MS2004

everything else links off the Homepage

PART 3A

Mr. Guthrie said he had been appointed as Project Technical Co-ordinator for the

Dunshaughlin to Navan Section in September 1999 and was the Project Manager for this

He said the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section of the M3 motorway commenced at the tie-in

townland, and proceeded generally in a northwestern direction, crossing the N3 by an

overbridge and then running parallel to the existing N3 crossing a number of County

roads as it did so, and that it crossed the N3 again at an Interchange at Blundelstown and

continued on to join the Navan By-pass Section in Cannistown. He said the proposed

motorway crossed the River Boyne at Ardsallagh to the east of Bellinter Bridge and also

crossed a number of County roads between Blundellstown and Cannistown. He said the

He said the AADT on this Section of the M3 was predicted to be 44000 in 2024, the

design year and that the Roads Needs Study gave maximum values of 43500 AADT for

comparable figures for standard dual carriageways being 34600 AADT for Rural and

45000 AADT for Commuter. He said that the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section was rural

in nature but acted as a commuter route between Dublin and Navan, and as the predicted

traffic flow was at the top of the range for both rural motorway and commuter dual

carriageway and within the range for a commuter motorway, the Dunshaughlin toNavan

A detailed description of the route for the proposed M3, sub-divided into 4 sections --

Roestown/Collierstown; Collierstown/Blundellstown; Blundellstown/River Boyne and

River Boyne/ Cannistown was then given by Mr. Guthrie. As this has been generally set

out in Section 12 on pages 21 to 23 of this Report, it is not being repeated in full in this

Mr.Guthrie said that the key considerations in the Roestown/Collierstown sub-section

were the N3 crossing, properties and archaeological sites at Garretstown and the impact

on Tara Stud and adjacent properties, with widening of the central reserve being provided

south of the N3 crossing to maintain the required sight distance through the 1500 m.

radius left hand curve used there in the design. He said the proposed route ran close to

and on-line with part of the Trevet road L5012-6 which would be realigned where the M3

approached the Tara Stud land and the route took advantage of the existing natural valley

there to minimise impacts on surrounding properties, with widening of the central reserve

He said the factors involved in designing the Collierstown/ Blundellstown sub-section

were properties at Baronstown, woodland and watercourses, effects on the Lismullin

Centre and the approach to crossing the N3. The Blundelstown Interchange at the N3

crossing had been located in a shallow valley where the N3 was relatively free of

adjacent properties. He said that from Blundellstown to the River Boyne the factors

influencing the alignment were the River Skane, properties at Dowdstown and Dalgan

Park with the route running westwards from Blundellstown through a flat plain with

numerous small watercourses and was located in this shallow valley to minimise visual

impact. He said the M3 crossed this valley on a small raised embankment to minimise

problems with those watercourses, then curved right and crossed the Skane river before

He said that the M3 route had been located in a cutting to reduce visual impact as it

passed through the western lands of Dalgan Park and that the route emerged from this

cutting as it approached the River Boyne, east of Bellinter Bridge, on a shallow

downward gradient. He said the route passed through a linear Tree Preservation Order

site on the southern bank of the River Boyne. Mr. Guthrie said that this crossing location

was unavoidable since moving the alignment further east would increase the impact on

Abstraction Scheme and also require the removal of some houses on Dowdstown Road.

He said that moving the alignment westwards would require a crossing of the River

Boyne in a more open area, which would increase the visual and landscape impact,

He said that from the River Boyne crossing to Cannistown the key influences were the

River crossing itself, access to Ardsallagh House, housing development along the

Ardsallagh and Cannistown roads and the future Railway development. He said that the

River Boyne crossing was approximately 5 metres higher than the existing Bellinter

Bridge some 140 metres to the west and that this height was necessary to minimise very

large cuttings on both sides of the river and to facilitate a riverside access for the Boyne

walkway and to Ardsallagh House. He said the route was in a deep cutting from north of

the river running through the wooded area to the east of Ardsallagh Road and the houses

there to where it crossed under the Ardsallagh Overbridge and continued in cutting on

where it emerged from the cutting and crossed the Cannidstown Road at a gap between

Mr. Guthrie said the cutting to the east of Ardsallagh Road would reduce the impact of

the M3 on the houses on the road, where two houses would be removed and that the

alignment through the Cannistown area impacted on derelict properties, the existing road

and the dis-used rail line. He said the route had been designed to allow for the

reinstatement of that rail line in the future. He said the route beyond the Cannistown

Road followed a left hand turn which required central reservation widening as it linked to

the southern approach to the Kilcarn Interchange which was the tie-in to theNavan Bypass

Mr. Guthrie said the Blundellstown Interchange was to be located at the crossing of the

N3 in a shallow valley between Philpottstown and Jordanstown with roundabouts at both

sides of the Motorway which would join the M3 overbridge to short link roads back to

the existing N3 and provide for all traffic movements both on and off the motorway. He

said a further significant junction was at the Bellinter crossroads where a new junction

would provide a left/right staggered ghost island junction with priority for east/west

He then described the realignment proposed at the crossings of a number of National and

County Roads where over or under bridges were provided, or where the route of the

mainline M3 impacted on them as at Trevet road and said that all these roads were

designed to the NRA DMRB standards with the existing cross-sections being maintained

-- Trevet road, L5012-6, 600 metre diversion to run parallel and close to mainline

