Back to INDEX of reports
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
161
PART 2 --- CLONEE TO DUNSHAUGHLIN SECTION
-----------------------------------
25. Evidence of Ms Joyce -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 150
25.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 150
25.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 165
25.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 167
25.4. Comments by Inspector on " Order of Evidences" -- -- -- -- 168
25.5. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 168
25.6. Questioned by Stephen Gunne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 170
25.7. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 171
25.8. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 172
25.9. Cross-examined by David Robinson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 174
25.10. Cross-examined by Laurence Ward -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --175
25.11. Cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 177
25.12. Cross-examined by Owen McBreen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 180
25.13. Further cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- 181
25.14. Further cross-examined by Liam Scott
25.15. Re-examined by Mr. Keane
26. Evidence of Mr. Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 79
26.1. Examined by Mr. Keane - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 79
26.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 82
26.3. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 83
27. Evidence of Professor Dodd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 84
27.1. Examined by Mr. Keane - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 84
27.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 88
27.3. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken
27.4. Cross-examined by Stephen Gunne
27.5. Re-examined by Mr. Keane
27.6. Questioned by Inspector
28. Evidence of Michael Osbourne -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 89
28.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 90
28.2.Cross-examined by Evan Newall
28.3.Re-examined by Mr. Keane
28.4.Questioned by Inspector
29. Evidence of Mr. Dilworth -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 90
29.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 90
29.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 91
29.3. Cross-examined by Owen McBreen
29.4. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken
29.5. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh
29.6. Cross-examined by Liam Scott
30. Evidence of Mr. O'Kelly Lynch -- -- -- -- -- -- 94
30.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 94
30.2. Questioned by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 96
30.3. Questioned by Bernard Walsh
30.4. Questioned by Inspector
162
31. Evidence of Mr. Goodwillie -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 97
31.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 98
31.2. Questioned by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 98
31.3.Questioned by Michael Kieran
31.4.Questioned by Evan Newall
31.5.Questioned by Inspector
32. Evidence of Mr. Hanley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 98
32.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 98
32.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 99
32.3. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh
33. Evidence of Mr. Porter
33.1. Examined by Mr. Keane
33.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall
33.3.Cross-examined by Michael Kieran
33.4.Cross-examined by Tom Byrne
33.5.Cross-examined by Liam Scott
33.6.Questioned by Inspector
34.Evidence of Mr. Quirke
34.1. Examined by Mr. Keane
34.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall
35.Evidence of Mr. Wilson
35.1. Examined by Mr. Keane
35.2. Questioned by Tom Byrne
35.3. Cross-examined by Evan Newall
35.4. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran
35.5. Questioned by Inspector
36.Evidence of Mr. O'Connell
36.1. Examined by Mr. Keane
36.2. Questioned by Inspector
37.Evidence of Mr. O'Sullivan
37.1. Examined by Mr. Keane
37.2. Questioned by Mr. Newall
37.3. Comments by Inspector
38.Evidence of Mr. Breen
38.1. Examined by Mr. Keane
38.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran
38.4. Questioned by Inspector
39.Evidence of Mr. Burns
39.1. Examined by Mr. Keane
39.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne
39.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran
39.4. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh
39.5. Cross-examined by David Robinson
39.6. Questioned by Inspector
40.Submission by Leshamstown Lane Residents
40.1. Submission by M/s Finlay & Murphy
163
40.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane
41.Evidence of Tom Byrne
41.1. Submission by Tom Byrne
41.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane
42.Submission on behalf of Eamon Walsh
43.Evidence of Michael Kieran
43.1. Evidence by Mr. Comyn
43.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane
43.4. Questioned by Inspector
44.Evidence of Mr. & Mrs. Morrin
44.1. Evidence of Paul Morrin
44.2. Evidence of Robert Bryan
44.3. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane
44.4. Questioned by Inspector
44.5. Submission by Mr. Macken
45. Submission by Evan Newall
46.Evidence for Peter & Edward Henshaw
46.1. Evidence of KDA
46.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane
46.3. Questioned by Inspector
47. Evidence for Mr. & Mrs Peters, Anthony J. McDonnell
and P.J Roche
47.1. Evidence of Mr. Searson
47.2. Evidence of Mr. Bergin
47.3. Questioned by Mr. Keane
47.4. Submission by Mr. O'Donnell
48. General Submissions
48.1.Verbal Submissions
48.2.Written Submissions
49. Council's Responses to Submissions
PART 2 -- CLONEE TO DUNSHAUGHLIN SECTION
-----------------------------------
25. Evidence of Susan Joyce -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 164
25.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 164
25.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 179
25.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 181
25.4. Comments by Inspector on " Order of Evidences" -- -- -- -- 182
25.5. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 182
25.6. Questioned by Stephen Gunne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 184
25.7. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 185
164
25.8. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 186
25.9. Cross-examined by David Robinson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 187
25.10. Cross-examined by Laurence Ward -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --189
25.11. Cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 190
25.12. Cross-examined by Owen McBreen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 194
25.13. Further cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- 195
25.14. Further cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- 197
25.15. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- - 199
25.16. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- - 201
26. Evidence of Philip Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 202
26.1. Examined by Mr. Keane - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 202
26.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 203
26.3.Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 203
