the fence into the land or horses

going through the fence onto the road and as he now understood the road would be quite

busy, he felt a conventional post and rail fence would have little or no effect in case of an

accident and was not sufficient to protect their horses. Mr. Newall asked if they would

have problems from significant numbers of walkers from the housing estates going into

Dunshaughlin with 100 houses being built nearby and these passing with only a post and

development near Mr. Newall's property. He said a planning application had been lodged

but there had been no decision made on this. The Inspector said he was prepared to listen

to the case being mooted since Dunshaughlin was close by and there was some potential

there. Mr. Newall said that on the public file in the Dunshaughlin Area Office the

Planners had commented that "the development was considered to be premature pending

a final determination by the NRA for the proposed Clonee to North of Kells M3 Road

Project" which indicated the application would be seriously considered if the road was

approved and asked if they would have problems from people walking past their land

with horses on it. Mr. Osbourne said that an open type fence like post and rail could

result in trespass as it was easy to cross, litter could be blown through and one of the rails

could easily be broken by horses galloping into it. There was also the potential for disease

from a stray horse on the road with only a single bar between it and his horses on the

inside. Mr. Osbourne suggested that if the fence was re-structured and made more

substantial this would eliminate most of the problems but he said that was a matter for the

Mr. Newall said it was accepted the impact on their blodstock enterprise would be severe

but they were prepared to continue possibly in a smaller way and asked if the provision of

Osbourne replied that it would be reasonable but was a belt and braces solution since a

substantial timber fence could be installed which would protect against most problems.

Asked if anything less than a wall would onlty partially solve the problem, Mr. Osbourne

said a substantial post and rail fence well fortified could be built but this would have to

be 2 metres high and screen planted as well but he accepted a wall would be a belt and

braces response. Asked if a similar 2 metre fence would be required along the motorway,

Mr. Osbourne said there was a crash barrier and screen planting there so the need for a 2

metre height was not as important. He said on some motorways there was a 2 metre

hoarding but in those cases there was no screen planting so it was a matter for the

designers, but he had no problem from a health and safety aspect with a post and rail

fence reinforced with wire and with screen planting between it and the road. Mr Newall

concluded by asking if a wall was built along the Link road would that secure the future

for Readsland as a Bloodstock enterprise and Mr. Osbourne said that a wall was the

ultimate solution and would make a 120% secure fence but a 2 metre reinforced fence

would also solve all bar a catastrophic incident with a car hitting the fence, adding that

was a conjecture and he did not want to speculate on the possible consequences from a

Mr. Keane referred to the effect of the motorway having been moved from its initial

location and that the Newall holding was now divided into three units and asked what

would be the consequences if the Bridge to re-open Leshamstown Lane was provided.

Mr. Osbourne said this would increase the divisions to five and this would make the

continuation of the Newall's bloodstock enterprise more difficult whereas the closure of

the Lane meant that the paddocks on that side of Readsland House could be re-organised

The Inspector asked him to elaborate of the screen planting he suggested should go with

the 2 metre fence and when Mr. Osbourne said the planting should be heavy and not just

decorative trees here and there, asked what depth of planting had he in mind. Mr.

Osbourne replied that this should be at least 2 metres and he went on to say that

nowadays fast growing deciduous trees were being planted along motorways and these

gave an element of shelter fairly quickly. He said the use of deciduous trees was

important as the leaves fertilised the land as they fell so the trees acted as a shelter belt

and also as a natural fertilising agent for the land, while decorative trees such as

evergreen non-deciduous trees were just decorative and served no purpose for the farm

Mr. Dilworth said he held a degree of Batchelor of Enginering in Electroacoustics from

Salford University and was a member of the Institute of Acoustics and had been working

in the field of acoustics for 18 years, the last 12 as an Acoustic Consultant. He said that

he was currently the director with responsibility for noise and vibration with AWN

Consulting and had considerable experience in the planning areas regarding noise for

Mr. Dilworth said they had been commissioned to conduct a detailed appraisal of the

noise and vibration impacts acssociated with both the construction and operation of the

Clonee to Dunshaughlin section of the proposed road scheme. He said the existing noise

climate was quantified by baseline noise surveys which were conducted in accordance

with the survey methodology set out in the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN)

published by the Department of Traffic, Welsh Office in 1988 and measurements were

performed in the vicinity of noise sensitive locations close to the proposed scheme. He

said the primary contributor to noise build-up was found to be road traffic with

contributions from agricultural vehicles, pedestrians and wildlife and he said that the

measured noise levels were typical of those found in this sort of environment with no

He said that it was generally not possible to conduct detailed construction noise and

vibration prediction calculcations at the EIS stage of a development as the program for

construction works was not sufficiently advanced and that the current best practice

dictated that consideration be given to practicable mechanisms for controlling likely

sources of noise and vibration. He said that a variety of items of plant would be used in

the development such as excavators, lifting equipment, dumper trucks, compressors and

generators with vehicular movements to and from the site using existing roads. He said

that rock breaking would be required on occasions. Mr. Dilworth said that guidance on

practicable control measures would be taken from BS 5228, Noise and Control Measures

on Construction and Open Sites, Part 1, Code of Practice for Basic information and

Proceedures for Noise and Vibration Control, 1997 and, where applicable, reference

would also be made to the EC Construction Plant Permissable Noise Levels Regulations

appointment of a site representative for noise and vibration matters; fitting effective

silencers to plant exhausts and pneumatic tools; selecting plant with low inherent

potential for noise generation; shutting down machinery rather than permitting it to idle;

limiting the hours during which specific activities such as piling might be conducted;

conducting noise control audits in accordance with BS 5228; communicating with local

residents and monitoring levels of vibration during critical periods and at sensitive

Mr.Dilworth said that traffic noise predictions for the proposed scheme when in operation

traffic noise levels predicted for 13 locations as being representative of the closest noise

sensitive locations along the route. He said the predicted levels had been compared to the

target criterion of 68 dB LA10 18hour, which was the current best practice advocated by

the NRA. He said mitigation measures were deemed necessary whenever the scheme had

a nett negative impact and the predicted noise level was greater or equal to the target

criterion and that mitigation measures were required at six of the locations assessed. He

said the proposed mitigations consisted of solid roadside barriers, the details of these

being set out in the EIS and the resultant predicted traffic noise levels satisfied the target

Mr.Dilworth said that regarding vibration it had been found the ground vibrations

produced by road tradffic were unlikely to cause perceptible structural vibration in

properties located near well maintained roads and that maintaining the road surface

He concluded by saying that there would be some small impact on nearby residential and

business properties during construction by noise emissions from site traffic and other

activities but the application of binding noise limits and hours of operation along with

implementation of appropriate noise control measures would ensure that noise impacts

were kept to a minimum. He said the predicted traffic noise level due to the proposed

scheme was either within the target criterion of 68 dB LA10 18hour or had no nett impact

at all locations for both 2004 and 2024 scenarios. He said it could be concluded that the

impact was within accepted limits. He also said that it was not envisaged that vibration

would be significant either during the construction phase or when the road scheme was

operational. In reply to a query by Mr. Keane he confirmed that specific requests by

Mr. Byrne referred to the mitigation measures that had been outlined and asked were

there any others that could be applied and Mr. Dilworth replied that temporary hoardings

or localised barriers could be erected around very noisy items of plant and that the use of

BS 5228, which clearly set out all possible control options, would be written into the

Contract and this would oblige the Contractor to use that guidance. Mr. Byrne asked

about the vibration impact in the construction of the road and Mr. Dilworth said vibration

was perceived as more of a problem than it actually was and in his experience it was very

rare for vibration during construction to cause damage to buildings or annoyance to

people living in the vicinity. Mr. Byrne showed him the drawing of the construction site

adjacent to his house and said the bridge would be about 55 metres from his house with

the top surface varying from 0.3 to 1.65 metres above the existing road level and

described the occupancy of the house and then asked were noise measurements taken at

the house as he had requested this to be done by the Council. Mr. Dilworth, having

checked with Ms Dempsey, said Location 14 in Table 4.3 was on the road outside his

house but that location was not marked on the maps in the EIS as the request was made

after the original survey was conducted. Mr. Byrne said he was disappointed that the

Council had not told him earlier the survey had been done as he had requested this and

Ms Dempsey said she had thought he had been told. Mr. Byrne asked Mr. Dilworth to

Dilworth went through the procedures that had been followed, said that the noise level

derived was 50 dB LA10 18hour and said this was a measure of the typical noise level at

that location between 6 am and midnight. He also described for Mr. Byrne what the terms

Asked how he would rate the value of 50 dB, Mr. Dilworth said it was typical of a rural

road where the traffic flow was not particularly heavy and asked what would be expected

at the house which was some 60 metres from the location measured and had trees and

garden wall in between, he replied that around 45 dB could be expected at the house. Mr.

Byrne then referred to the construction of the bridge and suggested there could be pumps

running all night, drilling and blasting in excavation work and a high rise crane looking in

at him and asked what noise level he could expect from all of that. Mr. Dilworth said this

was difficult to answer but the Contractor would have to take onerous steps to control

noise and he gave as examples that pumps would have to be screened, site hoarding

erected at certain points, blasting controlled to limit noise and all drills silenced and

suggested the level should not exced 65dB Laeq. Mr. Byrne said as it was a PPP type

contract the Contractor might want to cut corners to save money but Mr. Dilworth said

there would be clauses in the Contract which would police the operations and that the use

of BS 5228 would ensure proper procedures had to be followed. Mr. Byrne asked if he

could ask for the Hearing to record that BS 5228 would be "installed" in the Contract and

Mr. Byrne asked if the removal of 176000 cu. metres of material from the main line north

of his house would mean a greater noise than the 65 dB at the bridge site when the road

site was as close as 25 metres to his house. Mr. Dilworth replied that he did not have

enough information on the types of plant to be used to do detailed calculations but he had

experience of construction contracts where control measures had been applied and in

similar circumstances to those outlined and he would not expect the noise levels to go

above 65 Laeq at his property. Mr. Byrne asked if it could be higher when he got more

accurate details but Mr. Dilworth said it could be lower as he was saying 65 since he

expected that to be achievable. A discussion followed on the application of BS 5228 and

Mr. Byrne then asked about the operational noise levels with a traffic flow of 44000

vehicles and 14% HGVs within 30 to 35 metres from his house and going under a bridge

at 70 mph which was 55 metres from the house. Mr. Dilworth explained the methodology

used to predict a worst case scenario, saying that as the road was in a cutting his house

was not necessarily a worst case and that the noise level at his property would be about

67 dB LA10 18hour. Mr. Byrne said this was an increase of 22 db when a 10 dB increase

subjectively. A discussion followed on the "broad band" characteristic of traffic noise

and the difference between traffic noise and indusrtrial or entertainment noise and how

traffic noise is perceived by people living near roads. Mr. Byrne suggested he would hear

"breaks" in the traffic noise as cars passed under the bridge but Mr. Dilworth said this

would only be noticeable if a single car passed under it but once there were several

moving the dip in noise would not be perceptible since the bridge was too narrow to mask

the noise effectively. When Mr. Byrne suggested the noise level could get higher at night

with HGVs going to the ferryport, Mr. Dilworth said that the 67 dB covered the period 6

am to midnight, at nighttime the absolute noise level at the fa�ade of the house would be

much lower and noise level within a bedroom, even with a window open, would be 10 to

15 dB lower again. He said he would not expect any degree of sleep disturbance in that

Mr. Byrne asked about the reduction obtainable from porous asphalt and Mr. Dilworth

replied that reductions of up to 3dB were typical from porous surfacings and there were

noise barriers which could be used as mitigation measures but that mitigation was only

implemented where the predicted level exceeded 68 dB LA10 18hour and that relative

increases were not mitigated for. Mr. Byrne said moving from 45 to 67 was a dramatic

change and Mr. Dilworth accepted it was significant but he did not accept this was

ignored in the EIS and he said the EIS acknowledged where there were negative impacts.

He said that a 22dB increase was a significant negative impact but as the level of 67 was

below the target criterion, no mitigation measures were necessary. Mr. Byrne asked was

At a later stage of the Hearing Mr. Byrne further cross-examined Mr. Dilworth and asked

again about the noise survey outside his house and why location 14 was shown in Table

4.3 but not in tables 4.6 and 4.7. Mr. Dilworth explained that the predictions were given

for worst case receivers and as the measurement at location 14 was made at Mr.Byrne's

request to establish the baseline level, the Engineer who prepared the report had

considered there were other locations would give greater or similar predictions. Mr.

Byrne said he understood from their previous conversation there was an EU protocol on

noise coming and asked if that would be retrospective and what was the likely benchmark

level going to be. Mr. Dilworth said there was an EU working Group in place on noise at

present and this was considering retrospective application at present but he could not say

how or when this might be decided. His best guesstimate of a possible criterion was

something around 60 and as the present 68 LA10 criterion was about the EU 65 DEN

Mr. McBreen said he wanted to establish where exactly was Location 1 positioned as it

seemed to be either 30 or 400 metres west of Newtown Bridge and then he wanted to

know how much extra noise would be generated by the action of trucks braking and

starting off again when going around the roundabout that was to be built at Newtown

bridge. Mr. Dilworth replied that the location used for the noise prediction was at the

roundabout while the survey loaction ws 30 metres to the west and that the other location

mentioned was further out. Mr. Dilworth said that the noise from braking and the engine

starting up was a mechanical noise while that from tyres on the surface was the dominant

noise when the vehicle was travelling at speed. He said there would not be any increase

in noise levels but the character of noise would change and, in fact, the noise level would

be lower with the roundabout in place than if there was a straight stretch of road there.

Mr. McBreen then referred to Table 4.4 on page 20 in Appendix C in Vol 3C of the EIS

which gives the 24 hour measurements for Location 5 which went up to 82 and 83 and

compared these to the details on page 31 for Location 5 giving noise levels at 15 minute

intervals which varied from 62 to 70 and asked why there was such difference. Mr.

Dilworth agreed that it was unusual to see such a difference between the short term and

long term measurements and said that as he did not prepare the original EIS ( the author

having left the Company) he could only suggest that the locations for the short and long

term measurments had been in slightly different positions with the 24 hour location being

nearer to the roa. He said he would try to have that clarified and would come back to Mr.

McBreen about it. Mr. McBreen suggested these differences indicated the predictions

could be wrong and that there might have been mitigation required but Mr. Dilworth

replied that he was certain the differences came from a location issue and not a

calibration issue and that the only circumstance which could question the prediction was

if there had been a level of over 68 which they were not showing and the new road had a

negative impact. He said they showed that the new road scenario was no worse than the

"do nothing" scenario and that mitigation measures were only applied when the road had

Mr. McBreen concluded by asking what was the effect of a belt of trees 5 metres wide in

reducing noise. Mr. Dilworth replied that a 5 metre belt would have no effect on the

absolute noise level but could have a perceived or subjective effect. He said that it would

require a dense and very wide belt of trees or shrubs to get any significant reduction and

that this meant a belt 30 to 40 metres in depth. Mr. McBreen then asked about the effect

an embankment with a 16 degrees slope rather than 8 degrees and Mr. Dilworth said this

might reduce the noise level if it increased the height and broke the line of sight between

the receiver and the source of noise. Mr. McBreen asked about the effectiveness of a 1

Dilworth said that even a low wall near the road gave a reduction, once it broke the line

Mr. Macken asked why Johnstown House was not selected as a noise sensitive location

for the noise survey as it seemed to be as close as location no. 11 was. Mr. Dilworth

explained the baseline survey was to establish typical noise levels at a variety of

locations, that a number of locations were similar in nature and Johnstown House came

into the category but he accepted it was still a noise sensitive location. Mr. Macken

refered to the comment in the Agricultural impact section on page 218 of road noise

affecting cows during milking. Mr. Dilworth said the vast amount of evidence of noise

from roads affecting cows or horses was anecdotal and as he himself would have no

experience of that, it was for the agricultural experts to comment and they had not

instructions were that noise could create stress in cattle which could affect productivity

Mr. Dilworth replied he had no experience of noise effects on animals and had to rely on

Mr. Macken referred to the noise levels at location 11 at Derrockstown where the LA10

was 51 and suggested the equivalent at Johnstown House would be lower due to the

absence of a public road there and Mr. Dilworth said he would expect it to be in the 40s

as cows made a lot of noise. When Mr. Macken referred to the do-something level in

2004 being 66, Mr. Dilworth said he thought location 12 would be a better comparison

where the predicted level was 63 in 2004 and 67 in 2024. Mr. Macken suggested this

could be a relative increase of over 20 dB and Mr. Dilworth agreed the relative increase

would be large but said that no mitigation measures were being recommended as the level

was still under the 68 criterion. Mr. Macken referred to a recent decision by An Bord

Pleanala on the Outer Ring Road case in South County Dublin where there had been a

decision to limit the relative increase to 13 and Mr. Dilworth said he was aware of that

decision. Mr. Macken asked if the NRA had issued guidelines for the road design to

achieve a level of 55 dBA but Mr. Dilworth replied that he was not aware of any NRA

guidance document even being in draft form. Mr. Macken asked if the standard set in

mitigation and Mr. Dilworth agreed it probably would. Mr. Macken then referred to a

wetland area where a stream was to be culverted which he had referred to when crossexamining

be the place to put a noise barrier. Mr. Dilworth said the barrier should be placed as close

to the road as possible but he accepted that the milking parlour and yard was about 80

Mr. Walsh refered to a discussion he had with Mr. Dilworth and the error in the predicted

noise levels at his house, location 1, that had been identified and asked if he could clarify

what the revised levels would be. Mr. Dilworth replied that the levels were the same for

both tolled and untolled and in 2004 for do nothing they were 64 and for do something

they were 66, a 2 dB increase with the significance level of "not significant", while in

2024 it was 73 for do nothing and 69 for do something with a significane level of

"minor/positive impact" for the 4 dB increase. He said that previously for 2024 they had

predicted it as "not significant". Mr. Walsh said that where he was living there was only

one road at present whreas he would have two roads when the new road was built. Mr.