-- Collierstown road, L 1005-0, realigned south of existing road with overbridge

-- Existing N3 at Blundellstown realigned east of existing with M3 crossing over

-- Ardsallagh House access, realigned south of the present access and would pass

He said the structures to be built included the N3 underbridge at Cooksland and road

overbridges at Berrillstown for farm access; Collierstown; Baronstown; Lismullin for

Cannistown and a bridge over the River Boyne, as well as a number of culverts of various

sizes and cross-sections. He said that two of these bridges, the Ardsallagh Road

Overbridge and the River Boyne Bridge were more than 100 metres long and required

Mr.Guthrie said the Ardsallagh Overbridge was required to carry the Ardsallagh Road , L

4009 across the M3 which was in a deep cutting at the point where it crossed the

Ardsallagh Road at a skew of approximately of 60 degrees, giving the bridge an overall

lenght of 180 to 190 metres. He said the proposed bridge dimensions were a 6 metre

carriageway, 2 no. 1.5 metre wide footpaths and 2 no. 0.5 metre wide parapet copes

giving a 10 metre overall width and the clearance over the M3 was 5.3metres. He said

that there were a number of properties along the Ardsallagh Road with 2 houses to be

acquired and new entrances to be constructed for 2 others. He said that a number of

design options were considered including Girder bridges, Cable Stayed, Arch and Framed

bridges but the Girder types were least obtrusive for the surrounding environment and

were the preferred option for this location. He said that Mr. Sheehy would outline the

design options in more detail. (See Section 51.1 of this Report) He said the constraints for

headroom clearances for the M3 to be met and the appearance should be compatible with

the standard over bridge design which was shown, in outline form, in Volume 4B at

Mr. Guthrie said the River Boyne Bridge carried the mainline M3 over the River Boyne

and its valley and would be located some 140 metres east of the existing Bellinter Bridge,

which was a 19th century masonry arch bridge. He said it was from that Bridge and the

Boyne Walkway along the riverbank which would be the main viewing points for the

proposed crossing wth the M3 mainline being in a cutting on the south of the new Bridge

and on an embankment from the northern extemity of the flood plain. He said the flood

plain was about 260 metres wide at the crossing location and the river channel was 30 to

35 metres wide in normal flood conditions. He said there was a photomontage of the view

of the Boyne crossing from Bellinter Bridge shown in Volume 4B at figure 9.4 which

He said that access to farm land and properties was presently gained along the north bank

from the Ardsallagh Road with pedestrian access required to walkways on both north and

south river banks and that these accesses should be retained within the bridge crossing

options or alternativc access arrangements provided. He said a Drainage Scheme had

been carried out by the OPW on the River Boyne in the 1960s and this had created the

existing river profile, with an area for flood flows of some 185 sq. metres, which would

have to be maintained or improved in any new river crossing and that it was also

preferable bridge piers did not interfere with the river flow and cause erosion and

Mr. Guthrie said the overall length of the valley crossing was 260 metres and the river

was crossed at a skew of 28 degrees. He said the cross-section of the structure would

consist of 2 no. 7 metre carriageways, 2 no. 2.5 metre hard shoulders and a 4 metre

central reserve, 2 no. 0.6 raised verges and 2 no 0.5 metre wide parapet copes giving and

He said the design options considered were all for a girder type of bridge since alternative

considered the new bridge should reflect the arch nature of the existing Bellinter Bridge.

He said that Mr. Sheehy would also outline the design options and river crossing

constraints in more detail. (See Section 51.1 of this Report) Mr. Guthrie said a Multi-

Span Girder Bridge was their preferred design option and that outline details were shown

He said the proposed cross-section was shown in Figure 4.1 in Vol. 4B and complied

previously described with an overall width of 27 metres excluding side slopes (See page

69 in Section 17.1of this Report). He said that at Blundellstown where the N3 would be

realigned and reclassified, the cross-section of this realignment would be 7 metres

carriageway with 2 hard strips of 0.5 metres and 2 grass verges of 2.5 metres giving a

total width of 13 metres excluding side slopes. He said the cross-section of county road to

reduced verge width with a typical cross-section being of between 4 and 7.5 metres

carriageway ( depending on existing widths) and 2 no. verges of between 2 and 2.5

metres for an overall width varying from 10 to 12.5 metres, excluding side slopes. (The

County roads affected are described earlier in his Evidence) He said the cross-section for

wouyld be 4 metre carriageways with 0.5 metre offside and1.5 metre nearside hard strips

Mr. Guthrie said they had calculated there would be approximately 870000 cu. metres of

material excavated and 1900000 cu. metres of filling required within the Section from the

preliminary site investigations. They now estimated that some 1200000 cu. metres of

filling would have to be imported into the Section, when unsuitable material was allowed

for, and that some of the 490000 cu. metres of unsuitable excavated material would have

to be disposed of off-site. He said some of the material unsuitable for filling would be

used in banks and that the location of borrow pits and disposal site was the responsibility

of the Contractor to locate but that such new sites would have to be licensed in

He said the landtake required for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section was about 168

hectares of which some 94 hectares was for motorway works. He said the non-motorway

works included the realigned N3 at Blundellstown and the realigned county roads, farm

accesses, accommodation works, drainage, landscaping and utilities and that the site

investigations carried out indicated the land was suitable for road construction. He said

that sideslopes had been designed for a 1 in 2 grade but additional land had been allowed