27. Evidence of Professor Kevin Dodd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --204
27.1. Examined by Mr. Keane - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 204
27.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 206
27.3. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- 207
27.4. Cross-examined by Stephen Gunne -- -- -- -- -- -- 208
27.5. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- 209
27.6. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 209
28. Evidence of Michael Osbourne -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 210
28.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 210
28.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- 211
28.3. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- - -- -- 212
28.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 212
29. Evidence of Chris Dilworth -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 213
29.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 213
29.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 214
29.3. Cross-examined by Owen McBreen -- -- -- -- -- -- 216
29.4. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- 217
29.5. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- 218
29.6. Cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- -- 219
29.7. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 223
30. Evidence of Bill O'Kelly Lynch -- -- -- -- -- -- 226
30.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 226
30.2. Questioned by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 228
30.3. Questioned by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 228
30.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 228
31. Evidence of Roger Goodwillie -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 229
31.1. Examined by Mr.Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 229
31.2. Questioned by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 231
31.3. Questioned by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- - -- 231
31.4. Questioned by Evan Newall -- -- - -- -- -- -- 231
31.5. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 231
32. Evidence of Ray Hanley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 232
32.1 Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 232
165
32.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 232
32.3. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- - 232
33. Evidence of Edward Porter -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 233
33.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 233
33.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 234
33.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- 235
33.4. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- 235
33.5. Cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- -- 237
33.6. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 239
34. Evidence of Bill Quirke -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- 240
34.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 240
34.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- - 243
35. Evidence of David Wilson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 243
35.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 243
35.2. Questioned by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 246
35.3. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- 247
35.4. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- 247
35.5. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 248
36. Evidence of Alan O'Connell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 248
36.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 248
36.2. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 249
37. Evidence of Harold O'Sullivan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 249
37.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 249
37.2. Questioned by Mr. Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 252
37.3. Comments by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- 252
38. Evidence of Thaddeus Breen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 253
38.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 253
38.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 255
38.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 255
39. Evidence of Thomas Burns -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 256
39.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 256
39.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- 260
39.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- 261
39.4. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- 262
39.5. Cross-examined by David Robinson -- -- -- - -- -- 263
39.6. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 264
39.7. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 264
40. Submission by Leshamstown Lane Residents -- -- -- - -- 266
40.1. Submission by M/s Finlay & Murphy -- -- -- -- -- 266
40.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 267
41. Evidence of Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 268
41.1. Submission by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 268
41.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 270
42. Submission on behalf of Eamon Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- 271
43. Evidence of Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 273
43.1. Evidence by Mr. Comyn -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 273
166
43.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 274
43.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 275
44. Evidence of Mr. & Mrs. Morrin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 276
44.1. Evidence of Paul Morrin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 276
44.2. Evidence of Robert Bryan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 278
44.3. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 279
44.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- - -- - 280
44.5. Submission by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 280
45. Submission by Evan Newall --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 282
46. Evidence for Peter & Edward Henshaw -- -- -- -- -- 283
46.1. Evidence of KDA for Henshaws -- -- -- -- -- -- 283
46.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 286
46.3. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 287
47. Evidence for Mr. & Mrs Peters, Anthony J. McDonnell
and P.J Roche -- -- -- -- -- --- - -- -- 288
47.1. Evidence of Karl Searson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 288
47.2. Evidence of Ron Bergin -- -- -- - -- -- -- - 290
48. General Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 291
48. 1. On behalf of Mary Redmond -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 291
48. 2. Verbal Submissions by Residents -- -- -- -- -- -- 291
48. 3. Written Submissions by or on behalf of Residents -- -- -- 298
49. Council's Responses to Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- - 301
----------------------------------------------
CLONEE TO DUNSHAUGHLIN SECTION
25. Evidence of Susan Joyce, Project Engineer, MC O'Sullivan & Co. :
25.1. Examined by Esmond Keane B.L. on behalf of the Council :
167
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
by-passes of Dunboyne and Dunshaughlin as well as of Navan and a number of Link
roads.