Dilworth agreed there would be two "sources" and that the perception would be different

even though the actual noise level would be from the "combined" traffic. The Inspector

noted that a revised errata sheet for this was being prepared ( Note-- this was submitted

Mr. Scott asked what a noise model was and what was it used for and Mr. Dilworth

explained that it was a mathematical model that was used to predict the future levels of

noise that could be expected from specified levels of traffic. Mr. Scott asked if there was

a noise level that had a health or psychological effect on people and Mr. Dilworth

outlined the various levels at which certain behaviours could occur and said that it was

not until noise reached levels of 85 to 90 dB that it became dangerous. Mr. Scott then

Sustainable Transport" and quoted from page 17 which referred to noise affecting health

and measurement levels failing if criteria were too large or too small and asked what

were the EU Guidelines on noise. Mr. Dilworth replied that the EU did not have an

homogenised set of Guidelines at present with each Member State setting its own limits.

He said that Ireland and the UK currently used 69dB LA10 18hour for traffic noise

criteria but that there was a range of different levels across the EU. Mr. Scott said that in

the USA a level of 55dB was used in urban residential areas and 50dB in rural areas and

the WHO saw 55 dB as creating serious annoyance and an unhealthy environment. Mr.

Dilworth said this was true but this had to be taken in the context that transportation noise

was less disturbing than industrial or aviation noise and the character of the noise also

Mr. Scott asked what could be done to mitigate noise and Mr. Dilworth replied that for

road noise the two things were screening through landscaping, proprietary barriers and

the use of cuttings or else the use of low noise road surfaces. Mr. Scott suggested the

factors effecting noise generation were traffic volumes and speeds, the percentage of

HGVs, gear changing by cars and tyre types, Mr. Dilworth agreed but said the type of

road influenced these. Mr. Scott then referred to the Toll Plaza as being near to where he

lived and suggested there would be constant gear changing at this, as well as acceleration

and deceleration of vehicles, Mr. Dilworth again agreeing. Mr. Scott asked if he had

heard of "whisper concrete" which the UK were suggesting could reduce noise levels by

50% but Mr. Dilworth said that was a misnomer since they meant a reduction of 3dB

perceptible. Mr. Dilworth said the use of those type of surfaces was not a significant

means of reducing noise and while research was ongoing it could be some years before

Mr. Scott asked if the relative level at which the road was constructed had a bearing on

noise and when Mr. Dilworth accepted it would, he asked if a difference of 1.1 metres in

height would increase the level but Mr. Dilworth said he did not think it would, nor did

he agree that at a distance of 50 metres from the road an increase would occur. Mr. Scott

then asked about barriers and Mr. Dilworth explained their function which, essentially,

was to break the line of sight between noise source and receiver. A discussion followed

on the types of materials used in barriers, their specifications and performance, with Mr.

Scott returning to the USA noise levels and Mr. Dilworth outlining the basis for the 68dB

used in Ireland as coming from the 1975 UK Noise Insulation Regulations. Mr. Scott

suggested the 1975 levels were out of date and Mr. Dilworth accepted there was likely to

be a tightening of the criteria used. Asked if tree planting along the roadside would

reduce noise, Mr. Dilworth said for that to be effective possibly 20/30 metres width of

dense planting would have to be used but he said planting could have a psychological

effect and even if that width was available his recommendation would be to install a

barrier. Asked what type would be best, Mr. Dilworth replied that one specified in terms

of its mass (kg./sq.m.) and dimensions rather than by type. Asked about an American

view of a 10 to 15 dB reduction being possible by a barrier, Mr. Dilworth agreed with

this and said that as soon as the line of sight was broken a reduction of 5dB was obtained.

Mr. Scott asked how one would reduce a level of say 55dB but Mr. Dilworth said that

depending on the scenario he might not recommend anything and explained that unless

the road noise exceeded the 68dB threshold, no mitigation measures were required and

said that if the noise was, say, 73dB then they would design a noise control measure to

reduce this by 6dB minimum. Mr. Scott asked what if the EU standard came down to

55dB in the future and Mr. Dilworth said they would design for whatever reduction was

required to meet the level specified. Asked if the EU was likely to approach the American

figures, Mr. Dilworth said there was a current EU position paper and a working group

was looking at this and, as he had said in earlier cross-examination, it was possible that a

figure of 60 Laeq which was about 63 LA10 could become the EU norm. Mr. Scott asked

about the range of 80 to 85 dB and what would be needed to get that to 66/67 but Mr.

Dilworth said that road noise would not reach those levels and he had never got that

level, even on the edge of the M50 in rush hour. He said that the high 70s, 77/78, were

the highest one could expect and the same method of specifying a barrier would be used

to reduce to 67. Mr. Scott asked what height would a barrrier for that level be and Mr.

Dilworth said that was a function of the receiver height and, for both being at the same

level, possibly 1.5 to 2 metres, asked if the road was 1.2 metres higher, he replied

possibly 2 to 2.5 metres but that the barrier usually went in at the same level as the road

methodology using a proprietary sound level meter and a discussion followed about the

locating of the meter to get an accurate replication of the sound field and of the units and

scale of measurement used. Mr. Scott then asked who took the measurements in the EIS

industry, so he had been asked to represent this Section as he had done the Sections from

Navan to North of Kells. Mr. Scott asked who choose the sensitive receptor sites and Mr.

Dilworth agreed that 50% of the houses closest to the road could typically be the selected

receptors but that this would depend on the locations as a good indicator site might not

always be at a house. Mr. Scott then referred to the locations shown on Figure 4.1.1 in

Vol.3A of the EIS and sought to establish the precise locations of 4 and 5, as 5 was the

nearest to his house, and he referred to the comments on page 93 on sensitive locations

Mr. Scott referred to the dates of the survey, given as 7/8 August 2001 in Section 4.2.3 on

page 93, and said that 7 August was the Tuesday after the Bank Holiday which would be

a time of low traffic volumes. Mr. Dilworth replied the same comment had been made at

the second Liffey Valley Bridge case and they had looked at a comparison between

holiday and school periods winter and summer and had found no significant difference.

Mr. Scott then referred to the report by Dr. O'Cinneide on the traffic predictions for the

suggested these were not followed. Mr. Dilworth said those comments related to traffic

which was a linear relationship where noise was logarithmic and there was no such

guidance for noise. A discussion followed on the appropriateness of Dr. O'Cinneide's

comments for the noise survey of 7/8 August with Mr. Dilworth maintaining it was not

relevant and saying that a doubling of traffic only made for an increase of 3dB.

Mr. Scott then referred to Table 4.5 on page 103 and asked what was its significance. Mr.

Dilworth said it ws to compare the measured resuts with the modelled results to ensure

there was good agreement beteeen them and to give confidence in the model's accuracy.

Asked by Mr. Scott, he confirmed that the survey results were derived from Table 4.3 and

that Table 4.5 was being used to prove that the model was correct and that its predictions

could be relied on. Mr. Scott referred to Section 4.2.3 on page 93 again to say the

readings at locations 4 and 5 were taken between 9 and 13 May and asked if all readings

were taken on the same day, and Mr. Dilworth said the readings at each of 4 and 5 would

have been on the one day but he could not say if 4 and 5 were read on the same day. Mr.

Scott suggested that all of the readings at 4, 5 and 6 were all taken on the same day and

he outlined a scenario where "they" started reading at 4 at 13.52, left there at 14.07,

started at 5 at 14.15, left there at 14.30, started at 6 at 14.37, left 6 at 14.52, started at 4

again at 15.00, left 4 at 15.15 and continued in that sequence until finishing at 5 at 16.51

and suggesting the reason only 2 readings were taken at 6 was that at 16.51 it was time to

"knock-off" at 5 pm and go home. Mr. Dilworth replied as he was not there he could not

answer but he doubted they finshed because it was 5 pm since the consultants were used

to working uncivil hours and there may have been a weather change but he accepted all

A discussion followed on the measurement protocol, the CRTN criteria and the corelation

4.4, the 24 hour measurements, and having gone through the measurement scenario,

suggested the figures in Table 4.4 did not agree with those in Table 4.3. Mr. Dilworth

had earlier indicated that the Inspector was already aware of an issue having been raised

for location 5 ( See Section 29.3. above) but Mr. Scott wanted to go through with his

reasoning. Mr. Dilworth then explained that, following from the earlier query on location

5 he had raised this with RPS and asked them to review their records as he felt there

should not be such a discrepancy here. He said RPS had now confirmed that the location

of the meter was different for the two readings, as in the original short term survey it was

understanding was the 24 hour location was immediately adjacent to the road which was

why the readings were higher. Mr. Scott suggested the area indicated on the map in the

EIS as location 5 was shielded by a hedge and a block wall but Mr. Dilworth said the

flaw in the EIS Table was that it was not indicated the two locations were different and

that the model took screening into account. He said the fact of there being good

agreement between the model and the location 5 used for Table 4.3 indicated a validation

measurement procedures and the mathematical inconsistencies in the predictions and

Tables. Mr. Dilworth contended the calibration exercise performed was entirely robust,

and while additional information could be obtained by repeating the calibration at the 24

hour location actually used, that would not invalidate any of the model's findings. Mr.

Scott contended he had been presented with a gross mathematical inconsistency and he

had as much a reason to contend that Table 4.5 and 4.3 were incorrect as Mr. Dilworth

had to put forward that Table 4.4 was incorrect. When Mr. Dilworth agreed with this, Mr.

Scott said they now agreed the information presented in the EIS could not enable him to

make a reasonable asessment of the noise impact on his property. Mr. Dilworth said he

was not in agreement with that assertion as he was fully confident with the robustness of

the calibration exercise. He said what he was agreeing to was that it was reasonable to

seek that the calibration exercise be repeated for the location used in the 24 hour survey.

Mr. Scott then said he had undertaken his own calibration exercise but had a difficulty as

the Tables did not have traffic flows at location 5 so he used the 1998 NRA data and got

a value of approximately 80 dB which was far closer to the arithmetic mean in table 4.4

that were the Councils. Asked what location he used, Mr. Scott replied that it was

endeavouring to establish his own confidence in the tables. Mr. Dilworth said he could

not comment unless he knew how far back from the road the position was assumed to be.

Mr. Scott then asked if the generation of noise above ground level would be different to

that at ground level and affect the mitigation measures taken. When Mr. Dilworth agreed

the magnitude could change, Mr. Scott said that trucks would have to change gear at

surrounding ground. Mr. Dilworth replied that very often the road and associated works

at an elevated roundabout could act as barriers for locations lower down and when it was

established that the distance from Pace to his house was about 800 metres, Mr. Dilworth

said there would be no noticeable effects at that distance from the source to a receiver.

Mr. Scott asked if he was aware of Directive 2002/49/EU of 25 June 2002 relating to the

assessment and management of environmental noise and Mr. Dilworth said he was. Mr.

Scott suggested that this Directive was now in force and Mr. Dilworth said that its

findings would be implemented in due course but that it did not contain the guidance he

was seeking for this road scheme. When Mr. Scott started to read extracts from the

Directive, the Inspector intervened and asked Mr. Dilworth if the Guidance notes under

that Directive had been issued in Ireland and when told that they had not, he told Mr.

Scott that he could make his points without going through the Directive. Mr. Scott asked

the Inspector what points did he anticipate he (Mr. Scott) would be making and the

Inspector said he expected him to say the intent of the Directive should be applied now

but pointed out that the issue of appropriate noise criteria had already been raised at the

Hearing (see Section 29.4.above) and was likely to be raised again. The Inspector said

that for the purposes of his submission it would suffice to say that this Directive was in

place and tighter limits could be expected, but he was suggesting to Mr. Scott that he did

not want to hear much more on that subject. Mr. Scott then asked Mr. Dilworth if he was

aware of EU regulations having retrospective impact on mitigation measures and when

Mr. Dilworth said there was a possibility of this but it had not yet been decided on, Mr.

Scott then said that if economics was the driving force for the M3, as the bridge issue

with Ms Joyce suggested it was, then one should take account of legislation which would

be in place when the road was developed. The Inspector said he had a point, but that it

Mr. Scott summarised his impressions by saying that the data collected to substantiate the

predictions was mathematically inconsistent and this did not allow him to assess the

impact of the road; that he could not assess the impact without knowing the details of the

mitigation measures proposed when they were not defined as to their substance and that it

might be necessary to have the barrier height raised in the future by new regulations.

inconsistency as he had clarified the issue relating to the location and that in the case of

the mitigation measures all he needed to know was the length, height and location of the

barrier proposed, all of which were in the EIS. Mr. Scott asked, if he was told "an

appropriate fence will be put up" without defining it, was this adequate and Mr. Dilworth

said that standard practice for a road was either a proprietary noise barrier, a berm or

bund or a block wall. When Mr. Scott asked if he was saying it one be one of these, Mr.

Dilworth confirmed that it would. He said that if the noise level limits were reduced in

the future it was likely that barrier heights would have to be increased but that he could

Mr. Keane said that the traffic flow figures he had referred to as not being available, in

fact were in Volume 2 of the EIS after page 25 for Clonee to Navan. Mr. Scott said if

they wanted people to be able to assess the data all of the relevant data should be in the

same volume. Mr. Keane replied Volumes 1 and 2 were the general books applying to the

whole Scheme. The Inspector said that Mr. Scott had a point and one of the problems

with the size of the scheme was that cross-referencing in relation to the data could have

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he accepted the likely impact of the road on the Peters property

would be significant and when Mr. Dilworth said he accepted that the relative impact

would be significant, he suggested that with the road being only 50 metres away the

impact had to be significant and Mr. Dilworth agreed with that. Mr. O'Donnell then asked

if he had looked at the construction noise impacts and when Mr. Dilworth replied that

they had looked at the potential impact but had not made a specific prediction, Mr.

Dilworth explained that they had looked at the types of plant that might be used, they had

acknowledged there could be a significant impact and they had made recommendations

construction noise limits into the EIS. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that he did not know

documents were not available at this stage, Mr. O'Donnell suggested he could not have

had regard to those details when he was considering the construction impacts but Mr.

Dilworth said that he could state categorically that BS 5228 and the noise limits would be

in the contract. Mr. O'Donnell said that he did not know what the construction noise

would be; that he did not know how the road would be constructed or how long it would

disagreed with him and said that every contract used standard construction methodologies

and that BS 5228 set out the standard noise control procedures and methodologies that

simplistic answer and said that he was obliged by law to identify the likely significant

effects of this development which was carrying out works within 50 metres of his Client's

property. Mr. Dilworth said the EIS did set out the potential impacts and how they would

be addressed but Mr. O'Donnell said he had never looked at them and Mr. Dilworth said

Mr. O'Donnell asked what level of construction noise did the EIS predict for this property

and when Mr. Dilworth replied that the EIS did not predict levels but set limits, he asked

what did he predict for the arrival level for construction noise at the Peter's house. Mr.

Dilworth said they had not predicted any levels for construction noise since the whole

thrust behind those limits was that they were not to be exceeded and he said the limits

were set out in Table 4.9 of Vol.3A of the EIS and he quoted these and said they were

being reviewed since the Inspector had suggested he considered them to be somewhat

high. Asked if he thought they were high, Mr. Dilworth replied that he had come across

contracts where they had been successfully used but he had also seen lower levels on

other contracts. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had specified the levels to be used and when

Mr.Dilworth said they had been given the figures which were to be used in the contract,

he suggested he had done no investigation and had simply used the figures he was given

but Mr. Dilworth replied that they had followed standard practice in relation to

construction noise assessment for this type of contract and said that he would not have

Mr. O'Donnell then asked what was an acceptable level of noise in a living room during

the day and when Mr. Dilworth said BS 8233 had a range of 30 to 40 he asked what was

the figure for a bedroom and Mr. Dilworth said the range was 30 to 35 and that the WHO

gave guideline values for external levels of 55 daytime and 45 nighttime. When Mr.

O'Donnell suggested that the figures for bedrooms and living rooms were similar, Mr.

Keane intervened and said that Mr. Searson in his Brief of Evidence referred to BS 8233

of 1999 as stating good conditions for living rooms and bedrooms to be 30 dBA with

reasonable conditions being 40 and 35 and that in all cases for a bedroom at night the

providing a scheme for good conditions, Mr. Dilworth said that it would for reasonable

conditions since it was construction noise was being spoken about and this was not a

permanent installation so that a higher level of noise could be accepted. Mr. O'Donnell

asked on what authority was he relying for that statement and Mr. Dilworth said there had

Mr. O'Donnell then asked what attenuation would be got with an opened window and

when Mr. Dilworth said typically around 15 dB, he suggested that for an n-bedroom level

of 35 the arrival level should be 50dB and the noise level in the EIS for construction

followed on the energy levels being 265 times greater from the 25 decibels increase and

the standards to be applied and Mr. Dilworth pointed out that BS 8233 was not the

relevant standard to be used for construction noise since it related to permanent steady

state noise sources whereas noises from a construction contract were of a temporary

nature. Following further discussion on what he might consider as an acceptable degree

in the level of increase, Mr. Dilworth said that BS 5228 was the standard by which the

mitigation measures would be implemented by the contractor and that the contractor

would be following the guidance in that BS to put his program together so that he could

Mr. O'Donnell asked what criterion had he used in terms of traffic noise for the arrival

level at Peter's house and Mr. Dilworth said that 68dB LA10 18hour was the target set in

criterion of 65 would be used in certain locations. Asked what would be the case at the

Peter's house, Mr. Dilworth said that based on the AADT the target level would remain at

68dB there. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had ever been in the house and when Mr. Dilworth

said that he had not, Mr. O'Donnell said the bedrooms and living room faced the road and

asked if he would accept that a figure of 30/35 in those rooms would be reasonable, but

he said the arrival level would be 53 from the 68 criterion giving a 20 dB increase above

the desired level. Mr. Dilworth said the traffic noise parameter was different to the

parameter used in assessing the criteria mentioned and that he was not comparing like

with like and said that the LA10 18hour was typicaly 5dB higher than the equivalent

LAeq value so that his internal figure of 53 would really be 48 in terms of LAeq. Mr.