Mr. Guthrie said the River Boyne catchment controlled the drainage pattern of the

proposed road network, with the route crossing the Boyne east of Bellinter Bridge, and

that the majority of the route was to the south of the Boyne and drained by its tributaries,

the Skane and Lismullin rivers. He said the impact of the road on drainage had been

considered in two parts, the first dealing with the quality of run-off and the ameliorative

measures to minimise adverse impacts, with the second considering the capacity of

identified outfall locations from which the mainline surface water would be discharged to

watercourses and these were shown in Figure 5.0 in Vol. 4B of the EIS. He said while

their assessment showed a slight increase in surface flows at these locations, the road

catchment area was negligible in comparison to the total catchment and that no increase

in peak flow or in a deterioration in water quality was anticipated downstream of the road

drainage. He said culverts taking watercourses across the road would be designed for a

culverts under roads to minimise the risk of obstruction and that a minimum of 1500

He said that the motorway drainage was designed to accommodate a once in five year

storm without surcharging with the main collection being provided by a system of filter

drains, or alternative drainage systems, constructed alongside the edges and median of the

carriageway. He said these filter drains would in turn discharge to main carrier drains and

in turn to the outfalls located at low points along the road. He said to minimise

would be provided at the discharge points and that in the event of an oil or petrol spillage

the interceptors would prevent effluent discharging to watercourses. He said that cut-off

filter drains or interceptor channels would also be provided and would be located at the

top of cutting slopes where the land sloped towards the cutting or at the bottom of the

embankment slopes where the land sloped towards the embankment. He said these cutoff

drains would discharge to existing watercourses where possible and not to the road

drainage with kerbs and gully drainage being provided at structures and the interchange

Mr. Guthrie then referred to the program of Public Consultation undertaken and said this

commenced early in the study period and continued throughout to ensure the Public's

interested parties and members of the public, the display of possible options and the

distribution of brochures and questionaires. He said that all written submissions received

from Interest Groups, Residents Associations, private individuals, businesses and

concerns throughout the consultation period were considered in the route selection

process. He said the first Public Consultation was held in the Ardboyne Hotel in Navan

on 19 December 1999 and had been advertised in the local newspapers and on local radio

and at local Masses with a briefing for the Elected Members on 13 December 1999. He

displayed at the Hotel and engineers from the design team available to answer questions

He said the second Public Consultation was held over 4 days at 2 venues, 22/23 May

Kells and that these were joint consultations for the three Sections, Dunshaughlin to

Navan; Navan By-pass and Navan to Kells. He said the purpose of these consultations

was to present the emerging preferred route (EPR) for the 3 sections in terms of likely

positive and negative impacts on local lands, environment, economy and the construction

program; to hear the Public's view and reactions and to respond to queries where answers

could be given, in the context of the scheme development at that time. He said the second

Consultation was advertised in the local newspapers and radio and in leaflets they

alternatives for the motorway/dual carriageway had been considered for the N3 from

Clonee to North of Kells during the early planning stages and it was considered desirable

1999/2000 as this would allow construction and its costs to be phased over a period. He

said that the Constraints and Route Selection stages for the Dunshaughlin to Navan

Section were progressed on the basis of allowing both a tie-back to the existing N3 in the

short term and to be linked as a single scheme in the long term with each route option

being examined under engineering, environmental and economic options. Initially 6

options were considered between Dunshaughlin and Navan, each with a tie-back to the

N3 at the northern end and a link to the EPR for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section at

the southern end. He then described these options, which were put forward at the first

Note -- These options are shown on Figure 4.2 in Vol.2 of the EIS and described on

Mr. Guthrie said that after the first Consultation the 6 options were further developed to

address comments received which lead to 10 alternatives, 3 with eastern tie-backs and 7

with western tie-backs being considered and assessed, with these being shown on Figure

12 in Vol. 2. He said that from a review of these options against the engineering,

environmental and economic parameters Route Blue 2 was put forward as the EPR for

the second Public Consultation in May 2000 and he listed the following reasons for that

It had the least impact on buildings within 50 metres of the centreline with only 2

It affected the least number of houses within a 200 metre band of the centreline,

with the significance of the 200 m. band being the practical limit where properties

The route had the least impact on minor roads, had a similar number of structures

He said that, after some minor amendments following from the second consultation stage,

Route Blue 2 was the alignment that had been assessed in the EIS and he listed the 15

amendments they had made to the Scheme. ( These are listed on pages 14 and 15 in

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. He said that the EIS on the likely impacts on the environment had been prepared

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

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

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

Scheme. He 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

Mr. Guthrie 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. He said that, while air quality and noise impacts were dependant on traffic

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

Mr. Guthrie said that there were 13 Public Rights of Way and 3 Private Rights of Way to

be Extinguished and the details were attached to his Brief of Evidence. ( These are

included in the Lists set out in Appendices 6 and 7 attached to this Report ) He said there

were 2 Planning Permissions already granted that would be affected by the M3 Scheme.