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.
She said the Clone to Dunshaughlin Section consisted of :-
2.3 km. of 2 x 2 lane dual carriageway with weaving lane from Clonee to Pace
11.9 km. of dual carriageway motorway from Pace northwards
Provision of northbound merge ramp at existing Clonee Grade Separated Junction
3.1 km. By-pass around Dunboyne
Grade Separated junctions (Interchanges) at Pace and Dunshaughlin
Toll Plaza at Blackbull
Upgrading/ Realignment of 10.8 kms. of existing National, Regional and
County roads affected by the proposed Motorway
Associated ancillary works including culverts, road drainage, accommodation
works and environmental mitigation.
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
in full in this Section.
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
the River Tolka which had a history of flooding.
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
168
the Interchange being constructed with sufficient clearance to facilitate the future reopening
of the disused Clonsilla to Navan Rail line.
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
screening and drainage, was being maintained between the M3 and the dis-used
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
Motorway restricted traffic.
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.
(Note -- This was the basis for the objections from Leshamstown Lane residents)
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
road which would require some local realignment of the R156 on the roundabout
approach. She said that northbound traffic currently using the R156 would be
accommodated on this modification which would link into the realigned N3 via the
Bracetown Overbridge.
Ms Joyce listed the following as the significant new junctions which would be provided :-
-- Dunboyne road R156 and Old N3 by New Loughsallagh Roundabout
-- R157 and proposed Dunboyne By-pass by New Castlefarm Roundabout
-- R156 and proposed Dunboyne Link road by New Newtown bridge Roundabout
-- N3 realignment and Blackbull junction of R154/R155 (Fairyhouse Crossroads)
by New Blackbull Roundabout
-- Dunsany road and proposed Dunshaughlin Link by New Roestown Roundabout
-- N3 junction with proposed Dunshaughlin Link by New Cooksland Roundabout
-- Junction of new R125 with R154 by new Merrywell Roundabout
169
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.
She said the Dunboyne By-pass was a 3.05 km by-pass extending from the Pace
Interchange in a southwesterly direction around Dunboyne and crossing the R156
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
from the Dunshaughlin Interchange eastwards for some 180 metres to the proposed
Knocks Roundabout, then turning north-eastwards and intersecting the Dunsany Road at
Roestown Roundabout and connecting with the existing N3 at Cooksland Roundabout on
the northern side of Dunshaughlin, with an overall length of 1.52 kms.
Ms Joyce then described the realignment works proposed on the various National,
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
crossed by the M3 such as the Raynestown Lane (L-22091), Derrockstown Road
(L2209), Dunsany Road (L2208), on the existing N3 at Bracetown and by the Dunboyne
By-pass at Kennedy road. Works would also necessary in connecting the new
Roundabouts to the existing road network at Castlefarm, Newtown Bridge, Pace,
Blackbull, Merrywell and Cooksland, while there would also be realignment works
required to re-connect roads being severed by the M3 to the new network. These included
the Normansgrove Road (L1010), Sheaf o'Wheat Road (L22173), Tetrarch Road,
Woodpark Road, Portmanna Road (L5026), Flathouse Road (L22161), Ratoath Road
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
the New R125.