O'Donnell said this was 18 dB higher and when Mr. Dilworth agreed, he suggested this

would be forever and asked if that was acceptable. Mr. Dilworth said the parameter of 68

LA10 18hour was chosen because it was a value that most people would not experience a

Mr. O'Donnell then returned to BS 8233 and suggested it dealt with traffic noise but Mr.

Dilworth doubted that it did since it was for sound insulation and noise reduction for

buildings. As discussion took place about this which was ended by the Inspector who said

that Mr. O'Donnell had been making a case about traffic noise and had reached a point of

the witness accepting that 48LAeq in the bedroom and living room was between 8 and 18

above recommended figures and said that whether BS 8233 did or did not specifically

relate to traffic was a point that he had heard sufficient on and said that he presumed Mr.

Mr. O'Donnell then suggested the 68db was a trigger level for compensation in the UK

and asked what figures were applied by An Bord and the EPA and when Mr. Dilworth

said these were usually for industry and set at 45 in nighttime and 55 in daytime in LAeq

units, measured over 15 or 30 minute intervals. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the 68 dB over

18 hours could contain levels as high as 80 to 85db and still be within the 68 figure but

Mr. Dilworth said the variations would not reach that order and that the AADT flows

would have to reach massive levels to reach the noise levels he was suggesting. Mr.

Dilworth said they had done studies on the M50 and the absolute worst cases they had

found there were in the low to mid 70s and those were for properties much closer to the

road than the Peters case. Following some debate as to what distances were involved it

Mr. O'Donnell then asked what mitigation measures were proposed for the Peters case

and when Mr. Dilworth said there were none as the level was less than 68 dB, he asked

where this figure of 68 came from and was told that it was the standard practice

advocated by the NRA. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he was told to take that figure and Mr.

Dilworth confirmed that was so and said that was the process followed in any assessment

when the standard to be followed was stated and the assessment was then performed and

any mitigation measures are then specified to ensure compliance with the relevant

Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said he was a Lecturer at Sligo Institute of Technology and had wide

Socio-economic assessment of most of the sections of the M3 Scheme for P. J. Newell,

Consulting Engineers whe were employed by MC O'Sullivans in the case of the Clonee

to Dunshaughlin Section. He said the aim of the socio-economic study was to identify,

describe and assess the effects of the proposed scheme on the social and economic

functioning of the community. He said the impacts of the proposed road network on the

journeys people made and on community facilities, particularly schools and recreational

facilities, were assessed, the impact on community severance was evaluated and the

impacts for businesses along the N3 as well as those in Dunboyne and Dunshaughlin

were addressed. He said the assessment of the socio-ecoomic impacts were carried out

broadly in accordance with the Guidelines in Chapter 11 " Environmental Assessment" of

Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said that the improved road network from the Scheme would provide

significant benefits at regional and sub-regional levels with travel times and transport

development, stimulate tourism activity and improve accessibility for recreational and

cultural facilities. He said at a local level there would be positive and negative benefits

with positive benefits being experienced by communities along the N3 corridor by the

cleaner and safer environment from the reduced traffic volumes and that the residents of

reductions in their through traffic giving relief from severance and improved amenity and

safety. He said that residents in Drumree and Batterstown villages would also benefit

from the reduction in traffic. He said that the improved traffic circulation and better road

network would reduce delivery times which would benefit the business community in the

Dunboyne and Dunshaughlin areas from the increased productivity and greater reliability

Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said that some businesses particularly those on the N3, the R125 and

to some extent on the R154 would suffer from a reduction in passing trade but that in the

long term the improved traffic circulation and reduced congestion in Dunboyne and

scheme was expected to have a nett positive impact on these towns in the medium to

longer term. He said the improved road network would increase the attractiveness of

commercial development with pressure for out of town retail / commercial developments

He said some of the road alterations in the scheme would have negative social impacts on

the local community, particularly the road closures and road realignments on the R157,

Dunboyne to Pace road; the L 22250 Woodpark road; the L 22161 Flathouse road and the

R125 Drumree road. He said that measures to mitigate some of the negative impacts had

been identified and these included footpaths to reduce severance impacts for local

facilities and signs to reduce impacts for businesses due to the loss of passing trade with

measures to reduce negative impacts during construction also identified. He concluded by

saying that with the implementation of mitigation measures the advantages of the Scheme

considerably outweighed the disadvantages with residual impacts being, in the main,

minor. He said that any major or moderate impact remaining after mitigation would only

affect relatively few individuals and that the nett socio-economic impact for society as a

Mr. Keane asked him to comment on the suggestion made by Mr. Liam Scott that large

(which are on either side of the N3, Naulswood being to the west and in the vicinity of

the Woodpark road) and referred to the counts carried out by his firm in May 2000 over a

10 hour period from 7.45 am Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said there were 9 vehicle movements

Mr. Kieran asked how important he felt it was to provide footpaths where possible as a

mitigation measure and Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch replied that these were proposed where there

were significant impacts on pedestrians to alleviate the negative impacts as much as

possible and that was mainly around villages or towns where there were impacts from the

new road or by service roads as that was where the pedestrian and cyclist movements

Mr. Walsh asked how close to a town or village was "close" and Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said

one could not define closeness as it depended on the geography of the motorway or bypass

crossing and there would be a high pedestrian movement todictate where footpaths

movements and Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said he assumed he was referring to the Dunboyne

considered the impact of that roundabout would require the provision of crossing points

The Inspector referred to the counts taken in May 2000 and, suggesting there was a bus

stop near the Ratoath road junction, asked if they had taken any counts near that junction,

the R154/R155. Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said none were taken there but they had taken a

count at the R157 Dunboyne junction with about 10 pedestrians recorded and he said they

had proposed a footpath/cycleway to link the Woodpark road to the Pace Interchange as a

mitigation measure. The Inspector said Mr. Scott had been complaining about the extra

length of travel to get to the M3 and asked if a count could be arranged at the bus stop

area south of the Ratoath junction for both pedestrians and cyclists. Mr. Keane said this

would be arranged. (Note-- the details of a count taken by Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch on 4 Sept.

2002 were handed in by Ms Dempsey on Day 10 and are listed in Appendix 4 of this

The Inspector then asked about the proposed closure of Leshemstown Lane and asked

him to elaborate on his assessments in the Leshamstown area and on the suggestion of

extra traffic being diverted into the Lane. Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch replied that they had taken

counts at the junction of the R125 with the Dunsany road and no pedestrians or cyclists

were recorded going towards Drumree there. He said that people generally took the route

most convenient to them and he did not think the catchment area would be sufficient to

cause a significant severance impact on Leshamstown Lane as a result of any additional

traffic diverting into it after the closure of the R125. He confirmed having prepared

detailed responses to the various general submissions made about Leshamstown Lane and

31. Evidence of Roger Goodwillie, Consultant Ecologist on behalf of the Council :

Mr. Goodwillie said he qualified as a Botanist from TCD and worked initially with An

Foras Forbartha and then as an independant consultant and had been involved in many

EISs and had contributed the the EPA Guidelines on the Methodology for EISs. He said

his role was to determine the potential effects on flora and fauna from a walkover survey

of the route and a more detailed survey of features such as vegetation and bats where

these warranted this. He said the route went through heavy soils wth improved grassland

forming 81%, wet grassland at 14% which was high due to the heavy soil and 4% tillage,

He said there was limited flora and fauna due to the extent and intensity of the agriculture

with only 4 areas of semi-natural habitat, these being an area of damp ground beside the

Tolka at chn.1120; two fields of damp grassland in Rathbeggan at chn.7400; a field of

damp grassland near Clonross at chn 11600 and an old pond at chn 750 on the Trim road

in Knocks which was the best developed wetland found. He said all four were only of

local importance and would be rated at D or E in the five point scale he had put into the

EIS. He said badger activities were recorded near the route in Rathbeggan Stud and also

from the old railway line in Quarryland on the other side of the river and while both seets

were close and separated by the Tolka, he said they were not related and only the

Quarryland sett would be affected by the road. He said tracks were also seen near the

Rathbeggan Fishery and in Roestown and these areas would be surveyed during the final

Mr. Goodwillie said that Bat invstigations were concentrated on 3 sites after an initial

survey of theroute, namely, Rathbeggan Stud, Rathbeggan Fishery and Readsland House

with the numbers found being small and impacts likely only on feeding routes and mainly

around the Rathbeggan Fish pond where trees were being breached by the road. He said

the fishing lake might be cut off from the roosts in the farm buildings but he felt the bats

would adapt their feeding area and that no breeding roosts were identified on the route

though the beech trees nearby could be of some use for bats outside the breeding season.

He said that Rathbeggan Stud was relatively rich in wildlife and semed to have the most

wildlife, listing nesting herons, blackcap and chiffchaff as being present there as well as

trees near the old Fairyhouse station possibly having Kestrels. He said none of these were

rare and as the general feeding areas would be unaffected they would stay in the vicinity

but there could be disturbance of them during construction. He said there were no

existing designated areas or habitats protected by EU or Irish law impacted on by the

proposed route with the nearest being the Royal Canal or the Ryewater in Carton Estate

He said that a road removed a corridor of pre-existing habitat in the vegetation growing

territories and cause the loss of certain species if the area left was too small to support

them. He said most species would adjust their feeding areas to avoid crossing the road

and plants spread into new areas of exposed soil and that only badgers could be a

problem. Mr. Goodwillie said badgers made use of long established pathways and often

tried to continue crossing a new road but underpasses could be built to allow them a free

passage to each side of the road. He said the setts at Quarryland and the possible setts at

Rathbeggan and Roestown would be further investigated and the animals would either be

Mr. Goodwillie said Bats need hedgerows and tree lines to move along their territory but

they are unlikely to cross a major treeless road like the M3. He said the few Bats in the

area would adjust their feeding ranges and were likely to move to different breeding

ranges if necessary and there did not seem to be a shortage of these, and the new planting

proposed in Rathbeggan Stud would soon becoming an important feeding area for all of

that townland. He said the new roadside planting would also become attractive in time.

He said Birds were sensitive to disturbance at nesting time so the site clearance would be

one outside the March to July period and diversion works on rivers would be done

outside the February to June period as that was when herons and mallars were more

sensitive to that work. He said the nesting site of the herons was 375 metres away from

the river diversion in Rathbeggan with the road hidden behind trees and he did not see it

as having more than a slight impact on the herons as they were actually nearer to the

existing N3. He said an extensive planting program, to create hedge and tree lines and

linking to severed hedgerows, was planned as part of the Scheme and that this would

benefit all wildlife, even if their density was reduced by traffic noise. He said traffic noise

disturbed relatively few species but smaller birds would tend to nest away from the new

He said that the construction of attenuation ponds would have a positive impact as these

would allow small habitats to develop in a semi-natural way and while these might be

small and the water areas relatively enriched, eutrophic and occasionally polluted by oil

run off from the road, the surrounding dryland and arboreal woody vegetation would

develop animal communoties of some diversity. Mr. Goodwillie said the residual impacts

would be a re-arrangement of mammal territories, the reduction of some bird species in

the immediate vicinity of the new road and a positive impact from the spread of weeds

and ruderal plants along the banks and cuttings and the growth of newly planted woody

species. He said the our specific habitats mentioned would be reduced in area since parts

of them were required for constructing the road but these were not designated habitats at

present and they were open to other threats, mainly from agriculture and he said the road

Mr. Goodwillie said that he assessed the impacts on the better 2 sites, the fields in

Rathbeggan and the pond at Knocks, as moderate and minor on the 2 lessor sites and

these were third and fourth in the assessment of severe, major, moderate and minor. He

concluded by saying that the Route was fairly dull in ecological terms and the impacts

Mr. Byrne asked if he could be more specific about the possibility of badgers in the

replied that only tracks were seen near Roestown House and more work would be needed

before it could be decided if a tunnel was required as they might not be crossing the line

of the new road and he could not say at present where that might be. Mr. Byrne asked if

the excavation work would dislodge rodents and would they move into a house. Mr.

Goodwillie said that if they were disturbed they were most likely to move into other

towards houses unless a food source was provided, saying rats were always in the garden

Mr. Kieran referred to his comment about possible oil pollution in the attenuation ponds

and asked how that would occur and what was the long term implication. Mr. Goodwillie

replied that if all of the road drainage was going into the pond and something was spilled

on the road it would end up in the pond, that there was always going to be a residue of

rubber and oil hyrdrocarbons going into these atttenaution ponds and if there was a

spillage on the road, then the amount going in would just be bigger. He said if this was

held in the pond that was better than if it went straight into a stream and the hydrocarbons

River Skane for animals such as badgers and foxes to be able to pass along the riover

animals adjusted to new situations except badgers who were stubborn. Mr. Newall asked

if it would be important to maintain their existing shelter belt to preseve the many birds in

the garden are of Readsland. Mr. Goodwillie said that he did not think the shelter was a

reason for the number of species there but any shelter belt was a useful thing for birds.

The Inspector said the Cavan / Meath Bat Group had made a submission that the Bat

Survey undertaken was inadequate as it did not cover the entire length of the road but

Dunshaughlin Section and the Bat survey there was conducted by Dr. Niamh Roche in

conjunction with the Ecology survey who had mentioned the most suitable looking places

and Dr. Roche had made a quick survey of these places before deciding on the most

important sites for a night survey. He said they concentrated on 3 sites, no rare species

were observed and the impacts were assessed as minor with no great old building on one

Mr. Hanley said he had 11 years experience in all aspects of the property market and had

been involved previously in assessing compensation on road schemes and had prepared

material asset sections in other EISs. He said that his report in the EIS had described the

potential impact on non-agricultural property within the study area where land was to be

acquired for the proposed road and he had described these properties in three categories,

namely, residential, commercial and non-agricultural land. He said that he had met with

the owners of affected properties to discuss the impact of the route traversing their

property and its acquisition. He said the principal issues considered in assessing the

impacts were the landtake including buildings; the severance of retained land; the injury

to the retained land, buildings or business; the level of likely disturbance and the access

to the retained lands with the types of property affected being residential dwellings, a

garden centre, a petrol filling station and a former gravel pit. Mr. Hanley said that the

alternative access roads, fences, walls or other works to alleviate the impact. He

concluded by saying he had recommended the mitigation measures he had considered

Mr. Byrne asked if he had to sell his house now with the Scheme scheduled to start in

2004 and be finished in 2007 would he get its value as if the scheme was not going ahead

and Mr. Hanley said he would not as the property would be devalued. Asked if he could

say by what percentage, Mr. Hanley replied that he could not as his role was to categorise

the impact and he had assessed the impact as being significant. Mr. Byrne asked what

alleviating measures had been recommended at his house and Mr. Hanley said these were

part of accommodation works and would include the reinstatement of disturbed areas of

Mr. Walsh asked what was his opinion on his property and Mr. Hanley replied there

would be a minor impact as he would be losing part of his garden, that it would have

been major if the house was being lost and that the significance was that part of his

garden was being taken to realign the road and build a roundabout there at grade with his

property. Asked if the loss of part of his garden would have an effect when he came to

sell the property, Mr. Hanley said that was a fair comment as the road would create more

Mr. Keane said the Air Quality section in the EIS had been written by Mervyn Keegan of

AWN Consulting but he was out of the country at present and Dr. Edward Porter, who

was also a specialist in AWN dealing with Air Quality would read the Brief of Evidence

and answer questions as far as he could, and that if there were any he could not deal with,

Dr. Porter said that he was a Chartered Chemist with a PhD in Environmental Chemistry

from UCD, had been active in chemistry for 13 years and had 5 years experience as an

environmental consultant and was currently the director with responsibility for air quality

in AWN. He said the Air Quality assessment described and assessed the impact of the

Dunshaughlin Section of the proposed M3 Scheme and that the impact assessment was

carried out using recognised monitoring and modelling methods to determine the likely

impacts at sensitive receptors near the proposed route. He said this assessment involved

the comparison of existing air quality along the N3 and the M3 with and without the

scheme in operation as well as comparisons with the relevant legislative Limit Values.

Dr. Porter described what was undertaken in the baseline assessment monitoring and said

that the compounds monitored were those typically expected to be derived from traffic

related emissions with short term monitoring carried out at two critical junctions of the

Benzene monitoring using Diffusion Tubes was carried out at 7 locations and PM 10

concentrations were monitored continuously at 3 locations over a 7 day period and with

the locations chosen to indicate the impact on air quality on both the existing N3 and on

the proposed M3. He said the results were shown in Tables 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 in Vol.3A of

the EIS. He said some variations in pollutant levels were evident with a general increase

in concentrations near major roads and urban areas but the results obtained indicated that

if both short term and continuous monitoring surveys were extrapolated to a period of one

year, pollutant concentrations would be in compliance with the appropriate significance

Dr. Porter then described how a prediction of the traffic derived pollutants was carried

background concentrations and predicted traffic volume figures for 2002 and 2024, both

do something and do nothing, input into the model. He said that weather station data from

Dublin Airport 15 kms east of the N3 was also input into the model and predictions made

Suspended Particulate Matter (PM) for future years at the most sensitive receptors close

to both the proposed M3 and existing N3. He said the CAL3QHCR dispersion model had

the capacity to simultaneously model all emissions and predict maximum concentrations

at each specified receptor and these were done with and without the toll plaza being in

He said the modelling indicated compliance with all pollutant significant criteria would

occur in 2002 and 2024, whether or not development of the M3 takes place and that a

comparison of concentrations between both the existing N3 and proposed M3 showed no

significant impact on air quality was predicted. He said the worst case concentrations at

receptors along both existing and proposed routes were within the relevant legislative

Deterioration(PSD) Increments for impact criteria. He said this showed the proposed

Scheme would not result in a significant impact on Air Quality. He said that the impacts

from the untolled scenario were predicted to be similar to those for the tolled scheme

despite the different traffic flows with the worst affected receptors near the toll plaza and

along the N3 through Dunshaughlin experiencing lower pollutant concentrations than

those when the toll plaza was in operation. He said that near the existing N3 and the

untolled route near Clonee end the prediction was that worst case receptors would not be

Dr. Porter said that emissions of pollutants from road traffic could be controlled by either

controlling user numbers or traffic flow since emissions for most pollutants, except for

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), increased as speed drops and emissions were also higher in

stop-start conditions as compared to steady state speeds. He said free flowing traffic in

suburban areas and on the proposed development was normally essential to minimse the

generation of traffic related pollutants but the predictions were that even if speed dropped

to 40 km/hour, compliance with all relevant significance criteria would still be achieved

at the nearest residential and occupational receptors. He said that roadside planting which

was part of the landscape plan and noise barriers would allow for a reduction in air

pollutant concentrations like PMs at nearby worst case receptors. He said that suitable

implementation in the EIS during construction works. Dr. Porter concluded by saying that

the predictive modelling study indicated that no significant impact on air quality would

occur near the proposed route whether or not it was tolled and that no significant residual

impact on air quality was likely to result from the proposed Clonee to Dunshaughlin

Mr. Newall said that he had only mentioned dust during the construction phase in passing

and how would they be able to guage if there was excessive dust which could be a

problem for their bloodstock during the construction of the road adjacent to their farm.