(These are listed in Appendix 8 of this Report). Mr. Guthrie confirmed that it was

necessary to extinguish all those listed for the purposes of the Motorway Scheme. He said

that the landtake required for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section was some 168 Hectares

of which about 94 Hectares were required for the actual Motorway with the balance for

motorway works and he confirmed that the acquisition of all of this land was necessary

for the M3 scheme. He said that in the event of An Bord confirming the Motorway Order,

the Council would then negotiate on the level of compensation with each landowner and

that the accommodation works would be discussed and agreed on with the landowner

during these negotiations and that if agreement was not possible, the issues would be

Details of the reasons for acquiring each plot identified in the Schedules were given in

Mr. Begley referred to the Collierstown Overbridge and asked a number of questions

about the carriageway width, the number of footpaths and what the upstand was for and,

when Mr. Guthrie had responded with the details sought, he asked if the bridge railing

that would be on the upstand on the bridge and the footpaths would be extended out along

the approaches. Mr. Guthrie said there would be a steel safety barrier on the approach

embankments where these were more than 2 metres high and the footpaths would extend

for 30 metres beyond the bridge structure and connected into any footpath that existed on

the approach road. When Mr. Begley said there was no footpath there, Mr. Guthrie

replied that they would join into the verges but if there was evidence to show a paved

surface was required, then they would provide this but their surveys had showed very

little pedestrian traffic on most of these county roads. Mr. Begley then asked about the

difference in level between the entrance to two houses near the bridge site and the new

approach road and when told it was almost at the same level, he asked why there was a

difference in the reply they had been given in the Council response to their query about

the redundant road surface which in their case said " may be ripped up" while for other

places the reply said " will be ripped up". Mr. Guthrie explained that in the Collierstown

site there was an access into farmland there and the owner may want the surface left in

Mr. Begley then referred to the landscape screening and SLM 5 and to the drawing he

motorway was above the ground level. Mr. Guthrie replied there were no properties

within 300 metres at that point and the screening was provided for the properties on the

Trevet road but as the motorway moved further north of those houses there was no need

for the earth bank, which was what he saw on the drawing. He confirmed the trees and

hedge screen would still continue alongside the motorway fence and said that the

drawing only showed where earth banks were positioned with the landscaping being an

Mr. Begley returned to the redundant road surface and asked if the property remained in

the Council ownership and Mr. Guthrie said the ownership was being acquired in the

CPO but the access issue would have to be negotiated with the landowner before they

ripped up the surface. After some further discussion on this matter, the Inspector

intervened and suggested that a gate could be put across the "dis-used" section if the

landowner still wanted to use it and if he was given a key that would allow him to gain

access when he required to do this. The Inspector suggested that, as the Council were

acquiring the ground, as owners they could impose a gate and this would provide the

certainty the residents were seeking while still allowing access for the landowner. He

suggested this could also be applied in other sections of redundant road elsewhere along

the Scheme where there was a question of land access involved as well as this appeared

Ms Begley said that she wanted to refer, initially, to the Council's response to their

objection which they had been given on the previous day and to their confirmation of the

scheme being presented to the public as a dual carriageway with the decision to make it a

motorway only coming after the EPR was arrived at. She said she disagreed with the

Council's view that the same issues would have been raised if a motorway had been

presented as a motorway restricted the type of vehicles that could use it. She said people

would have perceived the problems at Navan, Dunshaughlin and the Fairyhouse and Trim

Road junctions could have been dealt with without such a large scheme that still left the

She then asked if traffic counts had been carried out on the road from Oberstown to

Blanchardstown problem and she saw traffic passing her door in Collierstowm doing that.

Mr. Guthrie replied that they did not extend the counts to the limits of the corridor but

had taken counts at both Ross Cross and Garlow Cross and around the Ardsallagh area

and he felt they had got a picture of traffic movements locally and east to west

movements as well as those going north to south. Asked if traffic that would opt not use

the motorway if it was in place had been taken into account in their diversion figures, Mr.

Guthrie replied that the model had included local figures when the predictions for both

tolled and non-tolled scenarios were produced. Ms Begley suggested traffic would still be

passing her house to avoid Blanchardstown when the M3 was in place and Mr. Guthrie

said the M3 was part of a wider upgrading of the network and that the NRA had plans for

the M50, but he accepted all these schemes would not happen together and that there

could still be queues but said these would not necessarily as extensive as people

Ms Begley referred to the socio-economic report and said there were a number of local

facilities omitted and referred to the Tara Athletic Club which was not far from the

Collierstown Overbridge and that this had a running track, a clubhouse and a soccer

pitch. She said Skreen Rangers soccer pitch was in a field opposite Plot 1067 in the CPO,

on Canavan's lands, and the Parish Hall opposite Skreen National school were not

mentioned nor was the pitch and putt courses in Oberstown and that while F4 ( in Table

2.6 in Vol.4A) was mentioned as a Public House it was not stated that it was also a shop

and petrol station and that there were two pubs in Skreen. She said she found these

omissions worrying and it suggested other things had been missed as well. Mr. Guthrie

replied that the socio-economic chapter was designed to address impacts in terms of the

economic development of the area and the social impact on access to recreational

facilities and said they were not cutting off access to any local facility. Ms Begley

suggested that these facilities should still have been located but Mr. Guthrie said this had

to be looked at in the overall EIS context and that was to assess the impacts and they

were not severing access by putting in access to all of the local roads so the impact would

Ms Begley said she was concerned about the disruption during the construction phase and

she outlined the extent of membership of Tara Athletic Club which was affiliated to the

Athletics Association of Ireland and participated in the Community Games and said that

the entrance was 170 metres from the centreline of the M3 on the western side and asked

what dust problems would come from the construction and noise from the operation. Mr.

Guthrie replied there were banks on the west side of the M3 and accepted there would be

noise but the contractor would be trying to minimise that and was likely to construct

those earth banks as early as possible. Mr. Guthrie said these earth banks were put in as a

visual screen but would give some protection against noise as well. Mr. Guthrie said that

she would have heard them discussing the dust issue on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin

Section in the preceding days and the same precautions about cleaning vehicles and

watering the site would be a requirement of the contract here as well. He said it would not

be possible to eliminate it totally but it would be minimised and Ms Begley accepted this.