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
2 Farm accommodation Over bridges at Rathbeggan and Johnstown and 2 Farm
Underbridges at Rathhill and Bennetstown with 2 more at Knockmark.
170
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
no 2.5 metre verges for a total of 13 metres in width.
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
predicted flows for the south facing ramps required two lanes with a 7.3 metre
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
County road situations.
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 façade with a sloping glass roof to
reduce the visual impact of the Building.
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
171
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
use.
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
preliminary drainage design indicated the following general requirements :-
Appropriate culvert and bridge crossings to cater for intersection of existing
rivers and streams.
Appropriate outfall points had been identified for various sections of the roads
and the design discharges had been quantified.
Attenuation measures to be implemented at each outfall point had been identified.
The drainage criteria required to implement a satisfactory drainage system had
also 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
roughness, and other measures, to reduce velocities through culverts.
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
context of the scheme development at that time. She said the meetings had been
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
172
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
analysis where they were examined under engineering, environmental, social and
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
selecting this.
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
constraints being :-
Archaeology; Agricultural Impact; Proximity to Dwellings;
Suitable crossing points/junction locations on R156 and R157;
Tie in to Pace Interchange; No direct access permitted;
Development Plan 2001 as amended -- Zoned Lands.
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,
regional and national economies.
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
CDP developoment policies. She outlined the principal constraints as :-
Archaeology; Agricultural Impact; Proximity to Dwellings;
Preservation of Dis-used Railway Corridor; Development Plan Dunshaughlin;
Tie-in to Trim Road R154; Tie-in to Dunshaughlin Interchange;
Sewerage Works - New Plant at Dunshaughlin; No Direct Access Permitted
Condition of existing roads including R125 and R154.
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
173
and better facilitated the objectives of the Meath CDP 2001 as amended. She said the
need for the New R125 was justified in terms of traffic demand, safety, future
development of Dunshaughlin and the predicted reduction in travel times which would
benefit the local, regional and national economies.
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
on pages 14-15 and are not repeated in this Report.
Ms Joyce said that the environmental impacts of the scheme were taken into
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
(EIA) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 and by the EC (EIA) (Amendment) Regulations
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
following Sections of this Report.
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
significantly alter the impacts identified for the Tolled Scheme.
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.
174
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,
which related to Plot 118 by John & Kathleen O'Connor, Roestown, Drumree.
Ms Joyce read these Objector's main points as :-
"1. Access to the property -- proposal for temporary road is inadequate.
1. Commitment required that services will be maintained.
2. Structural survey required.
3. A well survey is required.
4. Impact on watertable has not been addressed.
5. Proposals for the overbridge are unsatisfactiory.
6. Screening and planting proposals are inadequate.
7. Drainage plan for the road scheme is inadequate.
8. Road safety issues in relation to traffic calming and footpaths.
9. Road lighting proposals close to property are unsatisfactory.
10. Proposals for excess roadway are inadequate.
11. Insufficient consideration of impact of traffic on Leshamstown Lane.
12. Objections to tolled scheme.
13. EIS does not adequately reflect effect on landowners property."
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
scheme.
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.
Where the works affect any service or supply, the contractor will be obliged to
provide a satisfactory alternative before interrupting the existing service
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
adequate insurance cover for both people and properties shall be provided".
4. See Chapter 8 and Figure 8.1 of Vol.3A of the EIS.
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
landowners’ compensation package.
6. See Chapters 4 and 5 of Vol.3A of the EIS. See also Figure 2.1 of Vol. 2 of the EIS.
7. See Section 5.6, Table 5.4 and Figure 5.1.8 in Vol.3A of the EIS.
175
8. The detailed drainage design will cater for existing land drains and surface water runoff
where necessary.
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
future if required.
10. See Figure 7.5 in Vol.3B of the EIS.
11. Not used.
12. Where sections of the existing public roadway are severed, the redundant portions of
the pavement areas will be excavated and restored to either agricultural use or
landscaped area, subject to the agrement of adjoining landowners and commitments
made within the EIS.