Dr. Porter said the best way to tackle dust was to have a strict management scheme in

place as it was fairly straightforward to control dust as the causes of it were well known.

Mr. Newall asked if there had been any studies made on dust affecting studfarms during

construction but Dr. Porter said he had not come across one. Mr. Newall asked were they

to wait and see as it could be difficult to move horses at short notice if dust became a

sigbnificant problem. Dr. Porter outlined the basis for good site management for dust

control and said that site traffic should comply with a strict speed limit and that a limit of

15 kms/hour would be recommended, since a reduction in speed from 40 kms/hour to 15

kms/hour depressed dust formation by 80% and that watering also depressed dust by

minimisation plan was implemented. Mr. Newall asked if the project Manager would be

their liasion officer and Dr. Porter said there would be an on-site liaison person for

contact and that the key to stopping dust from occurring was to prevent it developing in

the first place. Mr. Keane intervened to say that the issue of dust minimalisation was

dealt with on page 71 of Vol. 3A in the EIS where the mitigation measures to deal with

construction impacts was set out and he read out the full extent Section 3.8 on page 71,

Mr. Kieran said he had the same concerns as Mr. Newall but in his case the Link Road

was 10 metres above his lands and he asked if the importation of material to build the

embankment would cause a dust problem. Dr.Porter said the same measures to control

dust by good site management would still apply and while it would be somewhat more

difficult in his case as the road was being raised, it was still possible to control dust but

more stringent application would be required. Asked if that sort of site management could

be done in practice, Dr. Porter said they were involved in a centre city site at present

where a very big development was in progress and it was being strictly monitored by

Dublin City Council with a proactive attitude by the developers and it was going very

well and was, he said, surrounded by residential properties. Mr. Kieran concluded by

asking if he knew of the effects of a heavy deposit of dust on grass growth but Dr. Porter

measurements given for NO2 was 8 or 20% of the limit value and for benzene it was 1.4

or 28% of the limit and asked was it correct these figures showed no change in the donothing

were the predicted figures in the tolled scenario in 2004 and 2024 but Dr. Porter said the

figures for his location were not to hand since his property was one of those modelled but

only the worst case situations were reported. Mr. Byrne asked was there a location as

close to the M3 as he was which would show a typical type prediction and he was told the

figures in theEIS were the worst case receptors and those indicated no exceedances of air

Mr. Byrne asked what change he could expect in air quality from the levels of 8 for NO2

and 1.4 for Benzene and Dr. Porter said there would be an increase, Mr. Byrne asked him

to quantify that, Dr. Porter said what was relevant was the absolute value in place when

the scheme was in place, Mr. Byrne accepted it could be difficult to make a prediction but

he needed to be able to understand what this might be at his location. The Inspector

commented that location M7 was at his house in Table 3.3 and Dr. Porter said the figures

could be extracted from the model output files but they did not have these to hand. Mr.

Byrne asked if the predictions were likely to show multiples of an increase but Dr. Porter

felt it would not be in multiples for Benzene but accepted it could be up to 3 times for

NO2. When Mr. Byrne asked about SO2 and Dr. Porter said this was not an issue, the

Inspector told Mr. Byrne that SO2 was more a built-up area issue arising from coal and

open fires and that expert witnesses giving evidence of behalf of objectors usually

accepted that it was NO2 and Benzene were the traffic emissions of concern but SO2 was

Mr. Byrne asked if Benzene and Carbon Monoxide(CO) were related and could data on

CO be included in the predictions and Dr. Porter said they were not chemically related,

both were traffic emissions and the data would be provided to him. Mr. Byrne asked if

Particulates (PMs), there might be revisions in the future, after 2010, but no substantial

changes were expected. Mr. Byrne asked if emissions were speed related and if so would

speed regulation improve matters and Dr. Porter replied that the EU approach was a top

down one by making vehicles cleaner being the best solution and that vehicles were 95%

cleaner now than 20 years ago, with the approach being to solve the problem at source

Mr. Byrne then asked if dust had been included in the impact on air quality as referred to

on page 64 in Chapter 6 in the EIS relating to flora and fauna but Dr. Porter said they had

no input to Chapter 6 and said there was no standard or EU Directive relating to dust on

flora and fauna. Mr. Byrne said he could find no reference to the effect of dust of flora in

Chapter 6 and Dr. Porter accepted it was not considered in the air quality section. Mr.

Byrne said his concern arose from the references on page 71 to dust being deposited close

to the potential source and pointed to the possible 18 month construction phase for the

bridge outside his house; that all the mitigation measures seemed to refer to surfaced

roads; that he would have an unsurfaced road at the side of his house for up to 36 months

with up to 176000 truck loads of fill coming from the cutting to the north of his house

and possibly more from the south and asked what mitigation could he expect for all of

that. Dr. Porter replied that there were two favourable mitigation measures already in

place, the first being the wind direction which was primarily from the west/south-west

and that would blow the dust away from him. He said the second was that the road was in

a cutting so the wind would be reduced. Mr. Byrne said he accepted those factors would

be a help but it was in summer when the ground was drier and the wind tended to be from

Dr. Porter said that if there was speed control and speeds brought down to 30 km. there

was a 65% reduction over the worst case and if it was reduced to 15 km. then dust was

reduced by 80% and this was in their mitigation recommendations in Section 3.8 in the

EIS. Mr. Byrne asked if these sort of measures would have been in place on the M1

construction outside Drogheda as he had been advised to look at that by the Council's

Road Engineers previously and he had spent a Saturday there looking at what was being

done and that when he had come home he had to put all the clothes he had been wearing

into the wash as there was so much dust on them, saying that he had stood on the side the

prevailing wind was blowing from. Dr. Porter asked if the vehicles were moving quickly

and Mr. Byrne said it was more than 20kms. per hour and Dr. Porter said good site

Mr. Byrne asked what would the potential impact be at his house during construction and

Dr. Porter agreed it would be high but that a proper dust minimisation plan could reduce

that adding the trucks should be covered as well as their speed being restricted. Mr.

Byrne suggested there would still be a problem when the soil was dry and Dr. Porter said

that in dry weather the road surface would need to be watered. Asked if he could exoect

zero impact, Dr. Porter said there would never be zero impact but it could be minimised

by taking the right precautions and enforcing these, saying that with a good plan and a

poor plan a receptor would have very different impacts. Mr. Byrne then showed him

Drogheda which showed the house covered in dust and asked him to comment but Dr.

Porter pointed out that there was timber lying about it and he was not sure what he could

say. Mr. Byrne said he was making the point of how the house had suffered during the

Mr. Byrne asked what else might be done to mitigate the impact and Dr. Porter said a

wheel wash would be at the exit on to the road to prevent mud being carried out but Mr.

Byrne said mud was unlikely to be a problem for him, that it was dust he was concerned

about. Dr. Porter said keeping the soil moist would also help. Mr. Byrne asked what

impact would dust have at his location in the context of the thresholds in Table 3.1 and

Dr. Porter replied that with no mitigation it could be quite significant but that there was a

enforcing a 15 km. per hour speed and that watering the soil and covering the loads

would also help to minimise dust generation. When Mr. Byrne suggested the contractor

was unlikely to water the soil every time it went dry, Dr. Porter said a complaint log was

normally in operation and Mr. Byrne concluded by saying his name would be appearing

in that complaints log very frequently if that was what it took to get action, but he did not

Note -- Edward Porter was not available on Day 11 and Mervyn Keegan, also from AWN

Mr. Scott asked what were PM10s and Mr. Keegan explained these were the particulate

form of dust which had a diameter of less than 10 micron, dust itself ranging fron 0 to 75

microns and that PM10 was a health hazard as it could be breathed into the lungs. Asked

if there were EU regulations for PM10 mitigation he said there were and these took many

formats as this was typically produced from vehicle combustion. Asked were the Council

obliged to take action when PM10 exceeded 200 mg/sq. m. per month, Mr. Keegan said

the regulations varied from 200 to 350 mg./sq.m. per day per month. Mr. Scott then asked

how his property would be affcted by dust during construction and Mr. Keegan said there

was a potential impact and standard mitigation measures for the M3 Scheme had been

outlined in the EIS. Asked what factors would contribute to there being an impact, Mr.

Keegan referred to rain and wind as being typical causes and the prevailing wind

direction was an important factor. Mr. Scott said his house was west of the route and the

depending on meteorological conditions on a particular day and only be sampling from

month to month at a property could the impact be quantified. Mr. Scott asked what was

the cost of installing a dust monitor and when Mr. Keegan said these were known as

"Bergenhoff guages" and were like a jam jar, Mr. Scott said he wanted one installed at his

property and maintained throughout the duration of the construction of the scheme. Mr.

Keegan said that was "over the top" in relation to the overall scheme but it would be

reasonable while work was in progress in the vicinity of his property and that it was a

matter for the Council. When Mr. Scott put that to the Council, Mr. Keane said he would

take instructions. Mr. Scott said he was requesting that such a monitor be installed on his

property and that mitigation measures be taken when it went above the particular level.

Mr. Keegan said there were mitigation measures outlined in the EIS and Mr. Scott replied

they would know if these were effective if the proper equipment was installed on the

property. The Inspector asked was this a straightforward "Dust Monitor" since they had

been discussing particulates earlier, Mr. Keegan said it was not a PM10 sampling as that

required a much more expensive undertaking and Mr. Scott said he was talking about

Mr. Scott then asked what effect had tailbacks on air quality and Mr. Keegan said that

typically pollution emissions increased and this would include PMs but he could not say

tailback was assessed at the Toll Plaza, Mr. Keegan said a 200 metre tailback was

modelled and there were 5 lanes in each direction. Asked how this compared with the

M50 Westlink, Mr. Keegan felt there were more lanes on the M50 but he did not know

what tailbacks on the M50 were like as he did not live in Dublin. Mr. Scott suggested 6

km. tailbacks were common at the M50 and suggested a similar experience could occur at

Black Bull and asked what would be the result for air quality. Mr. Keegan said an

increased tailback of so many hundred metres would lead to a temporary increase in

pollutant concentrations in the area but the meteorological conditions would have to be

considered before he could say how long this might linger in the area. Mr. Scott said he

was seeking to establish the implications for his property as he considered the tailback

would be greater than had been allowed for. Mr. Keane intervened to say the Toll Plaza

was 1.4 kms. from Mr. Scott's property and Mr. Keegan said that in that case he would

Mr. Scott asked if that comment was based on there being a 200 metre tailback but Mr.

Keegan replied that was not nessarily the case as what were called queued links were fed

into the model and the traffic in the model would have to travel over those links and this

gave the queued scenario that would have been assessed. Asked where he could find if

the assessment had been for a 4 or 5 km. tailback, which would be passing his house,

Mr.Keegan replied that this had not been stated in the EIS but he could give an indication

of what the pollutant level would be in the vicinity of his property and he referred to the

concentrations on Plate no. 3.1. ( Note -- Mr. Scott had difficulty in locating this Plate,

which follows from page 81 in Vol. 3A and, it having been located for him, in reading the

relevant figures which are in coloured print. The Inspector requested Mr. Keegan to show

him the details on his copy of the Plate and to then describe these for the Hearing ).

quality contour nearest to his house for the untolled scenario and 73 to 78 mg/m3 on Plate

3.2 for the tolled scenario which was the worst case prediction with traffic queued at the

toll plaza. Mr. Keegan said that for PM10s these were shown in Table 3.9 on page 77

when the worst case level was 46 in 2024 and that was at a worse location than his own.

When Mr. Scott asked was Table 3.9 for the worst case with a tailback outside his

Mr. Scott then asked if some trees were better than others in absorbing air pollutants and

when Mr. Keegan replied that he was not so aware and that typically roadside trees in

linear formation had not been regarded as absorbers of pollutants, Mr. Scott said he was

amazed as it was his understanding trees had a significant impact in absorbing pollutants

and dust. Mr. Keegan said trees with a dense growth or a good hedge could act to filter

dust particles, but he had not found them to be a good absorber of pollutants like NO2

and SO2. Mr. Scott suggested the landscaping proposed should be taken into account but

Mr. Keegan said he had not addressed that issue and he did not believe the species of

trees made a significant difference to localised air quality such as at his property.

When Mr. Scott asked if he got another expert to contradict that opinion, would he

reconsider and Mr. Keegan said he was open to this. Mr. Scott concluded by saying that

he had not been presented with sufficient information in the EIS to evaluate correctly the

impact of the M3 on his property either in terms of noise or air quality. Mr.Keegan

replied that in terms of pollutants the worst case scenario of the route had been addressed

and the pollutant concentrations predicted to occur at the worst affected receptors were

quoted in the tables in the EIS. He said Mr.Scott could be assured that the air quality at

his own particular location would be better than that quoted in the tables, and that it

Subsequent to Mr. Scott's cross-examination concluding, Mr. Keane said Meath County

Council were prepared to provide and maintain a dust monitor at Mr. Scott's house at dust

The Inspector referred to Tables 3.7 and 3.8 and and to location M5 and asked was there

any reason for the concentration for NO2 of 46 being near the Limit Value. Dr.Porter said

the monitoring was taken over a two week period and compared to an annual average and

that the accuracy of diffusuion tube for monitoring was plus or minus 25% to 30% but

was more user friendly than a continuous analyser. He said that one could get 300%

variation on a monthly basis from the Dublin Ccity Centre continuous diffusion results

and he would not read too much into that result. He said both M1 and M5 were with the

scheme in place so they were including existing traffic and he said that a longer

average. The Inspector said the levels for NO2 at M5 in Dunshaughlin itself appeared

high and was that to be expected and Dr. Porter said that Dunshaughlin would benefit by

a reduction in traffic when the scheme was in place. The Inspector asked if longer term

monitoring were to be considered beneficial where would the most suitable location for

that be. Dr. Porter said the key to this was where the worst case receptor was likely to be

and complex Interchanges like that at Pace were the more likely locations but there

might be a receptor on the roadside that could have a worse air quality. He said that if one

was looking for the impact of the Scheme, he would suggest Pace as the more appropriate

Mr. Quirke said he was a partner in Conservation Services, a consultancy that specialised

in Freshwater Ecology, that he had a Zoology degree from UCD and 20 years experience

working as an ecologist which included the biological monitoring of Killarney Lakes and

a number of other river and lake catchments and had carried out freshwater EIAs for

Mr. Quirke said that Conservation Services were retained to carry out an assessnent of

freshwater ecology of the Clonee to Dunshaughlin section of the proposed M3 scheme

which was to assess the invertebrate fauna, fish, aquatic flora, water quality and salmonid

habitat on all potentially affected streams and rivers and to assess salmonid habitat

quality for at least 1 km. downstream of each potential impact point and their findings

were set out in a Report of July 2001 " Aquatic Ecology Report". He said that particular

emphasis was given to the potential vulnerability of streams and rivers to suspended

solids and other pollutants generated in the construction of the road and those that might

be contained in run-off from the proposed road when operational; to the potential

obstruction to fish movement particularly salmonids like brown trout, sea trout and

salmon, and to the potential loss of aquatic habitat from the construction of the proposed

Mr. Quirke said the proposed M3 had a potential impact at 4 locations on the upper

reaches of the River Skane, which was a spawning and nursery area for both salmon and

brown trout and the Skane was a tributary of the River Boyne, which is an EU designated

salmonid water. He said the proposed road would also impact on the River Tolka which

flowed through the northern suburbs of Dublin, with 14 potential impact locations on the

upper reaches of the Tolka. He said biological assessment had been carried out close to

each of these locations and the suitability of the habitat was assessed for different

salmonid life stage for at least 1 km. downstream of the 18 locations. He said that no fish

were recorded in the Skane near these locations but that this was due to poor water

quality rather than from an unsuitable habitat and he said that the new sewerage works

for Dunshaughlin, which was in progress at the time of their surveys, would improve the

water quality and that should have occurred by the time work on the M3 commenced. He

said much of the Skane system was of a fair or good potential salmonid nursery habitat

and was of high value and locally important and with both trout and salmon present a few

kms. downstream of the road crossings and said that the mitigation measures proposed

were based on the presumption that salmonid fish would have recolonised the Skane near

He said the Tolka had the potential to be an important trout angling amenity for the

Dublin hinterland as trout up to 6lbs.weight had been regularly caught on it in the 1950s

but the river had become seriously polluted in recent decades. He said wild brown trout

seemed to have survived downstream of Mulhuddart but a survey in 1994 showed none

upstream, with the EPA survey of 1998 indicating an improvement from seriously to

moderately polluted in the main Tolka channel upstream of Clonee between Bennetstown

and Rathbeggan. He said that the section of the Tolka potentially affected by the M3

Scheme only had adequte quality for trout since 1998 and the EIS survey in April 2000

recorded adult trout some 500 metres upstream of Clonee bridge. Mr. Quirke said it was

clear the Tolka was being recolonised by trout as water quality improved since the

Eastern Fishery Board recorded trout as far as 1 km. upstream of Black Bull bridge. He

said that at 12 of the 14 crossings there was fair to good salmonid habitat in the 1 km.

downstream and that, on the basis of their survey, the potentially affected section of the

Mr. Quirke went on to list the principlal potential impacts on freshwater habitats in the

Pollution of watercourses with suspended solids due to run-off from construction

Permanent loss of stream, stream side habitat where new road constructed over or

Mr. Quirke said the proposed new road would not involve a significant habitat loss on the

Skane system but mitigation measures were required to prevent significant pollution

damage to juvenile salmonid fish and to prevent significant obstruction to upstream

salmonid fish movement in its upper reaches. He said there would be significant habitat

loss on the Tolka system at several locations, the most serious being downstream of the

proposed Bracetown Overbridge where 350 metres of good salmonid habitat would be

lost due to the river diversion near Pace Interchange, 250 metres lost at the proposed

crossing point north of Quarryland and 250 metres of fair to good habitat lost at the

proposed crossing some 600 metres north of the Black Bull bridge. He said mitigation

measures were required to prevent significant pollution damage to juvenile salmonid fish

and to prevent significant obstruction to upstream salmonid fish movement in its upper

1. Where significant or potentially significant salmonid habitat existed upstream

2. Strict control of erosion, sediment generation and other pollutants associated

3. Construction likely to generate significant suspended solids pollution should

Mr. Quirke there were 4 locations where the construction of the road would require the

Tolka to be diverted into new channels and these should be bioengineered to replicate as

close as possible the natural instream flow, substrate diversity and natural bankside cover

and should be designed in close consultation with the ERFB. He said the construction of

the replacement channel should be done before the flow was diverted with, ideally,

bankside vegetation and bushes well established and the construction should minimise

the release of suspended solids when flow was released to re-route the river. He said the

diversion of any fish bearing waters must be done in consultation with the ERFB so that

fish could be transferred to suitable alternative habitats. Mr. Quirke said that if these

mitigation measures were fully implemented the potential impacts from pollution by the

construction and operation of the road would be rendered insignificant or of minor

significance and the potential for obstruction to upstream fish movement would be

greatly reduced by careful design of culverts but he said that some impact could still

occur at culverts under certain flow conditions. He said the loss of over 1 km of salmonid

habitat due to the river diversions on the Tolka would remain as a major impact after

mitigation had been implemented but careful design of the replacement channel to

maximise its value as a salmonid habitat would ensure a significant mitigation of that

habitat loss as the new channel became colonised by aquatic invertebrates and plants. Mr.