Ms Begley referred to his comment of there being little pedestrian activity on the local

roads and suggested this was because they were to dangerous to use at present and said a

lot of children, and commuters were now left off the buses at Ross Cross, since the

service had been improved within the past 18 months, and walked from there towards

Skreen and she had concerns about the height of the bridge railings and crash barries. Mr.

guthrie said the bridge railings were at the standard height of 1.25 metres with mesh on

the footpath side to stop people climbing them. He said they would talk to the Council

about the pedestrian flows as their surveys had not picked this up. Ms Begley asked

where the Contractor would store materials when the bridge and that section of the M3

was being built. Mr. Guthrie replied that was a matter for the contractor to negotiate

locally with landowners and he could not speculate where this might be provided. When

Ms Begley said it was frustrating for the public to be constantly told " it was for someone

else to answer", Mr. Guthrie explained that the contractor would be restricted to using

certain points as access to the site of the M3 and mentioned the crossing of the N3 at

Roestown ( cooksland) and Blundellstown as being two of the access points that could be

used and said they were considering the use of Ross Cross and Garlow Cross as well. He

confirmed to Ms Begley that traffic coming along the Collierstown Road from Ross

Cross would only able to use the section to the west of the M3 and that this would be

reference to average speed in 2024 reducing to 85 km/hour on page 35 of Vol. 4A in the

EIS. Mr. Guthrie explained that, as traffic volumes built up, speeds could reduce as

overtaking problems developed and that the reference was just to give an indication of

what might happen in the future, but said they were not saying this would actually be the

The Inspector asked Ms Begley to confirm where the Tara Athletic field was and she said

it was between the N3 and M3 with a field between it and the M3. The Inspector asked

Mr. Guthrie if a decision about using the Collierstown road from Ross Cross as an access

point for construction traffic had been taken. Mr. Guthrie replied that was being

considered in the context of the overall contract documentation. The Inspector asked

about the Garlow Cross route and Mr. Guthrie said it would then use the Dowdstown

Mr. Carty said he kept a few thoroughbred horses and half-breds and the motorway

would be within 50 metres of his boundary and he was worried about noise, dust and

lighting during its construction and asked how this would be curtailed. Mr. Guthrie said

there was landscaping screening planned along the new road but no banking as such and

there was no lighting along the motorway there. Mr. Carty said he was referring to

lighting from vehicles and Mr. Guthrie said the planting would screen that, but not in the

early stages while it was developing but over time it would do so. Mr. Carty asked how

extensive was the planting and was told it would extend virtually from Dunshaughlin to

Navan. He asked about the realignment of the Trevet road and what would be done to the

two abandoned sections and Mr. Guthrie said they had already stated the surfaces would

be ripped up and the land returned to the adjacent landowners. Mr. Carty asked would

construction traffic use the Trevet road when it was being realigned but he was told that,

as had earlier been explained to Ms Begley, all access would be from the M3 and access

to the M3 would be at defined points but Mr. Guthrie said there would be some local

disruption while the road was being realigned. Mr. Carty asked if the road would be 4

metres above ground and would the screening be high enough to offset this. Mr. Guthrie

said the road was on a 3.5 metres embankment extending from to the end of the farm

access road and there would be trees planted with the hedge to give cover but that it

would take some years for these to fully develop and that Mr. Burns could give him more

When Mr. Carty concluded his cross-examination the Inspector asked him if his daughter,

Karen Carty, who Mr. Carty had previously said he was also representing, had any

questions she wished to ask but Mr. Carety said he did not think so as most of the points

raised by George and Mary Begley would cover her concerns. (See also Section 84.2. of

this Report for written submissions from David Carty and Terry Foley/Karen Carty.)

Ms Ryan asked why the Blue route in the Lismullin area varied from the route they were

shown in the consultation documents and Mr. Guthrie said this was because the route

they had been looking at, which was further to the west than the one in the EIS, impinged

on archaeological monuments. Asked which were these, he replied one was a monastery

site at the back of Lismullin and there were two others which he could not name and he

suggested she ask Ms Gowan for those details. When Ms Ryan asked if one was Rath

Lugh Mr. Guthrie said that was to the east of the M3 and that in the original location for

the route they thought that they had placed it to miss all those sites but the archaeologists

said there was a risk of bodies being found as the site was a monastery, so they moved

the road north-eastwards. He said the move also assisted in their landscaping as the road

could be fed into the valley and this reduced the visual impact. Ms Ryan said the new

location was higher in the valley as it crossed their farm and Mr. Guthrie replied this was

to keep it up out of the river course to avoid drainage and construction problems which

could contaminate the river. Ms Ryan pointed out they were going to drain the road runoff

into the river and Mr. Guthrie accepted that but said they had to look at the overall

alignment and they were trying to keep to the edge of Mrs. Meehan's property as she was

concerned the motorway would split her property ( Plot 1078) from that of her relations.