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
vehicles.
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
practices for road schemes."
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
:-
"1. Access to the property -- proposal for temporary road is inadequate.
2 Commitment required that services will be maintained.
3 Structural survey required.
4 New well required.
5 Impact on watertable has not been addressed.
6 Proposals for the overbridge are unsatisfactiory.
7 Screening and planting proposals are inadequate.
8 Drainage plan for the road scheme is inadequate.
9 Road safety issues in relation to traffic calming, footpaths and cycleways.
10 Road lighting proposals close to property are unsatisfactory.
11 Proposals for existing roadway are inadequate.
12 Insufficient consideration of impact of traffic on Leshamstown Lane.
13 EIS is inconsistent with regard to the cut at this location.
14 Location of the wells are shown incorrectly on Figure 8.1 of Vol.3A
15 EIS does not adequately reflect impact on the local environment and landowners
property."
176
Ms Joyce then read the Council's response as follows:-
1. Adequate access for property owners will be maintained during construction of the
scheme.
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.
Where the works affect any service or supply, the contractor will be obliged to
provide a satisfactory alternative before interrupting the existing service.
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
and adequate insurance cover for both people and properties shall be provided".
4. Provision will be made in instances where domestic wells are adversely effected to
ensure that supply is not interrupted.
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
landowners’ compensation package.
6.See Chapters 4 and 5 of Vol.3A of the EIS. See also Figure 2.1 of Vol. 2 of the EIS.
7.See Section 5.6, Table 5.4 and Figure 5.1.8 in Vol.3A of the EIS.
8.The detailed drainage design will cater for existing land drains and surface water runoff
where necessary.
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
widths sufficient to allow for the Local authority to provide footpaths in the
future if required.
10.See Figure 7.5 in Vol.3B of the EIS.
(11.Not used.)
12. Where sections of the existing public roadway are severed, the redundant portions of
the pavement areas will be excavated and restored to either agricultural use or
landscaped area, subject to the agrement of adjoining landowners and commitments
made within the EIS.
13. It is envisaged that Leshamstown Lane will only be used for local traffic and that the
proposed Drumree Link rroad will provide a more attractive alternative for most
vehicles.
14. (a) The correct depth of cutting at the Dunsany Road Overbridge is approx. 6.5. The
third and fourth sentences of paragraph 12 of Section 1.1.4 of the EIS will be
removed. (b) Our Consultant has reviewed the data used in the assessment of 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
outcome. We acknowledge that the map presented in the EIS did not represent the
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.
177
15.The EIS has been prepared in line with statutory requirements and current Irish
practices for road schemes."
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
there was a written response prepared for each of the objectors. When Mr. Keane
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
through.
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
would still stand.
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
facilitated.
Ms Joyce then confirmed that responses had been sent to M/s Gaynor Corr as their agent
for the following CPO Plots:-
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
July.
She said that responses were prepared, but not issued, for the following:-
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,
178
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
objections (Note -- to the EIS) and these could be dealt with at a later stage.
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
10% of their holding and that the Council's responses were as follows:-
1. Compensation -- If An Bord confirmed the CPO the Council would negotiate the
Level of compensation with the landowners and failing agreement the determination
of compensation would be referred to the Arbitrator.
2. NRA/Co.Co. jurisdiction -- It was unclear what was being referred to but they
confirmed the Order was made under Section 47 of the Roads Act 1993 as amended
and extended by the Roads Act 1998 and submitted to An Bord for approval.
3. Surplus Acquisition -- The land being acquired was required to construct the
Scheme, to provide a new access and a safety barrier for the overbridge.
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
was unclear what was meant as the need was clearly identified in a number of
documents, CDP, NDP, SPGs etc. The CBA indicated an IRR of 12% based on a cost
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
a Plan approved by Meath Co.Co as in the 2001CDP amended in February 2002.
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.
8. No schedule of accommodation works given -- If An Bord approved the scheme
these would be negotiated between the landowner and the Council as part of the
detailed design phase of the Scheme.
9. No schedule of completed works agreed -- This would be dealt with during
discussions on accomodation works as in 8 above.