Quirke concluded by saying that a constructed river channel rarely succeeded in matching

the natural habitat value of the channel it was replacing and that some longterm reduction

Mr. Newall said the source of the Skane was in their lands and the river passed under the

motorway there and he asked about the design of the culverts to allow other than aquatic

animals free passage. Mr. Quirke said he had discussed this aspect with Mr. Goodwillie

who dealt with terrestrial fauna and his understanding was that there was provision in the

culvert design for facilities for otter, mink and other animals to move as well as the flow

conditions being suitable at virtually all times fors almonid fish movement upstream. A

mammalian passages and Mr. Quirke outlining the differing requirements of aquatic and

mammalian passages. When Mr. Newall suggested the Skane culvert in their land should

be enlarged to become an effective animal crossing point, Mr. Keane said he understood

there would be animal crossings as well as fish passage facilities and he intended dealing

with this in Ms Joyce's re-examination. The Inspector then referred to a sentence on page

151 of Vol. 3A of the EIS which read as " Where culverts are used for water crossings,

mammal passes will be incorporated with appropriate guide fencing and planting " and

The Inspector said there had been a number of references to the Eastern Regional

Fisheries Board (ERFB) and asked what consultation had taken place with them as the

indicated they were satisfied with the arrangements being made. Mr. Keane said the

Council had engaged in extensive consultations with the ERFB and there was a letter

available indicating their satisfaction which he would hand in later on. ( Note -- this

Mr. Wilson said he graduated from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand in 1996

and had 4 years experience in New Zealand and 2 years in Ireland where he was the

Senior Drainage Engineer for MC O'Sullivans on the Clonee to Dunshaughlinand Navan

He said the proposed Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section was largely within the Tolka river

catchment with part of the motorway in the upper catchment of the River Skane and the

Tolka River was crossed 6 times, with numerous crossings of small tributaries and

drainage ditches in both catchments. He then summarised the principal objectives in the

conservation of water in receiving waters; (3) the conservation of river channels, habitats

and amenity and (4) the attenuation of motorway run-off to prevent increases in peak

He said the design principles for the preliminary motorway drainage included the

provision of adequate surface drainage to avoid surface flooding on the motorway;

adequate sub-surface drainage to lower the water table in cuttings to protect the soil

formation under the road surface and the identification of suitable road run-off outfall

locations and the attenuation of run-off to remove pollutants from run-off and to prevent

pollutant spills from reaching natural waterways. Mr. Wilson said that culvert crossings

of streams and rivers would use parabolic arch, box and piped type culverts and follow

obstruction. He said that for larger streams a minimum size of 1500 mm would be used to

facilitate maintenance and that the culverts were designed for a 100 year flood return

Mr. Wilson said that a number of the Tolka River culverts were designed using a detailed

minimising the head losses and by conserving storage where possible. He said that fish

friendly design principles had been established in consultation with the ERFB and these

were detailed in Section 7.5.2. in Vol.3A of the EIS and that care would be taken to

ensure there were no interruptions to upstream and downstream migration of fish. He said

river diversions were being avoided except where the motorway footprint covered a

significant length of the river or the angle of the crossing required a very long culvert and

there would be a method statement agreed with the ERFB well in advance of construction

to minimise the impact on fish life. He said the realigned, regraded and diverted channels

would be designed with the general stability and conservation of the river channel and

riparian environment in mind; to maintain existing river characteristics; would be sized to

accommodate 100 year floods and the channels would be lined with natural material to

Mr. Wilson said the main surface water collection on the motorway would be provided

by a system of filter drains constructed along the edges and median of the motorway with

run-off from the paved areas where the motorway was on an embankment being allowed

to flow over the side sloped to the ditches which would outfall to existing streams and

that kerbed areas would be catered for by carrier drains. He said oil interceptors would be

provided at piped drainage discharge points to mimimise the environmental impact on

rivers and streams and to comply with ERFB requirements. He said that in the event of an

oil or petrol spillage the interceptors would help to prevent this reaching rivers or streams

by storing the first flush which could be pumped up by a tanker. He said that cut-off

drains or interceptor ditches would be provided at the top of cutting slopes where the land

sloped towards the cutting and at the bottom of the embankment slopes where the land

sloped towards the embankment and that in locations where filter drains were not

appropriate, such as at structures and interchanges, positive drainage using kerbs and

He said that attenuation measures had been designed in the preliminary design to prevent

increased downstream flooding on the basis that the motorway development would not

add to the flood levels or flood risk and that these measures included using attenuation

ponds and swales (ditches). He said attenuation measures were proposed at areas of

historical flooding and at locations where downstream residential properties might beat

risk from increased flows. Mr. Wilson said that ponds would be lined in areas where

there was a high water table, in sensitive acquifers and where close to road structures and

existing houses. He said that the provision of attenuation storage provided an opportunity

for effluent quality control by facilitating settlement of coarse silts and by incorporating

oil/grit interceptors at road outfall locations since filter drains and ponds have been

shown to achieve high levels of reduction in sediments and particulate pollution. He said

that a hydraulic model of the existing River Tolka system had been constructed and

calibrated and, when validated, had been used to estimate the extent of flooding both for

existing conditions and when the proposed Motorway Scheme was in place. He said the

results showed that while the proposed river crossings did have localised drawdown

effects, overall there was no significant impact on flooding in the Tolka but that several

buildings near the main channel were at risk of flooding in a 100 year flood scenario. He

said that the proposed motorway did not significantly impact on the flood risk of those

buildings where there would be a minimal change in the calculated water levels as a

When Mr. Wilson moved on to give an overview of the proposed Preliminary Drainage

System which set out the calculations and resultant pipe sizes, the Inspector said it was

not necessary for this to be read to the Hearing ( Note -- the details are in Mr. Wilson's

Brief of Evidence handed in to the Hearing on Day 2 and listed in Appendix 4 of the

Report.) Mr. Keane then asked him to confirm that the written Brief reflected his belief

on the requirements for the appropriate drainage, detailed design, and standards to be

appropriate culvert and bridge crossings of existing streams and rivers; identified the

appropriate outfall points for the various road sections and quantified the design

discharges; identified the attenuation measures to be implemented at each outfall point

and indentified the drainage criteria to implement a satisfactory drainage system. He said

the proposed motorway would not have a significant impact on the hydrology of the

Tolka river and while there were some localised miinor impacts these could be mitigated

through the use of attenuation ponds at outfall locations to slowly release extra run-off

and also providing quality benefits, with culvert velocities reduced by increased

Dunshaughlin and the river flood model was built and verified using historic flood data.

He said the model identified the main potential impacts, without any mitigation, of the

proposed roads as an increase in existing flood levels and flooding of new areas at a

number of crossing locations. He said that they proposed amelioration measures to

minimise these impacts by the use of an appropriate drainage design to mitigate any

potential detrimental impact which included the following, a full listing being in Vol.3A

That flows in excess of a 1 in 10 year period would be retained in these detention

That culverts had been sized to minimise the impacts on existing flood plains by

ensuring adequate capacity at negligible head loss ( minimal backing up of water);

Mr. Keane asked him to refer to Figure 8.1 at page 198 in Vol. 3A and asked, in the

context of Mr. Byrne's queries ( See Sections 25.1 & 25.8 of this Report ) and their

discussion with him, what changes were now proposed. Mr. Wilson said that originally it

was intended to monitor the wells and wait until a significant impact had occurred before

deepening the wells but it was now proposed to undertake a more detailed survey to

identify any vulnerable wells and either deepen them or to connect them to mains before

the construction works commenced and said this would involve doing a pump test in the

"zone of influence" which was shown on the map in Figure 8.1. ( Note -- See also Mr.

McKillen's Verbal Submission at Section 48.1 of this Report and Undertaking given by

Meath County Council as handed in on Day 21 and listed in Appendix 4 of this Report)

Asked about Rathbeggan Lake, Mr. Wilson said that, following a discussion with Mr.

proposed as a precaution to monitor the spring flows at the Lake and that if these were

found to be sifgnificantly affected as a result of the road work, then a compensation

measure like a replacement bore hole would be provided. He said the EIS proposed

drainage measures to control run-off and maintain the current drainage and to mitigate

Mr. Byrne referred to his previous qusetion about "uneven drying" to Ms Joyce and asked

if he could comment on this but Mr. Wilson said he had no experience of this issue. The

Inspector said Mr. Byrne was raising the possibility of the moisture content in the ground

adjacent to the excavation for the cutting being reduced by the exposed ground drying out

and that this might cause subsidence affecting his drainage pipes as this might not have

considered by one of their advisors as it was a construction type issue. Mr. Keane said he

would take instructions. ( Ms Joyce handed in the Council's response to this on Day 10,

which indicated no risk of subsidence occurring, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report).

Mr. Newall explained that there was a network of old field drains throughout their lands

and they had concerns that the construction of the roads through their property would

sever these and he wanted to know how these would be protected and what would be the

position if the damage did not show up for some years after the construction had been

finished. Mr.Wilson explained about the interceptor drains they proposed and as referred

to in his Brief of Evidence but Mr. Newall said it was old stone drains in the middlc of

their fields he was concerned about and where flooding could develop and he asked what

assistence they would get for these. When Mr. Wilson said that was a matter for the

Council, the Inspector intervened and said that was really a matter for discussion in the

context of the accommodation works negotiations and said his position could not be

Mr.Kieran asked him to elaborate on how oil and hydrocarbon traps worked and were

serviced afterwards and Mr. Wilson replied that theory was of a still body of water

allowing the oil to rise and silts to settle out and this was achieved through the use of

baffles and they would be serviced by a truck coming along and sucking the oil and

collected silt from them. Asked about the R125 Mr. Wilson said as that was almost all on

embankments, it was proposed there would be "over the edge drainage into swales which

were basically long ponds and the same procedure was followed to slow down the flow

and collect sediment that dropped out. Asked who would be responsible for maintaining

motorway and the Council would maintain Link roads like the R125 and all other roads.

Mr. Kieran asked where the drainage from the farm service roads would go as the link

road was on an embankment and the farm service road was below this with drains beside

intervened to say that the drain would lie at the foot of the embankment between the

embankment and the farm service road with service road being slpped towards the field

to ensure cattle effluent would not flow directly into the stream or river diversion. When

Mr. Kieran sought further clarification on relative positions of the drains and the road

which several farmers would be using, the Inspector suggested the Council should have a

large scale map prepared and given to Mr. Kieran so that he could see what was being

Mr. Kieran said the River Skane was a slow flowing river in the upper catchment area

and asked were there plans to deepen it downstream to make sure it could carry the extra

load from heavy rainfall but Mr. Wilson said the attenuation measures were designed to

prevent the run-off rates increasing beyond what the catchment streams could take above

considered the river needed that outside of the road coming, Mr. Wilsion said that was

The Inspector referred to the small pond proposed at the Newtown Bridge area and asked

what its purpose was. Mr. Wilson replied it was designed for a 1 in 100 year flood and

was there as the houses were in a risk area in the Tolka catchment. The Inspector referred

to the discussion about the size of the bridge at that point and Mr. McBreen's concerns

about flooding and Mr. Wilson said they had re-measured it when they met with Mr.

McBreen there and it was an arch with an area of area 4.96 sq. metres. He said they now

proposed to put in a twin 1.5 by 3.3 culvert, which would now give an opening of 9.9

understanding with MC O'Sullivans about the size of the bridge and the error made in the

calculations. He said he was not a drainage expert and knew nothing about hydrology but

the flows at Newtown Bridge semed to be between 7 and 10 cubic metres per second

while the flows given for the Tolka catchment were 15 cu. metres per second into the sea

at Fairview. He said the catchment area at Newtown bridge was only one tenth or one

eight of the total catchment so how the flow from the total catchment was only 15 cu.

metres was beyond his understanding. He concluded by saying that if he was Meath

County Council he would be exceptionally worried about that. The Inspector noted the

Council were now doubling the size of the culvert and were to meet with him again.

Mr. O'Connell said he was employed by MC O'Sullivans as a Project Engineer and was

responsible for the design of mechanical and electrical services including Public Lighting

and had a degree from Brunell University in services engineering. He said the lighting for

interchanges, roundabouts and the toll plaza and this was a safety requirement for road

users and, where provided, it was done to mandatory road safety and design standards.

He said the areas to be lighted were the R156 and R157 Roundabouts; the Pace and

Roundabouts and the Black Bull Toll Plaza with the lighting schemes designed and

installed in accordance with the BS 5489 (1992) and CIE 115 (1995) standards which

were the recommendations for lighting roads for motor and pedestrian traffic. He said

that Part 2 for traffic routes, Part 3 for subsidiary roads, Part 4 for junctions and

roundabouts, Part 5 for interchanges, Part 6 for bridges and elevated roads, Part 9 for

urban centres and public amenity areas and Part 10 for motorways were the parts of the

code of practice for lighting as in BS 5489 of 1992 that would be applied in the design

and installation of the lighting. He said the lighting equipment which would be installed

to the standards detailed in the specification consisted of the lights, columns, cabling

systems and power distribution and the Contractor would be obliged to submit his

detailed design for approval by the Councils representative at design stage and that the

design would have to interface with any existing Public Lighting to give a seamless

Mr. O'Connell said the preliminary lighting design was designed to comply and the full

design would also comply with the requirements of the current edition of the ETCI

Electricity Supply Company's standards and procedures. He said that all lighting would

use compact high pressure sodium lamps in flat glass IP65 lanterns of the fully cut-off

incorporating solar diode switching control. He said all columns would be of the slim

folded galvanised steel construction type with the general mounting height for columns

on the road junctions and interchanges being 8, 10 and 12 metres with no columns

mounted on bridges or other structures and that high mast lighting would only be

permitted in locations where wide area lighting was proven to be required to meet the

The Inspector asked what was the likelihood of High Mast Lighting being necessary and

if so where. Mr. O'Connell said the only location where they might become necessary

was at theToll Plaza but that he did not personally see this being required there and he

felt the 12 metre columns would be adequate. In reply to a further query by the Inspector

he confirmed that high mast lighting would not be required at any of the Interchanges.

37. Evidence of Harold O'Sullivan, Historical Researcher, on behalf of the Council :

Mr. O'Sullivan said he had a Ph.D. from the University of Dublin and had been engaged

in Historical Research for almost 40 years and had reported on the Architectural Heritage

He said that while the historical landscape of Meath through the proposed motorway

would pass had many places of interest of pre-historic and early Christian times, of which

Tara and Lagore were the most important, the Norman conquest of the late twelfth

century and the subsequent colonisation by what became known as the Old English in the

seventeenth century were the main contributors to the fomation of that landscape. He said

while much of the power and landed estates of the Old English was lost in the wars of the

seventeenth century, land divisions and boundaries such as townlands, parishes and

baronies had survived to modern times, and that the landed estates confiscated in the

seventeenth century had remained substantially intact, but with new landed families, until

the land reforms of the nineteenth century brought an end to the landlord system. Mr.