Ms Ryan suggested this was another reason for moving it and she asked to have the route

from Collierstown to Blundellstown shown at the Hearing. Following a discussion on the

location of the EPR and Mr. Guthrie's references to the archaeological sites and the

Mehans split properties being reasons to move the route north-eastwards, Ms Ryan said

that property was not split and was only affected along its boundary but they had bisected

her farm instead of only severing it and she asked if she could be given the same

consideration that was given to Mrs. Meehan. Mr. Guthrie said they could not move the

road further west as it would impinge on the archaeology and on the Lismullin Centre,

Ms Ryan said the route was now closer to Rath Lugh and Mr. Guthrie agreed that it was

but said they were not impinging on it, Ms Ryan said they were cutting into the base in

the trees next to their farm but Mr. Guthrie said they were told by the archaeologists the

M3 was 100 metres away from the actual site. Ms Ryan suggested they were taking out

more mature trees by moving the road and Mr. Guthrie agreed they were but said there

would be reinforcing the planting in that area with small areas of land being planted to reestablish

the tree belt. He accepted that the existing trees were significant and said some

removal during construction was inevitable and they trying to replace these with new

Ms Ryan suggested adjustments had been made to the route to avoid "period houses" but

Mr. Guthrie said there had been no adjustments around the houses but they had made

some to minimise the impact on the farm operations at these houses. Ms Ryan then said

they had moved the route at Baronstown so it was further from the house but that was all

on the same land and when it came to Lismullin House, which was the next period house,

there was no land as it had all been divided between the surrounding farmers and it was

those surrounding farmers that were being affected, not Lismullin House. Mr. Guthrie

archaeological reasons plus the impact on Mrs. Meehan's property plus the desire to try

and blend the road into the existing topography. He said they accepted there was going to

be a need for significant mitigation whichever route they choose and that was what was

done when they took the Blue Corridor and developed in into the Blue Route. Ms Ryan

said it had been tweaked several times and Mr. Guthrie agreed but said they had made it

clear at the Consultation and to people that the Corridor was not the final route and that

that some people did not realise it would be moved as much as it had been based on the

Ms Ryan then referred to having read that Lismullin Centre requested and got something

due to their need for privacy and quietness for prayer and when Mr. Guthrie said that had

been recognised, she said they all needed peace and quietness and that some peoples

wishes were being pitched higher than others and that there was an equality issue

involved. Mr. Guthrie said that was not the case, that they had been approached by

Lismullin who said they had contemplatative walks in the vicinity of the EPR and asked

for some form of noise and visual screening which was what was being provided. He said

that included in the bunding provisions for her property was a 1.5 metre high visual

screen along the east side (her side) of the road in conjunction with landscaping in the

form of trees and shrubs to disguise the road as much as possible, and that this bund was

a mirror image of what was provided for Lismullin on their side (west side) of the road.

Ms Ryan said she was glad to hear about this bunding for the noise and visual aspects.

At this point, the Inspector asked Mr. Guthrie to clarify the chainage extremities of Ms

Ryan's lands using the Drainage and Outfalls drawing Figure 5.3 inVol. 4B. Mr.Guthrie

said Ms Ryan's property started at chn. 28920 and extended to chn. 29220, Ms Ryan

Ms Ryan referred to his Brief of Evidence where he said " severed land where practical is

provided with alternative access. A combination of service roads and realigned side roads

will be used to maintain access to severed lands" and to the proposal to build a bridge in

Lismullin for the Lismullin Lane or CR 135 as it was also referred to. When Mr. Guthrie

said the Council told them this was a County road, Ms Ryan asked why was it shown as

a right of way on the Land Registry map and why was it marked there as giving restricted

access if it was a public road. The Inspector remarked that there were a number of roads

maintained by Local Authorities where the road might have been a private road at one

time and the Registry maps would not always show the change. He said if the Council

landowners could still have it on their folio as a private road. Ms Ryan said she was glad

Ms Ryan asked how it was determined whether a road was severed and cul-de-saced or

left open and Mr. Guthrie replied it was in terms of what alternative access was available.

Asked if a realignment could be considered as was done in other sections, Mr. Guthrie

agreed and Ms Ryan asked why Lismullin was kept open when they intended to close

Ardsallagh until the residents put pressure on to keep it open and he replied that in

Lismullin there was no alternative means of access available. Ms Ryan suggested the N3

was only 400 metres away and they could have used it and when Mr. Guthrie said Mrs.

Meeha did not want an access from the N3, Ms Ryan said she should have been afforded

a similar opportunity. Mr. Guthrie explained that Mrs. Meehan was the first property after

they crossed over the motorway so she was the first to be dealt with and to see what form

of access she required. Ms Ryan said that was saying it did not matter to them what she

(Ms Ryan) wanted, once Mrs. Meehan did not want access to the N3. Mr. Guthrie did not

agree that was the case and said access to her severed land was being provided through

the Lismullin Lane. Ms Ryan said this was a convoluted back water access and was a

shared access as well. A lengthy discussion followed with Ms Ryan questioning the

reasons being advanced for not realigning the lane to the N3, the economics of the cost of

the overbridge on Limullin Lane ( � 960000) and that it was Mrs. Meehan's decisions that

refering to the lane being a county road and that they had to provide an access for Mrs.