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
and at Rosetown Roundabout 350 metres away and lighting used would be the fully
cut-off type to limit light spillage/pollution.
11. Impact on individual site boundaries -- Final boundary locations would be agreed
with landowner during discussions on accommodation works and would take into
account the detailed design of the road.
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
179
meet the landowners to agree these details insofar as they impacted on their
driveways.
13. Surplus land being acquired -- The land being acquired was needed to construct the
Overbridge, the Dunsany road realignment and the new access to the house and
garden at the front and if there was a surplus on completion of the Scheme, the
Council would be amenable to considering its transfer back to the landowner.
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
disruption.
15. Drainage proposals problematic -- See 12 above
16. Soakpits would be affected -- In the event of interference with his soakpits, they
would be re-located as part of the accommodation works.
17. Noise Mitigation needed -- Noise was considered in Chapter 4 of Vol.3A of the EIS,
Their noise expert had reviewed the assessment and confirmed no mitigation was
necessary after construction. Measures set out in Section 4.6 of Vol. 3A would be
included in the construction contract to mitigate noise during construction.
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
and Table 5.5 of Vol. 3A.
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
R154 & N3; R154; R155; R156 & R157 except sections through Dunboyne; R161;
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
including the Dunsany road.
20. Traffic Calming proposals -- As this was a rural road traffic calming was not
deemed to be warranted there.
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
to local properties.
22. Stone boundary wall required -- If An Bord approved the scheme the details of the
boundary treatment could be negotiated with the Council as part of the
accommodation works for the property.
23.Working Hours -- Normal working hours were set out in Vol. 3A of the EIS as 0700
to 1900 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1630 Saturday and works other than pumping
out excavations, security and emergency works would not be undertaken outside
these hours except with the written permission of the Council.
24.Temporary screening during construction -- If An Bord approved the Scheme
details of temporary screening could be discussed with the Council as part of the
accommodation works for the property.
25. Impact on Water supply/water table -- Referred to section 8.4, 8.5 & 8.6 in EIS on
180
impacts on ground water in Dunsany road area and mitigation measures proposed to
minimise the impact on wells with a commitment given in the EIS to monitor all
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
arrange to deepen the well or to connect it to a mains supply if feasible.
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
out on the landowners property.
27. Compensation not agreed -- If the Order was confirmed this would be dealt with
after the service of a Notice to Treat.
The Inspector said that a copy of that response should be sent to M/s Brady & Co and that
the response prepared for Plots 149 & 160 should be given to Mr. Macken who was
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
location. The Inspector asked that the response be sent to Mr. Gunne.
Ms Joyce then dealt with the response to Plot 189, Seamus Cassidy, which had been
submitted by Shane Redmond Commercial, from whom 2.088 hectares or 18% of the
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
discussed as part of the accommodation negotiations in due course.
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.
The Map was handed in on Day 7, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report.
181
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
existing N3 as the route for the M3 would have involved moving west of Woodpark
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
confirmed and dealt with the suggestions of an unnecessary acquisition, lack of
jurisdiction, Plan not having been approved and prematurity of Motorway by referring to
the various Plans such as the CDP, NDP, SPGs as detailed in previous responses.
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
by arbitration.
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.
25.2. Susan Joyce cross-examined by Evan Newall, Readsland, Dunshaughlin,
on behalf of himself and his brothers -- Plots 139 & 144 :
182
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,
she said there would not and when asked about a pending proposal for 300 houses
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
that could be discussed with the Council if the Order was confirmed.
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
the M3 design should take on board future developments in Dunshaughlin and the
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
for that in a way that would not inhibit development in Towns along the way.
Mr. Newall said his argument for a wall along the Link road was more from the
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
183
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
a path there.
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
was moved they were given an entrance off the Dunsany road. When Ms Joyce
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
was not aware of the deatails of a conflict and so could not comment.
Mr. Newall said he had prepared a a map of their land which had a point marked on it
that was half way along the Link road between the Roestown roundabout and the
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
accommodation works. In response to a further query Ms Joyce confirmed that the
options for the entrance were made by MC O'Sullivans and the solution approved by the
Council.