O'Sullivan said that contrary to popular belief the mass of the indigenous population

survived the confiscations of the sevententh century and paid their rents to the new

landlords. He said that while many of their descendants benefitted from the nineteenth

century land reforms and increased their land holdings and wealth, there were others from

outside of Meath who settled there in the last century on farms and estates which they had

purchased and developed as private residences and with stud farms attached in some

Mr. O'Sullivan said that no building or house of historical, cultural or architectural

Dunshaughlin which would be liable to suffer physical damage from the construction of

the motorway but their settings had also to be taken into account. He said that the setting

of a house could either relate to its curtilage or to its attendant grounds with a legal

definition of curtilage being " a garden, yard or field or other piece of ground lying near

or belonging to a house". He said that in the case of a farmhouse this would extend to

including the outbuildings in the immediate vicinity of the house. He then quoted from

the Draft Guidelines issued by Duchas in 2001 for Planning Authorities entitled "

The attendant grounds of a structure can include land originally within its curtilage,

which through change of ownership or subdivision of the site, has become alienated from

the building. They can also include lands still associated with the structure but lying

outside its curtilage. The attendant grounds of a protected structure can be important for

its appreciation, in many cases, the attendant grounds were deliberately laid out to

complement the design of the building or to assist in its function. The Guidelines

recommend that before the Planning Authority define an "attendant grounds" it should

"have knowledge of the historical development of the site" and to this end "research may

be required into old maps documents or drawings to determine the extent of attendant

Mr. O'Sullivan said from the Guidelines it was clear there was scope for subjectivity in

defining what was the curtilage or the attendant grounds of a particular building or house

and in determining the historical, architectural of artistic merits of a house or its setting

and that prime consideration must be given to the relationship between the house and the

landscape in which it was set when determining the "setting". He said that a building

which, whatever its intrinsic archittectural or artistic merit, was completely secluded by

trees or by high walls and represented now in the landscape by a clump of trees or a high

wall might not raise the same comcern as a building which was open to and was an

integral part of the landscape. He said this was not discounting the claims made by

individuals about the quality of their house or the intrusuions on their privacy but that

was for another part of the process and he said it was where the landscape attaching to the

immediate environs of a house contributed to the essential characteristics of the building

or house to the landscape that any such impairment of that landscape needed to be taken

Mr. O'Sullivan said he had included all Listed Buildings in the former Development Plan

and all Protected Structures in the new Development Plan and that in considering the

question of "Attendant Grounds" he had taken careful note of the presence or absence of

a "demesne" attaching to the house as defined in the nineteenth century 6" O.S. maps. He

said the reason for using these was that details of those demesnes were required to be

included in the maps. He said where the demesnes had survived to the preesent day in the

ownership of the house, and with the character of the demesne substantially preserved, he

had no difficulty in identifying the full extent of the demesne as the Attendant Grounds or

He said he had consulted records relating to the area ranging from the seventeenth to the

nineteenth centuries that dealt with land ownership and habitation sites. He had visited 7

houses in the Clonee to Dunshaughlin section and taken photographs of each house and

its environs and these were included with his report ( Note -- This appears in Vols.3A&

He said he had read the objections and some of these were from houses owners on his

list, namely Mr. Laurence Ward, Norman's Grove. Clonee (Plot 320) and The Reps of

Joseph Ward ( Laurence Ward) ( Plot 350); Mr. Brindley, Rathbeggan House Stud (Plot

258) and M/s Evan, Peter & Hugh Newall, Readsland House (Plots 139&144). (Note --

The other houses listed in his report were Piercetown House, Rathbeggan Farm House

and Fishery, Johnstown House and Roestown House) He said some of the objectors such

as M/s Gaynor Corr on behalf of Laurence Ward complained of the EIS not adequately

reflecting the full impact of the proposed scheme on the local environment and their

property but did not identify the concerns at issue so he could not say if they came within

Mr. Keane asked him to respond to the letter sent by Duchas to An Bord Pleanala in April

2002 which the Council did not receive until late in August and after some comment had

been made in the newspapers about the Duchas concerns. Mr. O'Sullivan said it was a

pity that he had not been told by Duchas of their concerns earlier when he could have

incorporated these into his reports and that Duchas referred to the reports in Volumes 3A,

4A, 5A, 6A & 7A of the EIS which were summaries of his full reports. He said that his

full reports were in the Appendices to the EIS in the C volumes and he was of the opinion

that Duchas had not read those Appendices when writing their letter. He said Duchas

complained of vernacular structures, cornmills and farm structures having been left out

but he had included all of these in his reports and particularly in regard to demesnes

which was a big part of the attendant grounds or settings. He said that he did not know

what their reference to "benchmarks" related to as those were made by the Ordnance

Survey in the nineteenth century and not all had survived and that as Duchas had not yet

prepared the Inventory of National Heritage for Co. Meath they were all to an extent

working in the dark as to what exactly were the intentions of Duchas regarding "heritage"

Mr. Keane drew his attention to his comment in Vol. 3A to the 7 items put forward over

a 14 km. distance as being the sole items of architectural heritage in the vicinity of the

Scheme each being a country house and asked him to comment. Mr. O'Sullivan said he

had made two reports, the first in 1999 was to assist in defining the route and that was not

in the EIS. He said the second was 2000 or 2001 and, while the term "country house"

could be applied to any house outside a town or confined to those described in books like

those of Bence-Jones, his approach was to identify all buildings of interest affected

directly or indirectly by the scheme. He said only one house of his seven -- Gunnocks--

was in Bence-Jones and when he considered a building would not be affected he did not

include it in his report since he considered he should focus on what was relevant to the

motorway and not ramble about the place on a historical journey. He said he did not

within the motorway area, that Gunnocks and Roestown were listed as "country houses"

in the Development Plan, that Piercetown, Rathbeggan and Readsland were of twentieth

concluded by repeating that his reports must not have been read, since many of the

O'Sullivan said the House with its adjacent Stud farm was situated west of Dunshaughlin

village and near the proposed Dunshaughlin Interchange and was secluded within a

surround of mature trees, those on the western side acting as a shelter belt for a shrub

garden containing a large variety of rhodadendrona and azaleas extending over more than

half the site within which the house was situated. He said the house was a substantial

brick built two storey house constructed in 1900 with the setting including the garden and

the garden had been cultivated for over 50 years. He said that any impairment of the

garden, which might follow from any of the western shelter belt being felled, would be

detrimental to the house and setting and should be avoided. He now understood that the

motorway route in this area had been changed and the setting would be preserved as

regards the mature trees on the curtilage and south-western area close to the motorway.

He said that was important for the preservation of the garden as it was a very unique

Asked by Mr. Newall if the Council should assign someone to have the responsibility of

ensuring no damage took place to the roots of the shelter belt during the motorway

construction, Mr. O'Sullivan agreed that would be a prudent course to take as the garden

at Readsland was unique and he had not encountered another house along the route with a

garden as unique. He said the house should be considered by the Council for inclusion on

the protected structures list. Mr. Newall said that while the house and gardens were not

yet being offered to Dunshaughlin, he was inquiring as to his view if it was important to

preseve both of them for the future and Mr. O'Sullivan thought the gardens were at most

risk and that every step to prevent anything affecting them was worth taking as the

protection and maintenance of the perimeter privacy was important in that context and

The Inspector said that while noting Mr. Keane's statement of the Council not receiving

the Duchas letter until August, the submission from Duchas on "Architectiural Heritage"

was received by An Bord on 26 April while a separate submission from Duchas on the

"Archaeological aspests, Terestrial and Underwater" was received by An Bord on 23

April and An Bord's file indicated both were posted to the Council . He said Duchas

referred to the amendment of 1 May 1999 to the architectural heritage sections in the

Roads Act 1993 to 1998 and to the Architectural Heritage National Inventory & Histioric

Monuments Act 1999 giving the definition of the term " architectural heritage". He said

they referred to Mr. O' Sulivan's report of April 2000 and as Mr. O'Sullivan's report in

Section J of Vol.3A was dated 23 April 2000 it seemed as if this was the report Duchas

The Inspector then read the letter of 26 April from Duchas, which outlined their concerns,

drawing attention to the Duchas comments of the " attempt to broaded the examination"

made in reference to Vol. 7A and he suggested that some at least of what Duchas were

looking for must have been in that Volume. He said that while Duchas were saying the

architectural heritage section needed to be reviewed they also pointed out that the

Motorway Scheme might not be impacting specifically on the architectural heritage along

its route but that they could not ascertain this from the information in the EIS. He said

that it was unfortunate the letter did not seem to have reached the Council until the

Hearing had comenced but Duchas were suggesting the matter be reviewed and he was

suggesting the Council should now look at the comments made by Duchas and the matter

could be re-visited when the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section was being dealt with. The

Inspector said it was also to be noted that Duchas were neither present or represented

when the Hearing opened, nor had there been anyone from Duchas at the Hearing since it

Mr. O'Sullivan said the letter from Duchas referred to the absence of references to

vernacular structures, village complexes, desmesne grounds or walls and structures from

the latter part of the ninetenth and all of twentieth centuries in the report and said that

many of these were described in his report on Clonee to Dunshaughlin such as Johnstown

House as a vernacular structure, farm structures and demesne grounds that he had

described extensively. He said he could hardly describe a cornmill when he had not found

one and that it was a pity that a professional individual in Duchas did not communicate

by phone or by letter as so much depended on the closest co-operation between the Local

Authorities and Duchas where the heritage was in a legal state of flux. The Inspector said

his point was noted but Duchas choose to go the way they did, that it may be the Clonee

to Dunshaughlin traversed nothing of value but he was suggesting the Council should reexamine

the situation and they could deal with it in conjunction with the Dunshaughlin to

Mr. Breen said he had an Arts degree from UCD and received his Masters degree in 1980

with his thesis being a study of artifacts found during excavations in Dublin in the

excavations. He was now a director of Valerie J. Keeley & Co. and had worked there

since 1993 both on field investigations, on EISs and in monitoring construction works.

He said their company had conducted the original paper survey of the corridor for the

archaeological potential were located within the corridor an a further 9 in close proximity

to it and this was reported in their "Archaeological Assessment, Preliminary Area of

Interest". He said that during the Route Options phase they undertook a further study of

the impact of the N3 in 1999 which amalgamated the original paper study with evidence

from a field inspection and found 4 extra sites and areas of archaeological potential. He

said the study area was then divided into three geographic sections and that a number of

corridors were assessed within each section, with corridors 1 to 4 in section 1, 1 to 3 in

section 2 and 1 to 2 in section 3. He said the field inspection showed that only 3 sites

recorded in the paper survey would be affected by the line of the route, Site 6 or D in the

EIS, Site 7 or E in the EIS and Site 11 or F in the EIS and that the field inspection

identified several areas of archaeological poterntial. Mr. Breen then outlined the results of

their assessment for each section and their recommendations for moving the route away

from specific sites and for further archaeological investigations based on that assessment

all of which was reported in their "Archaeological Assessment Proposed Routes 1999".

He said that following a further field inspection in June 2000, which identified a further 7

sites of potential archaelogical significance, the results of that inspection were combined

Assessment Route Options" was presented in September 2000. He said that their final

assessment report "Archaological Assessment Final Proposed Route" was presented to

the Client in January 2002 and that this was the combination of all relevant information

gathered during the first three phases of the study and the subsequent assessment of

adjustments to the route received in May and December 2001 when 16 further sites were

identified. He said that the field inspection identified 1 recorded and 17 previously

unrecorded potential site based on their archaeological and architectural potential and

Mr. Breen said that 15 sites, all identified by the field inspections, would be directly

affected by being destroyed or partially destroyed by the road construction and that these

Site 29 ( Earthwork/Tree-ring); Site 31 (Old Rail-line); Site 33 (Circular Enclosure);

Site 34 ( Earthen Ramp); Site 37 ( Probably Early Christian Ecclesiastical Enclosure);

He said that Site 32 ( Possible Dwelling) had an unknown impact as the direct location of

the site was still to be identified and that for Two further Sites 30 & 35 lay in direct

proximity to the landtake, ranging from 40 to 45 metres away from it and that the

immediate environs of these Sites would be affected by the route construction work. He

said that Site 30, a recorded Ringfort, merited special attention as it was a recorded site

and was of established interest and that Site 35 was a Mound. He said that there were 31

other Sites which were not directly affected by the road construction since their locations

recommendation was to avoid all Sites, but that where this was not possible their

recommendation was to fully resolve and record the archaeology before the construction

commenced. He said that their recommended mitigation measures were as follows :-

1. That a pre-construction aerial survey of the full length of the route be undertaken.

2. That the archaeological investigation and, if necessary, a full archaeological

excavation of the previously un-recorded potential Sites be undertaken at Sites 19,

3. That archaeological monitoring of the construction phase for the full length of the

route and its ancillary works be undertaken, with provision for full excavation of

Mr. Kieran asked if the recorded site No. 30 at Kilcooley, would be excavated and Mr.

Breen replied that the road came within 40 metres of this so that a geophysical survey

would be done first to see if there was anything underneath, then a topographical survey

and then some trial trenching to see if there were any remains of a structure there. He said

that the ringfort itself would not be affected as it was 40 metres from the road but there

might besome ancillary buildings up to 50 metres away froim the main dwelling and as

some of these might be on the line of the road, they recommended the testing and trial

trenching before construction started. Asked what happened if anything was found, Mr.

Breen said the site would be fully excavated where it was in the line of the road. Mr.

Kieran asked if the mounds were of significance and Mr. Breen said they were usually

understood as being farm steps in the first millenium and that the mound woud not be

affected by the road and would remain intact. Asked about the policy on excavating

ringforts, Mr. Breen said they preferred to avoid them as there were a lot of ringforts and

Mr. Kieran said a burial ground had been discovered during the Gas pipeline excavation

near the R154 Trim road and asked if the archaeologists would be always present while

the ground was being excavated. Mr. Breen said that when ground was being uncovered

for the first time they would always monitor that but if it was just for a pipe then they

might not be present initially since the ground would be open for some time before the

pipe went in. He confirmed the contractors had to notify the monitoring archaeologist

when they were carrying out any ground excavation or topsoil stripping. Mr. Keane

intervened to draw attention to the paragraph on page 258 in Vol.3A of the EIS on topsoil

stripping and said the Council intended to have at least a central stripping with some

offshoots undertaken for the entire length of the route and that central strip would be

archaeology section in the EIS had expressed their view that the recommendations for

investigation and mitigation were set out effectively which, he said, indicated they were

recommending for this site as it was not in his list of recommndations. Mr. Breen replied

this was a site which Mr. Ward had told them about and that he saw it from time to time

and that they would deal with this by their policy of monitoring all ground disturbance

and he said that if it did turn out to be in the path of the road they would find it and

The Inspector asked Mr. Keane what general proposals had the Council to deal with

Archaeological investigation and excavation in the Contract stage. He said he was asking

this in the context of the ongoing controversy in Carrickmines and, as there might be a

similar issue raised at a later stage in the Hearing, he was now suggesting the Council

might consider this point and make a submission in due course. The Inspector added that

his query was being made without prejudging what decision An Bord might make on the

Mr. Burns said he was a landscape architect and a partner in Brady Shipman Martin, he

held a Agricultural Science degree in Landscape and a Diploma in EIA management and

had ben working in landscape and visual impact assessment for over 13 years during

which time he had been involved in preparing the landscape and visual aspect of many

EISs for road schemes. He said Brady Shipman Martin was commissioned to carry out

the landscape and visual impact assessment for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section of

the M3 project and this assessment was completed over an 18 month period from mid

2000 to the end of 2001. He said the methodology used was based on the EPA Guidelines

with regard to the vulnerability of the landscape to change and to the location of visual

He said that in general the landscape from Clonee through to Dunshaughlin was of high

quality agricultural farmland with some period houses surrounded by mature copses of

these. He said the strong hawthorn tree lined hedgerows with the smaller copses on a flat

topography gave a more "wooded" and "secluded" character than actually existed in

much of the area and while broadly flat, the landscape was gently rolling with a gradual

rise from Clonee to Dunshaughlin. He said the narrow channel of the Tolka River had a

wider landscape valley running north to south which added to the rolling nature of the

landscape. He said that Woodpark area was a particularly attractive local landscape and

was managed to a high standard and that Rathbeggan Stud, while smaller in scale and

strongly screened was also attractive in its setting. He said that agriculture dominated but

development was very common along the roads off the N3 such as the R155 Fairyhouse

Mr. Burns said the Meath CDP had no listing for Tree or Woodland preservations and no

scenic landscape designations or listed views and prospects within the proposed route

corridor. He said the Meath CDP described 11 zones of "visual quality" within the county

as a whole and this section of the proposed route was all in zone VQ 11 Rural and

Agricultural which was the least sensitive and he quoted an extract from this zoning

which said the VQ 11 zones comprised normal rolling lowland pastoral landscapes that

were not particularly sensitive except for occasional ridges or prominent areas and they

could absorb appropriately designed and located development in all categories. He said

that Rathbeggan Lakes, a trout fishery, was a significant amenity located off the N3 and it

was listed as a SRUNA in the CDP. He said that the landscape was of a high quality rural

and agricultural character and was unremarkable in the overall but there were some small

areas of better than expected landscape primarily from mature trees and woodland with

the Woodpark and Rathbeggan areas being the best examples of this. He said that in

terms of visibility it was a robust landscape where the flat tree-lined hedgerows limited

the extent of viewing, but local undulations or high points tended to be visually

Mr. Burns said that this type of landscape had a high capacity to absorb developments

such as roads which tended to be ground based and that where such development avoided

landscaping. He said in the tree-lined landscape it was important to limit impacts on

mature trees and the scheme was designed to retain, wherever possible, existing trees and

he pointed to the mature line of beech trees along Raynestown Road as an example of

that policy. He said that much of the southern extent of the development followed the

existing N3 corridor with a minor adverse impact on the landscape character, the middle

section ran through the wide Tolka River valley following the line of the disused railway

and avoiding impacting on the significant landscape of Woodpark and the trees around

Rathbeggan Stud. He said the development, by appropriate landscaping, could readily be

incorporated into the existing landscape fabric with only minor longterm impact on its

Dunshaughlin where it crossed the existing network of roads and open fields radiating

from Dunshaughlin but that the likely continued expansion of Dunshaughlin into this area

would incorporate the development into the edge of the built environment and ensure a

He said that major junctions because of their elevation, associated lighting and elevated

traffic were potentially the most impacting aspect of a road development in terms of the

wider landscape character and that the Dunshaughlin Interchange, which was set in an

open flattish agricultural landscape would have a major landscape impact during the

construction and initial operation period whereas the Pace Interchange, located on the

existing N3, would only have a moderate impact. He said that high level lighting tended

to accentuate the presence of the road and that lighting would be restricted to junctions,

interchanges and the toll plaza with the most impact being at Pace and Dunshaughlin

Interchanges. He said the type of lighting used would avoid vertical light spill to

Mr. Burns said the proposed route avoided the significant stands of trees at Gunnocks,

Woodpark, Rathbeggan and Readsland and had little impact on the strong hedgerows in

the area but it would have a locally significant impact at Rathbeggan Farmhouse, the

crossing of Raynestown Road and in a cutting near the Derrockstown Road crossing. He

said the visual impacts would be most pronounced during the construction stage, with

major adverse impacts arising for residential and other properties close to or adjoining the

construction boundary, primarily through visual intrusion from tree and hedgerow

removal, alteration of ground levels and by construction traffic. He said that some 95

properties were identified along the corridor as having some degree of visual impact at

either construction or operation stage and of these, one would be acquired and 3 others

He said that during construction, when the disturbance would be greatest and the

mitigation least effective, 6 locations would experience severe visual impact, these being

P9, an elevated property south of Manning's Petrol Station and the R157 junction; P32, a

large house at Piercetown east of the M3 and south of the R15 junction with the N3; P39,

a house next to the proposed road along the R155; P52, Rathbeggan farmhouse; P77

Johnstown House, Dunshaughlin; and P95 a house north of the Kilmessan road adjoining

the M3 crossing. He said a further 16 locations distributed along the scheme would

experience major visual impact during construction and while 3 properties would have no

significant visual impact, the remaining 70 locations would have either moderate or

Mr. Burns said the short term disturbance would be removed as an impact when the

construction works were completed and the road would gradually establish in its setting

with the proposed landscaping being increasingly effective in mitigating the severity and

prominence of the visual intrusion, particularly where the road was at a distance from

impacted properties. He said that some degree of reduced impact would remain in the

medium to longterm at close proximity to embankments and in lighted areas along the

road such as at the interchanges and toll plaza. He said that 3 properties would continue

to have a severe visual impact after the construction and initial operation stages and these

were P9, P52 and P77 ( all described above). He said a further 5 properties would

experience major visual impacts, at P13 a house north of the R157, west of the disused

railline and south of Pace Interchange; at P23 a house at Black Bull Cross northwest of

Pace Interchange; at P32 a house in Piercetown ( described above); at P45 a house west

of N3, north of R154/R155 junction and near the toll plaza and at P95 ( described above).