Meehan and the bridge provided them with an access facility for several properties.

severance basis rather than a cost basis Ms Ryan asked if he understood the concept of

farm severance. Mr. Guthrie said he understood what she was saying and said that what

they were providing using the bridge was much shorter than if she had to use the N3 and

he said the N3 route was 5.6 kms. while using the bridge it was 1.5 kms. Ms Ryan said

she had been told all of that previously by the Design Office and that the consultation

process had not been done in Lismullin, since they had never asked her what access she

wanted, but they just imposed it on her because Mrs. Meehan did not want an access from

the N3. She said the distance was not relevant because she would have to transport her

stock by lorry anyway so it would cost her the same to hire one whether it was 1 km. or

20 kms. they were moved. She said all she was seeking was fairness and equity and said

they had realigned other roads so as not to put in a bridge. Mr. Guthrie said they were

designing the roads to meet community needs and in this case the bridge was the best

solution that suited properties in general. Ms Ryan did not agree with this and again

The Inspector intervened and asked Mr. Guthre to clarify on the drawing the boundaries

of the various plots, Ryans, Meehans, Hughes and Lismullin and how much of the Ryan

land was on either side of the M3. Mr. Guthrie said 10.4 hectares was to the west and 8.7

hectares to the east. The Inspector then drew attention to the cross-section which showed

a fall towards the stream in the valley and asked Mr. Guthrie to examine the feasibility of

putting in an underpass under the M3 to the severed land and the feasibility of draining it

towards the stream on her boundary and the implications for the M3 alignment. The

feasibility of one clarified in the context of the discussions which had taken place

Ms Ryan asked if there were other objectors to the Lismullin Bridge and when Mr.

Guthrie said he did not think so, she said that having looked at the Council responses at

the Hearing there were objections also from Mrs. Meehan senior and from Padraic and

Susan Meehan. Mr. Guthrie replied Mrs. Meehan did not want the motorway through her

property at all and she had a general objection to the M3 and its associated works,

including the Lismullin Bridge, and she had rejected all options, the bridge and the link to

the N3, but they had an obligation to provide alternative access to lands being severed.

Ms Ryan asked what they would have provided for her if the bridge was not built and

when Mr. Guthrie replied they would probably have given an access from the N3, Ms

Ryan asked if he saw where she was coming from and he accepted her point but said

there were reasons for providing the bridge and once that was decided, the N3 option was

not considered further since they could provide access to two severed farms, hers and

Asked if her farm was the most affected in this locality, Mr. Guthrie accepted that as

impact. Ms Ryan said the motorway was a blight on the landscape from Tara and Skreen

Hills and this bridge was unnecessary and another blight and asked why something for

which there was no perceived need was being put into the area. Mr. Guthrie said he heard

what she was saying but the bridge was not as high as she anticipated and with the

screening, when it developed, it would not be seen from Tara at all, nor would the road be

visible from the Hill of Tara either. Ms Ryan asked would construction traffic use the

Lismullin Lane and Mr. Guthrie replied that it would not be using it. Ms Ryan concluded

by saying to the Inspector that she had no personal issue with any of her neighbours but

that she had to mention names when addressing the issue. The Inspector told her that it

would be difficult to clarify what she was describing without naming someone's lands

Mr. Magee asked when the Corridor Selection Report was completed and Mr. Guthrie

said that was completed, for the overall route, towards the end of 2001 and published in

January 2002. Asked if it should have been created earlier, Mr. Guthrie said that, as he

had already explained in his initial evidence, the individual Consultants had carried out

separate corridor selections to determine possible route alternatives and this report was to

collate all of the information into one report and to see if there were any strategic impacts

that might have a bearing on the choice of the overall EPR and it only came from the

joining of the five individual schemes. Mr. Magee asked when the route selection report

published in September 2001 suggested that report was published before the Corridor

Selection Report. Mr. Guthrie agreed that was so and he referred back to the previous

discussions on how the Scheme was originally given to separate Consultants with all of

the sections being done as individual by-passes, the instruction from the NRA to combine

all these into one and the decision to review the work already done in case there were

impacts on the overall which delayed the publication while the interfaces were being

Mr. Magee asked if a corridor selection report was published for the individual sections

and when told it was not as this was part of the route selection process, He suggested it

seemed a logical step that one would have a corridor before one selected a route. Mr.

Guthrie agreed that would be correct if the overall route had been looked at from the first

day but that they had not sidestepped the issue and he again explained the process where

the issues had been dealt with on a section by section basis and the Corridor Report was

to give an overview of what had been done in case ther were interface impacts which

might need some changes in the route already identified. Mr. Magee said this should have

been done before the corridor and that his answer was long and confusing. Mr. Guthrie

said that he was saying if you looked at a strategic route of many kilometres in length,

recommendations. He said that was what the Needs Study was on a macro-scale. Mr.

Magee suggested that following the Needs Study corridors should be selected rather than

selecting routes. When Mr. Guthrie said that was what they did for the five separate

sections, Mr. Magee said he meant that a corridor for each section and Mr. Guthrie said

this was contained in the constraints report which followed on to the route selection

Mr. Magee said that a corridor report should have followed from the constraints report

and Mr. Guthrie said it did but on an individual basis with the corridor selection process

embodied within the 2001 report and that there was not a separate section on corridors.

He said there seemed to be some confusion about this but the report was geared to

identifying mitigation, constraints and impacts within the study area and, as he had said

previously, it was because the five sections were being linked together that they felt there

might be interlinked constraints within the area of interest which might show a need for a

different EPR. He said they carried out their review and did not find anything to cause

them to change their opinion. Mr. Magee said he still was not being very precise in his

answers and asked if he was saying it was not necessary to produce a Corridor Selection

Report. Mr. Guthrie said there was no requirement by the NRA for such a Report but they

had advised the NRA such a Report could be a useful evaluation of all of the five

sections. Mr. Magee asked when this went to the Council and when Mr. Guthrie said the

final report was published in January 2002, he said the EPR was selected then andasked

what was the point of having a Corridor selection report when the route had been decided

on. Mr. Guthrie replied the report was to identify if there were impacts on the selection of