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
184
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
for the present with a view towards Mr. Newall and the Council sitting down
and discussing the issues he was raising, and that he could come back again if these did
not come to a resolution.
25.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran, Knockmark, Drumree -- Plot 172 :
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
October/ November 2001 and when Ms Joyce agreed, he asked why this was moved
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
discussions with landowners and the alignment was moved to try to meet these
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
would get these for him.
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
185
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
a matter for the Council.
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
183. Details of this are given in Section 48.2 of this Report.
25.4. Comments by Inspector on suggested "Order of Evidences"
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"
25.5. Cross-examined by James Macken S.C. on behalf of Michael & Mary Morrin,
Johnstown house, Dunshaughlin -- Plots 149 & 160 :
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
186
diversion at C 25 in figure 7.3.4 and asked if the two could be combined as they seemed
to be in the same location and Ms Joyce said they would check that out.
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
expert.
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
it for no direct access.
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
have the same crossing requirements. Ms Joyce said those were matters of farm
management and the bridge was provided to mitigate the motorway severance. Mr.
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
187
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.
25.6. Questioned by Stephen Gunne of Laurance Gunne Auctioneers on behalf
of Patrick Delaney, Johnstown, Plot 159 :
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
Agricultural Consultant would be better able to respond.
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
commented on what the Council proposed.
25.7. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh, Newtown Cottage, Dunboyne -- Plot 331 :
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
geometry rather than the traffic flows and she said this was the case for most
188
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
done some research and had found there was a move away from large roundabout to
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
their roundabout.
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
for the present and that Meath should have another look at what Mr. Walsh was
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
the Council had re-assessed the size.
Emer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh said she was Bernard's wife and that their land was incorrectly
marked on the map, that they kept getting different maps from the Council and
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
189
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
Joyce quoted these from the EIS and confirmed there wuld be no construction on
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
was large enough.
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
heights for him. Mr. Byrne then asked by how much could the contractor vary the
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
metre upwards.
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
An Bord aproved the scheme.
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
190
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
the response on the previous week. Mr. Keane said they had handed out those the
Inspector had suggested but all responses were available to those who wanted them. The
Inspector indicated he had expected all of those would have been issued.
25.9. Cross-examined by David Robinson, Rathbeggan Lakes, Dunshaughlin,
Plot 255 :
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
and streams compared to Routes 4 and 5 crossing 16 and 18 rivers and streams
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
different information to what was stated in the EIS.
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
191
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
set out in the DMRB Guidelines and was a recognised part of the route selection
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
available to the public but had been made available now to those who requested
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
expert later on.
25.10. Cross-examined by Laurence Ward, Norman's Grove, Clonee,
-- Plots 320 & 350 :
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
built in 1986 through their property. He said there was no such thing as public
consultation for those works and he had learned a bit about the Council's methods from
192
each experience and now in 2002 they were ripping up what was built in 1968 for this
new road.
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
design should be such as would prevent "parking" and associated "hazards" from
occurring and Ms Joyce maintaining that the accepted design standards had been
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
trees.
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
reduced so his concerns would not be realised. Finally Mr. Ward asked about the
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
193
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
payable in advance and said there would be a construction plan for the traffic
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
with the accommodation works issues.
25.11. Cross-examined by Liam Scott, Piercetown House, Piercetown, Dunboyne
on his own behalf and for other Residents in Piercetown :
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
had been at the Hearing but did not hear any announcement, Mr. Keane said the
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
Ms Joyce said it was the most appropriate solution in economic, engineering and
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
met the capacity requirements of the road.
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
194
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
accurately. Ms Joyce did not agree that their figures were incorrect.
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
195
woul reach 52400 in 2024, more that double its present level and the N3 could not cope
with that flow.
A lengthy discussion followed about various comments in a further O'Cinneide report
"N3 Dunshaughlin Preferred Route Scheme, Predicted Traffic Volumes and Accident
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
bus lane on the Clonee By-pass, suggesting similar problems could aggravate 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
were difficulties at present.
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
aware of the parallel road being provided to the M3.
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 altern