He said 60 locations would have no significant visual impact once the mitigation planting

had developed with a further 26 locations having only minor or moderate levels of visual

He said the proposed M3 would have significant positive beneficial impacts on the urban

streetscape and commercial character of Dunshaughlin and Dunboyne from the removal

of through traffic and it would also benefit the residential amenity of those properties

along the existing N3, particularly between Bracetown and Black Bull. He said the

existing N3 offered views to a high quality landscape of rural and agricultural character

and while this was unremarkable in the overall, areas such as Woodpark and Rathbeggan

because of their wooded nature offered visual variety and interest. He said this was

typical of the Meath landscape, which was a good quality rolling agricultural land of treelined

hedgerows and one which was dotted with old estates, period houses and associated

mature deciduous tree plantings, but, he said, it was a landscape noticeably under

pressure from ribbon and one-off housing development. He said the proposed scheme

followed closely the existing N3 corridor, traversed a similar landscape and would

provide similar views which, though not scenic, often were views of better quality than

Mr. Burns said that avoidance of impact was considered wherever possible during the

route selection and its design and the route had been selected to minimise impact on

residential property, trees and woodland but that some degree of impact was inevitable,

as with any development, and wherever possible mitigation measures had been proposed

to mitigate the adverse nature of those impacts. He said that lighting was restricted to

junctions, interchanges and the toll plazas with light fixtures being fitted with fully cutoff

glass type lanterns which would eliminate light emission above the horizontal and

ameliorated and the road appearance enhanced through a series of landscape schemes

consisting of landscaping along the road reservation. He said these had been developed to

achieve the physical and visual integration of the road, its embankments and associated

features into the local surrounds with boundary treatment designed to soften harsh

impacting lines and embankments. He said there would be a minimisation of visual

intrusion and the reduction of the adverse nature of any obstruction, with the protection,

reinstatement and conservation of the existing landscape which might be directly or

Mr. Burns said that as the proposal traversed a landscape of mainly rural character where

natural features predominated, the design aimed to replicate those patterns and features in

establishment of a grass/wildflower sward on slopes and verges. He said that extensive

deciduous and mixed planting at sensitive locations would be used to reduce visual

intrusion and mitigate against visual obstruction from the road being raised onto

embankments near residential properties. He said that along most of the scheme the

boundary fence would be back-planted with a random tree-lined hedgerow which would

screen the proposal and assist in integrating the development and that landscape areas

would be planted in copse like fashion within junctions, at small areas of severed fields,

farms or other property acquired for construction, with native or semi-native woodland

species typical of the local fabric which would assist in the longer term integration of the

He said the proposed scheme included a number of surface water attenuation areas which

would be developed as natural wetland areas and these would be designed as naturalistic

features and planted with marginal, emergent and aquatic plants such as iris and reeds,

with surrounding appropriate tree and shrub planting. He said the planting of small areas

of severed properties and in areas between existing and realigned roads and within the

layout of major junctions with primarily deciduous woodland, in copse style plantations

(SLMs -- Specific Landscape Measures), would reduce visual intrusion, provide local

identity and assist in integrating the proposed road into its wider setting. He said that

specific screen planting would be provided at a number of locations and properties and

that areas of planting would be secured around the toll plaza and adjoining carriageway

Dunshaughlin Interchanges were major elevated junctions with lighting and the impacts

in their vicinity would be very difficult to mitigate in the short to medium term and would

have a higher incidence of residual impact where properties had little or no existing

screening from topography or vegetation. He said that the proximity of the M3 to

mitigate given the secluded character around Rathbeggan farmhouse and the open nature

Mr. Keane asked him to outline the nature of the planting proposed along the boundary of

the Link Road at the Newall property in the context of Mr. Osbourne's evidence about

deciduous trees. Mr. Burns replied there would be a tree-lined hedgerow along the actual

boundary and the area between the hedgerow and the road, which varied from three to

five metres in width, would be densely planted with a deciduous woodland screen. He

confirmed this would all be in excess of two metres and that there would be a fence there

as well. He said that along the motorway, where part was in embankment and part in a

Mr. Byrne said his was the house at P95 and asked what was the basis for the impact he

had described as severe in the short to medium term and major in the medium to long

term. Mr. Burns said this was due to the proximity of the house to the motorway and the

time required to establish the proposed mitigation plantimng between the road and his

property. He said that once the construction stage was completed and the planting

established itself over time the planting would form a very effective screen in a period of

7 to 10 years as could be seen on other roads. Mr. Byrne asked was that in SLM 36 and

Mr. Burns said it was and this would be a densely planted area between the motorway

Dunsany overbridge would be built and asked what mitigation measures were proposed

for the construction phase of the bridge. Mr. Burns replied that the principal impact was

during construction and the EIS recognised that. He said the realigned road would

effectively be further away from the property and the impact came mainly from the need

to maintain and alter the entrance to his property. Mr. Bryne said the whole vista shown

in the photograph would disappear and he would be left loking at a crane for up to 18

months. Mr. Burns said the standard approach was to fence off the CPO line and this

would act as a partial screen of the works by the 2 metre high close timber fence along

the roadside but this would not block off the crane though he doubted the crane would be

effectiveness of the screening and the impacts, with Mr. Burns stating the EIS recognised

Mr. Byrne then referred to the longterm impact being dropped from severe to major and

maintained passing HGV traffic would be able to see in to the house whereas at present

this could not happen. Mr. Burns said they had specifically acquired a triangular piece of

ground to establish mitigation planting there at the earliest oportunity, which could be

before the bridge construction started, and this would give an early establishment of a

screen that would give a very effective screening from the road. Mr. Byrne disputed the

suggestion of the ground being acquired for screen planting and said there was a

severance which needed access, Mr. Byrne accepted that might have been the reason but

said there was still a planting requirement, Mr. Byrne maintained the removal of his

mature trees wiould eave his house very exposed and Mr. Burns said the trees would be

relocated. A further lengthy discussion took place on the planting issues and Mr. Burns

said there would be consultation with him about the types of species to be used in the

plantation adjoining his property. Mr. Byrne asked for an assurance by the Council on

this and Mr. Keane gave an undertaking to that effect. After some further discussions

between them on mitigation issues, the Inspector intervened and said that Mr. Byrne had

covered his points fairly well, that the Council had given an undertaking he would be

consulted and that Mr Burns had expressed his confidence in getting trees to grow in this

location. Mr. Burns then concluded by referring to the section of the M3 behind his house

which started to rise as it headed northwards away from his house where he saw a field at

present. Mr. Burns said that SLM 36 surrounded his property at that side to screen his

view of the M3 and when Mr. Byrne asked if he would have an input into the type of

trees there, Mr. Burns confirmed that he would and that this was an area where planting

would take place at the earliest possible opportunity. Replying to Mr. Keane, Mr. Burns

confirmed that the area of SLM 36, suggested by Mr. Byrne as being one acre in extent,

Mr. Kieran asked if all planting was deciduous or was there a mix with coniferous trees

as well. Mr. Burns replied that there was a preference in the planting scheme for native

naturalised deciduous trees but that where screening was required, like at Mr. Byrnes,

evergreen trees would be included and there would be consultation with the adjacent

landowner and if a preference was expressed for evergreens they could be included.

Asked what happened if the trees grew too tall, Mr. Burns said when they were close to

residential development there would be some evergreen species in the mix but out along

the road it would be predominantly deciduous. He said the normal method was to use

very dense planting on road schemes as this made for effective weed control as well as

encouraging rapid growth and self thinning with weaker plants dying out. He said that

this way an almost complete screen was maintained even in Winter with deciduous trees

plantings of 3 to 4 metres thick would be typical as well as the boundary hedgerow and

that the two together would give an entire screen. Mr. Kieran asked what was intended in

the longterm as regards maintenance and Mr. Burns said that came within the remit of the

NRA but the idea was the planting would be self maintaining after the initial 3 to 4 years

and that initial period was built in to the construction contract. Asked if adjoining

landowners had a say in how these plantings in SLMs were managed, Mr. Burns said that

was for someone else to answer but the management of the SLMs in the early stages was

built in to the Contract for three years after construction ended and, by that stage if

Mr. Walsh referred to his comments about the integration of major junctions to reduce

intrusion and provide local identity in his Evidence and asked how this would be done at

the Newtown Roundabout. Mr. Burns said his comments were related to interchanges or

leading edge of Dunboyne on a typical town by-pass. He said there would be planting on

the central island and at the surrounds and this would break up the scale of the view

across the roundabout. Mr. Burns said that in roundabout situations it was often possible

to have a particular landscaping layout that stood out as being different from another

roundabout, so it could be given a local identity that one was on the north side of

removed and replaced by a roundabout and suggested leaving the stone bridge in place

would give a better local identity. Mr. Burns said the bridge was under the road and could

Mr. Walsh asked if he could say what the grading at his house was as he did not have a

full copy of the EIS. Mr. Burns replied that his house was p18 and they had assessed the

impact as moderate due to visual intrusion and disruption at the construction stage with

the impact as minor in the operation stage since his property had a substantial amount of

planting around it which gave it some screening effect. Mr. Walsh asked if the visual

impact was assessed from the view point of the owner and when told it was done on a

case by case basis which took into account how the road affected each property, he said

that all of the hedgerow around his house was being removed so it would not be wellscreened

impact might be to the front boundary and that it was not intended to remove the roadside

boundary. Mr. Walsh said he had asked for this to be staked out and the Council had sent

someone to do this and all of his marks seemed to be within the hedgerow area so he

presumed this meant the hedge would be removed. Mr. Burns suggested he should ask

Ms Joyce about this but the situation was that the hedge between his house and the Bypass

was not being removed and it was only at the front corner near the roundabout that

some disturbance would occur when the two roads were being tied-in. He said they had

rated this as moderate in the construction since the property was slightly open there at

Mr. Walsh suggested his house would be exposed towards the roundabout since their

windows faced in that direction and if the hedge was removed they would see it. Mr.

Burns replied that there would be disturbance during the construction stage but it would

be limited as a mature hedgerow would be reinstated to recreate any loss of planting in

the corner. When Mr. Walsh asked if that meant the impact would be increased since the

hedge was being removed but Mr. Burns said that the substantial part of the hedge was

being retained, with any removal only being at the corner for construction access.

Mr. Walsh referred to the wetland area shown on the maps nearby and said there had

been a reference to these becoming eutrophic by a previous speaker (Mr. Goodwillie ---

see Section 31 of this Report) Mr. Burns said the type of plants selected for the

attenuation ponds like reeds ansd irises had the ability to live in that kind of situation, but

the pond was in the middle where he would not be aware of its existence as the whole

area would be screened off. Mr.Walsh asked if the roundabout would be lighted and

pointed out the street lighting stopped on the Dunboyne side of his house and their view

was towards this roundabout. Mr. Burns accepted there would be a visual impact but said

that in the "Do -nothing" situation traffic along his road would increase and it was likely

street lighting would be extended beyond his house as development pressures increased.

Mr. Walsh referrred to Mr. Burns comments about improvements in Dunboyne following

Dunboyne would force traffic to find an alternative route which would also give that

improvement. Mr. Burns replied that other traffic might then use Dunboyne but it was a

confirmed that the hedgerow towards the road frontage would remain, the part at the

corner would go and another part he indicated might go. Mr. Walsh said he had been

Mr. Robinson asked him to repeat the impact for the Farmhouse during construction and

when told it was "severe" asked if the Fishing Lake was treated as a separate entity as

there were two properties, Plots 255 and 256. Mr. Burns said he considered them as an

entity and regarded the impact on both sides of the M3 as being the same. Mr. Robinson

referred to an area of land beside SLM 24 where there was a plantation of trees and said

they would loose a lot of the tree cover from this. Mr. Burns replied that was noted in the

EIS and he was asked what precautions would be taken to prevent compaction to the

roots of the trees remaining near the road. Mr. Burns said that the road would work

within a fence line and there was no reason for damage outside the CPO line since traffic

would not be there except by way of a specific local agreement and that there were well

established rules for working near trees which included fencing them off along the "drip

line". Mr. Robinson said he accepted there would only be a few trees requiring protection

but said it was important those remaining were protected from damage as they were

losing so many. He said he appreciated the rating for the fishery and asked if he could

have an input into the landscaping proposals as they were being developed. Mr. Keane

The Inspector referring to his responses to Mr. Byrne asked if the time frame he was

using for tree planting to become established was 7 to 10 years and Mr. Burns replied that

it depended on the situation. He said that with an at-grade road a very effective screen

was possible in 3 to 5 years but where embankments were to be screened, then it would

be 5 to 7 years before enough density and height would be got for effective screening. He

said the critical factor was that landscaping should go in as early as was feasible in a

contract and that it was, generally, only in the less visually contentious areas that planting

The Inspector suggested there were only a few cases where the impact would remain as

severe after construction and if the time frame for establishing planting at these areas

could be foreshortened this could reduce the degree of severity, even if not altering the

impact classification. Mr. Burns agreed with this and the Inspector asked what benefit

might be obtained by using "advanced" planting stock rather than semi-advanced or

mature. Mr. Burns said there would be a percentage of "advanced" planting normally

within the overall but there were two schools of thought on the use of "advanced" stock.

He said that as one went up into the larger sizes, more establishment difficulties were

encountered and they were less tolerant of construction sites. He said that they were fine

in a greenfield situation but tests had shown that over a longer period of say 10 years the

smaller stock caught up and passed out the larger stock but he agreed that for an

The Inspector referred to the Rathbeggan Lakes situation and asked if consideration had

been given to replacing some of the trees being lost by using established trees, which he

accepted was very difficult and expensive to do. Mr. Burns replied that was not related

specifically to the Mr. Robinson's situation but their specification called for the use of

selected advanced and semi-mature trees at sensitive locations. He said that at the

Farmhouse area where land had been acquired and this would be advanced planted using

a higher proportion of mature stock there. He said that at the Lakeside there was a

balance to be maintained between acquiring land and the landowner needing land there

himself. He said there was an embankment there for the road and this would readily take

landscaping that in a few years would screen and blend in quite well but there would still

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he would agree the visual impact of the road was likely to have a

considered the impact particularly during construction as severe in their assessment, as

the planting they had recommended as mitigation would not have much effect during that

stage. Mr. O'Donnell asked what would be the impact when the road was in operation and

Mr. Burns said that it would continue to be of a major nature in the short to medium term

but would abate over time. Asked what length of period was that, Mr. Burns said they

used the EPA definitions which said that medium term was up to 15 years. When Mr.

O'Donnell suggested his client's would be elderly at that stage and it would be of little

benefit to them with the road so close, Mr. Burns accepted that it would take time for a

benefit to be noticeable. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested that lighting from the road would

also be an impact and Mr. Burns said this had been included in their assessment but said

Mr. O'Donnell then asked what form of boundary treatment would be provided between

the road and the Peter's property and when Mr. Burns replied that that was a matter for

determination between his Client and the Council, he asked if he would consider that a

stone wall would be the appropriate form there. Mr. Burns said he understood the existing

boundary was a concrete post and rail fence and said that with the 5 metres width of

additional planting and a timber post and rail fence, like they had along their avenue at

present, this would be appropriate. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the existing hedge was

substantial and that there were existing stone walls there. Mr. Burns said he was aware of

the hedge and that there was a stone wall at the entrance gate and said that could be relocated

to the new position but it was not for him to say if that should be continued along

the frontage. When Mr. O'Donnell continued to press for his opinion on the type of

boundary treatment that should be provided in the context of the EIS, Mr. Burns said they

had recommended mitigation for the visual impact and understood that issues of actual

boundary treatment were matters for discussion between his Client and the Council. Mr.

O'Donnell said he thought that as a matter of practicality those sort of matters should be

indicated in the scheme rather than leaving his Client in a sort of legal limbo and Mr.

Keane intervened and said he would take instructions but that, in general terms, this was

The Inspector said this issue had been raised in the submissions and suggested he take

instructions and come back to the Hearing before it ended with a specific comment about

the determination of the boundary treatment since landowners had a concern which Mr.

O'Donnell had raised. The Inspector then asked if Mr. O'Donnell wished to make a

suggestion about the boundary treatment and Mr. O'Donnell said he would have thought

the treatment should be a masonry wall. He said that a difficulty appeared to be arising in

these sort of situations where the Local Authorities seemed to have some difficulties in

agreeing certain matters of accommodation works that were not indicated as being part of

the scheme. He said he accepted Mr. Keane's comment about this being part of the

compensation but said that it could happen that the landowner did not then construct the

fence and the situation developed that there was then no fence along the boundary which

was equally unsatisfactory for both parties. The Inspector said he took it from the

evidence that the standard type of fencing being applied was timber post and rail fencing

responsibility of the operator in this instance and he said he took from Mr. O'Donnell's

cross-examination that it was a masonry wall they were looking for and Mr. O'Donnell

Mr. Keane, on Day 22, said he had received instructions that in agricultural areas the

general boundary treatment proposed would be a fence, with stud land fencing at studs,

and that in relation to houses it would be like for like which meant that for the Peters case

it would be a gate with wing backed brick walls with a fence on either side of that. Mr. O'

Donnell said he would be asking that a condition be imposed requiring the construction

of a wall along the full extent of the frontage. The Inspector said that as the Peters house

was within 50 metres from the carriageway the Council should identify what other houses

were within 50 metres, suggesting Tom Byrne Plot 121 was one such case. Mr. Keane

pointed out that the Peters houses was not within 50 metres of the motorway as it was the

realigned N3 that passed them, but the Inspector said that was immaterial since his

question related to houses that were within 50 metres of a new road constructed as a

result of the motorway proposal. Mr. Keane then said he would take further instructions.

when they outlined their objections to the proposal not to replace the severance of "old"

R125 by constructing a bridge over the M3 and was, in effect, an objection to the

extinguishment of the public Right of Way at that location, as described at No. 6? in the

Mr. Finlay described Leshamstown Lane as a link road between two roads leading out

from Dunshaughlin, one going northwards -- the Dunsany to Clonmessan road, the other

going southwards through Drumree to the Trim Road junction and said both roads were

being severed by the Motorway but only the Dunsany road was being restored. He said

the severance of the Drumree road would create significant problems for people living in

Leshamstown Lane as a narrow link road with 22 houses and 3 farms along it and that it

was mainly a residential area. He said that a lot of the traffic issues arising from the

Dunshaughlin By-pass hinged around Leshamstown and how the residents would have to

Mr. Finlay said that if the Warrenstown area was taken as an example, there were two

ways people could access Dunshaughlin, the first using Leshamstown Lane and then

along the Dunsany road with the return journey being 4 miles from the junction of the

Drumree and Warrenstown roads. He said the alternative was to go via Merrywell to the

New R125 Link and that round journey was almost 6 miles and that people will use the

shorter route via Leshamstown Lane rather that the Link road. He said there were about

would give a total of at least 150 cars all using Leshamstowm daily, without counting

serviced the Dunshaughlin area and he named some of the famous Meath players who

started their career in St. Martins. Mr. Finlay referred to the new Sewerage works which

would have traffic to it as well and said the severance was going to put considerable

strain on the use of Leshamstown Lane as the diversion route most people would use. He

said that the new Link road was provided primarily to take traffic from the Trim area and

was of little relevance to locals in the Drumree area and he suggested the Leshamstown

He said that cars could not pass at present on the 10 foot wide road in the Lane and there

were blind bends on it with the safe speed being about 20 mph in their view. He said

people from Dunshaughlin used it as a walking circuit from the town and children were

often playing on the lane near their houses. He said that there were sufficient volumes of

people going back and forth from either side to justify keeping the existing Drumree to

alternative proposed by the Council and NRA was not feasible or practical and would

lead to accidents on Leshamstown Lane as the road was too narrow for the traffic that

Mr. Murphy gave some details about the sporting interests in the area saying the

Warrenstown College had amenities for indoor football, squash and handball all used by

people from Dunshaughlin and they would use Leshamstown Lane as this was 2 miles

shorter for them. He said there was a soccer pitch near the St. Martins GAA grounds and

both of these pitches were intensively used by Dunshaughlin people. He said they also

had concerns about the impact on the water table and on their wells and wanted these

Mr. Keane asked what steps they would like to be taken on Leshamstown Lane in respect

of traffic calming measures. Mr. Finlay said there were very few options that could be

taken due to the width being only 8 to 10 feet and asked if it was proposed to widen the

lane as part of the motorway scheme. Mr. Keane said that was a matter for Ms Joyce to

deal with and asked if speed humps were placed on the Lane to restrict speed to the 20

mph he had referred to would the residents be favourably disposed towards them. Mr.

Finlay said the Residents would have to be consulted about this since that had not been

considered but he felt leaving the road as it was with the existing R125 not being severed

was what the residents were seeking. Mr. Keane suggested the new route would be well

signposted and that would attract drivers away from using Leshamstown Lane but Mr.

Finlay said locals would still use the Lane as they would know it was shorter. Mr. Finlay

referred to the possibility of illegal parking on the cul-de-sac part of the existing road if it

was severed and when Mr. Keane said the tarmac would be removed, Mr. Finlay said the

traffic to the sewerage works meant there would still be a part available for parking.

Mr. Keane said tests had been carried out on the journey times and suggested that from

Knockmark crossroads, which was the one used in the Residents submission, the time to

the Roestown roundabout via Link road was 3.68 minutes while the same trip via the

disagreed that was possible. Mr. Keane went through the Council's calculations to show

how these were obtained and Mr. Murphy said they had not allowed for the congestion

that would occur at the new roundabouts in peak periods but he accepted Mr Keanes

suggestion that at Merrywell, traffic from Drumree would be taking the next exit to the

Mr. Finlay said there was a further matter which could add to the traffic demands and that

was if the old railway line was ever re-opened and he suggested there could be park and

ride facilities in Drumree which would attract traffic from Dunshaughlin to these and

increase the problems for Leshamstown Lane as it would be used as the route from the

The Inspector asked that the Council would prepare a cost estimate for a bridge over the

adequate headroom over the motorway from the drawings and that a bridge width of circa

submissions made previously had made reference to these. He concluded by reminding

the Council that speed humps would require lighting to comply with the Regulations and

suggesting that the Residents should discuss the issues further with the Council.

Mr. Byrne said the purpose of his submission was to demonstrate the totaliy of the impact

on their home and their quality of life in it; to highlight the total inadequacy of the

mitigation measures proposed in the EIS for their property and to recommend additional

dissatisfied with the way the Council had dealt with the issues that concerned him and

referred to their response to his 37 objections to An Bord not being made available until

after he had cross-examined Ms Joyce; that the results of the noise survey he had

requested be made were not made available to him and were only referenced as "location

14" in the EIS without being identified; that this noise survey location was not shown in

the predictive tables in the EIS and his general dissatisfaction that the EIS appeared to

avoid addressing the specific issues at their house, being one of the worst affected on that

Mr. Byrne said that a number of additional mitigation works had been agreed with the

Council in discussions and in his cross-examinations during the course of the Hearing

Council will survey to determine action to eliminate risk to water supply before

In addition to speed restrictions of 20 kph on unsurfaced construction site roads, loads to

be covered -- even though he still doubts the effectiveness of being able to contain dust

Mr. Byrne said he had summarised the adverse impacts of the Scheme on his house and

family in Table 1 for both the construction and operational phases under 8 separate

Drainage & Hydrology High risk in construction phase and High level in operational

Mr. Byrne said that in the overall it was his opinion that the impact would be severe in

both construction and operatioal phases with it taking them a long time to recover from

the effects of the works. He also said that the Council were able to address one of his

concerns, that about the effects on his well, very quickly and that if his other concerns

could have been similarly addressed by the same approach being adopted then he might

Mr. Byrne said that Table 2 set out what he described as the established facts with details

of their property and the references to it in the EIS and where detailed in the evidence of

the Council's witnesses and he did not read it out. He went on to Table 3 which was an

assessment of the various accommodation works that he considered were required and he

pointed out that nothing on these had been agreed with the Council. He said that one of

the main impacts was that the driveway would be re-located to the far side of the garden,

referring to photographs 2 & 3 he had submitted, and this would mean their landscaped

disturbed. He also had a concern of the effects from dust deposition on the outside of

Mr. Byrne set out in Table 4 the improvements he was seeking to the mitigation measures

outlined in the EIS, or that had been detailed in the evidence/cross-examination of the

Mr. Byrne included a drawing of the adjoining bridge sites as well as a set of photographs

of his property and a house at Platin with his submission ( Note -- the submission

Mr. Keane referred to Photograph No. I which was of a house near Platin on the M1

Scheme and asked what was that representing. Mr. Byrne said it represented the state of

the house from the works in progress on the motorway adjoining it. When Mr. Keane

suggested the house appeared to being reconstructed, Mr. Byrne said it had been in the

CPO and was being used as an office. Mr. Keane suggested the garden looked as if it had

been dug up and Mr. Byrne agreed that was the impression from the photograph but that

he only took the photograph and had not asked about the details of what might have been

done at the house. When Mr. Byrne said there was dust on the driveway, Mr. Keane

suggested there was stone or loose chippings there which came from construction traffic

using the drive but Mr. Byrne disagreed and said the damage came from dust deposition.

Mr. Keane concluded by asking how the plaster had been knocked from the wall of the

Consultant who indicated that discussions were in progress with the Council and that his

Client's concerns related to the effects of the proposed road on the land holding which

was both industrial and agricultural, and to submissions by another objector that could

have implications for the accommodation being sought by Mr. Walsh from the Council.

Mr. Clear said his Client lived in Dunboyne, he had a large farm holding of 57 hectares to

the northwest of the village and was the principal of Peakland Ltd. which operated

Dunboyne Industrial Estate located off the R157 on the northeast of Dunboyne. He said

activities. He said the Dunboyne Industrial Estate was partially developed with 20 units

functioning, planning granted for more units and with 5 acres yet to be developed and the

Dunboyne and improve its self-sufficiency. He said it was evident from his Client's

discussions with the Council's Design Office that the existence and potential for

expansion of the Industrial Estate had been overlooked. Mr. Clear said the effect of the

M3 on the direct access from the Industrial estate to the N3 was to force all their traffic,

both inbound and outbound, to traverse the Dunboyne Main Street to reach the By-pass

and he pointed to the present and potential future zoning that would increase this traffic.

Recycling Facility on the land adjoining his Clients Industrial Estate and that if this were

granted it would be more desirable that its traffic would access the By-pass directly rather

than travel through the Dunboyne Main Street. Having reviewed the problems that he

foresaw if traffic from the Industrial Estate continued to use the present access off the

R157 and the potential benefits for the Dunboyne area from a future expansion of his

Client's Industrial Estate, Mr. Clear said that an alternative direct access for the Estate off

the By-pass should be allowed and he submitted maps showing the extent of his Client's

Mr. Clear then refered to his Client's agricultural holding and said this was all accessed

off the Summerhill Road, R156, with the farmhouse and yard not located on the holding

and these were northwest of the cross roads in the village centre. He said the By-pass

bisected the farmlands and made a large field inaccessible from the Summerhil Road

unless an underpass was provided. He then referred to their submissions to An Bord and

said that the Council's response to these was received on 19 August and that the

arrangements to be dealt with as part of the accommodation negotiations after the CPO

satisfied with this response as it "long-fingered" a resolution and left some issues at the

Mr. Clear said they had had some discussions during the Hearing with the Council and he

set out his Client's accommodation works requirements. These were (1) access to the

field north of the Newtown Bridge Roundabout to be off the Summerhill Road, (2) a

cattle underpass under the By-pass, (3) direct access for the Industrial Estate and if

granted for the Waste Transfer station, to the By-pass in the vicinity of Chn 400-000

where he suggested a simple junction would suffice and (4) a written undertaking to

Mr. Clear said that he was present when Mr. Bernard Walsh cross-examined Mr. Guthrie

and became aware of his wish to reduce the width of the By-pass and the Roundabout. He

said the Council had indicated his Client's request for a direct access to the Summerhill

diameter but not with a 45 metre diameter roundabout. His Client wanted to emphasise

Summerhill road junction and that Mr. Bernard Walsh's request to reduce this would have

very serious implications for his Client and the ongoing viability of his farming

enterprise. Mr. Clear said it would also have implications for another party, not

represented at the Hearing, who could lose an agricultural entrance south of the proposed

Newtown Roundabout if it was reduced in size ( Note -- this refers to Access Road No. 6

Mr Clear said it was likely the Industrial Estate when fully developed would generate

significant levels of traffic and he understood the Council were now looking favourably

towards a direct access of the By-pass, which he was suggesting could be located

between chainages 000 and 400. He said that a 10 metre carriageway would be required

to provide for ghost islands and right turning lanes on the undivided road and that the

provision of a 10 metre road would facilitate its upgrading to a dual carriageway which

had been suggested could be required in the future. He said his Clients wished it to be

emphasised to the Hearing that the requests to minimise the width and diameter of the bypass

and roundabout had serious implications that had not been taken into account in Mr.

He said that a longterm view should be taken by the Inspector when considering the

design and provision of road infrastructure and he gave a number of examples where

roads had been undersized and were at or above capacity when opened. He said his Client

had agreed with the Council to reposition the southerly agricultural entrance to distance it

fronm Mr. Bernard Walsh's house to protect his amenities as outlined in his objection to

the CPO. Mr. Clear concluded by requesting that in approving the CPO the following

matters be included (1) the By-pass be constructed with a 10 m. carriageway and a 50m.

diameter roundabout at Newtown Bridge; (2) the provision of a 6m. wide agricultural

entrance to the north field from that roundabout; (3) the provision of a cattle underppass

at the Kennedy Road Overbridge; (4) the provision of a direct access from the Industrial

Estate onto the south side of the By-pass and (5) an undertaking by the Council on the

Note -- During the Hearing on Day 11 the terms of an agreement between the Council

withdrawn, were outlined to the Hearing by Mr. Clear. Details of this are listed at Day 11

Mr. Comyn said he was with the firm of John Redmond & Co. Solicitors and represented

Mr. Kieran who had a farm at Knockmark and who was affected by Plot 172 but he also

rented and farmed land affected by Plots 171 and 155. He said their objections were that

the road would have a devasting effect on his farming business, that the severance

alternatives would not work, that there was an alternative route which would be less

disruptive to him and would not cause severance and that the proposal for the railway

was not properly thought out. Mr. Comyn said he had a written submission which he

would go through. ( This was handed in and is listed at Day 11 in Appendix 4 of this

Mr. Comyn said the Kieran family had been in farming since 1952 and he referred to

their prize winning awards in 1965, 1994 and 1995 as examples of the standard of their

dairy farming and to the details of the production yields achieved as being very high. He

said that Michael Kieran took over the management of the farm in 1978 following his

father's death and had operated it on a full time basis since then and had invested heavily

in farm buildings and infrastructure and was fully compliant with EU and National

Health, Safety, Environmental, Animal Heath and Food Hygiene regulations as outlined

in the Department of Agriculture " Good Farming Practice". He said the farm comprised

160 acres between what was owned and the lands rented and there were 255 animals on

the farm on 1 April 2001. Mr. Comyn said the Drumree herd was a closed herd and no

animals had been bought in since the mid 1970s with all the stock being bred on the farm.

He said the farm was bounded by well grown ditches that reduced the risk of infection

from neighbouring herds and the herd was free from notifiable diseases at present. He

said Mr. Kieran practised a "Leader-Follow" system of grazing which meant that cows or

operations and he read the conclusions from the report which were " Under the present

CPO Scheme, relatively speaking Mr. Kieran would not be adequately compensated for

the severe losses associated with the proposed acquisition. If the road was changed in line

with Mr. Kieran's proposal the main effect would be the acquisition of his land and

severance would be minimal. His opinion was that Michael Kieran would be in a much

better position if the route was moved in line with his proposal and the damage to his

property reduced, as his compensation would also be. From an agricultural perspective

the Council route was severely damaged and flawed relative to that being proposed by

Mr. Comyn then referred to the maps included with a Report on "Alternative Routes"

documents handed in to the Hearing) and he said that Option A was the Council route and

Option B was his Client proposed alternative route and he pointed out that only a small

part of Plot 172 was affected by Option B with the lands he rented, Plots 171 & 155, only

marginally affected. Mr. Comyn then referred to the section in Mr. Burke's Report on

"Route Selection" and said Mr. Kieran accepted the need for a new R125 Link Road as

the present route through Drumree could not cater for the present traffic volumes

adequately and that he also accepted the route would have to pass through his lands. Mr.

Comyn said that their opinion was that Route 12 on the route selection maps, which was

Mr. Comyn said Option 12, or B, was shorter, cheaper to construct and removed the need

for an underpass and farm service roads and these service roads cut the disused railway

corridor and interferred with its preservation. He then referred to Ms Joyce's Brief of

November 2001 and said that only two routes, Options 11 and 12, were examined at that

time and that Option 10 should have been looked at then since it only affected four farms.

He pointed to the fact of 11 routes being examined for the original location of the

Interchange but only 2 examined when it was moved down. He said when that was only

done in October/November 2001 it was not given sufficient time by the Council. He

referred to Mr. Burke's report which compared Mr. Kieran's proposal with those of the

Council and said its conclusions were "Taking an overview he would be in favour of

Route B1, the alternative route, as the only two issues in favour of Route A would appear

to be the small increase in travel time and the impact of additional traffic passing

Kilcooly with other factors favouring Route B1. He suggested that Route A be deleted

from the CPO as Route B1 was clearly better." Mr. Comyn said that was Mr. Kieran's