Mr. Magee asked why they had a corridor report with pink, green, blue and orange

options when they had already chosen the blue route and Mr. Guthrie said those were the

options they had considered and said they had 4 options in this section and looked at 10

variations on these. Mr. Magee said they saw route options and did not see the corridor

options until a week previously at the Hearing. Mr. Guthrie said that by the time they

produced the route selection report they were looking at actual routes. Mr. Magee then

asked if he was now saying the Corridor Selection Report was produced after the Route

Selection Report and Mr. Guthrie agreed they did. Mr. Magee referred to the Corridor

Report being submitted to the Council in January 2002 and asked if that was not late

since there had been a Route Selection Report and the EPR was selected. Mr. Guthrie

disagreed saying they were aware of the outcome as they had been working on it for six

recommendations in the Corridor Selection Report where at the end a recommendation

for a particular route was made ansd asked where was the logic for this in January 2002

since the EPR had already been decided. Mr. Guthrie replied this was to confirm that the

individual assessments on a section by section basis for the EPR were solid. Mr. Magee

suggested it was produced to fit in with the decision already made but Mr. Guthrie did

not accept that suggestion and a lengthy discussion followed, which repeated points

already discussed about the overview leading to the production of the Corridor Selection

Report with Mr. Magee saying that a reading of the EIS, without knowing the dates,

would indicate that one went from corridors to routes to EPR which, he said, did not

happen and Mr. Guthrie again explaining about the corridor process being one to identify

possible constraints on the unified route in the work done on a section by section basis.

corridors and Mr. Guthrie agreed he was not aware that they were but said they were

available in the Council's office for inspection. Mr. Magee asked if he had a copy of the

advertisement used for the first public consultation in the Ardboyne Hotel in December

1999 and when Mr. Guthrie said he did not have it to hand, Mr. Magee read an extract

which said " -- Consultants have been appointed and have identified the main constraints

and possible corridors and it is proposed to put these identified corridors on display at the

Ardboyne Hotel --". Mr. Guthrie agreed the corridors were put on display. Mr. Magee

then read from the brochure used for that public display as saying " Dunshaughlin to

said it was plain to see these were "routes" and not "corridors" as in the Corridor

Selection Report. Mr. Guthrie said this was a presentation matter and they thought when

preparing the Brochure that if broad corridors were only put in the public would still want

to know where the actual road was. He said they decided to define an area possibly 50 to

100 metres wide but to tell people these were not definitive routes and represented

corridors and that routes might change and he said this was obvious from the brochure.

Mr. Magee said the Brochure clearly said "route options" but Mr. Guthrie replied they

had not developed route options at that stage and that it was out of the consultation stage

that the route options were developed. A further discussion on the differences between

route corridors and route options as presented in the Corridor Selection Report and the

brochure followed with Mr. Magee maintaining people were told they would see route

corridors and had not been made aware those were actually routes and Mr. Guthrie saying

people had been told they represented corridors as they were not fixed routes and could

Management Guidelines" and when Mr. Guthrie said he was, read an extract from page

20 on Public Consultation which said it was not the intention to show any proposed route

options at the first public consultation and then asked if they had complied with those

Guidelines. Mr. Guthrie replied they had not since in Meath's experience the public

would immediately ask where the road was going, so they combined the first and second

consultation to give people an indication of possible corridors being looked at. Mr.

Magee then read a further extract from the Guidelines on the Information Leaflet which

referred to a " likely shaded study area" and asked if that was for corridor selections.

When Mr. Guthrie said the shaded area would be corridors, Mr. Magee suggested they

did not comply with that either and Mr. Guthrie said it was obvious from the Brochure

that they had complied and while he accepted they did not show a shaded area, he said

they showed sufficient corridors to define the limits of the area. Mr. Magee stated that

"route" did not spell "corridor" and, following some exchanges on that issue, he

suggested the Bellinter Residents Association of which he was a member, as well as the

Meath Road Action Group (MRAG) had spent an long time trying to extract information

from the Council and had never heard of corridors up to the previous week at the

Hearing. Mr. Guthrie said he understood what he was saying about the Corridor Selection

investigating. Mr. Magee said they advertised corridors but they showed routes and asked

if they had got a letter from the NRA approving the Corridor Selection Report. Mr.

Guthrie said they sent the report to the Council who would pass it on the NRA but Mr.

Magee was not satisfied with this and quoted from the "NRA Management Guidelines"

on the various approval steps. A further discussion on the purpose of these guidelines and

to what extent they were complied with developed in relation to the consultation

following, them. The Inspector intervened and said that there was a letter from the NRA

approving of the route proposal attached to the County Manager's Order approving the

CPO which indicated they were satisfied with the Design from which it could be deduced

the NRA were satisfied with what lead up to that. The Inspector said Mr. Magee had

made the point the guidelines were not followed and Mr. Guthrie had responded and the

Mr. Magee said his point was that if the Guidelines did not have to be followed they had

been put through a sham public consultation and they would have no details of corridors,

routes or anything if the Guidelines did not have to be followed. Mr. Guthrie said they

consultation could be combined with the second. Mr. Magee then referred to a meeting

with Mr. Michael Egan of the NRA who stated there was no legal requirement on them to

inform the public of plans until CPOs and EISs were issued but the Inspector said that

was a matter for the NRA to comment on. Mr. Magee said that if the NRA position was

as they said then the MRAG had no submission since theirs was based on the Route

Selection, not on the EIS. The Inspector said An Bord took all submissions into account

and asked the Council to hand in copies of the Brochure and the advertisements for the

Mr. Magee then asked if he was aware of the proposal to build a road linking Drogheda,

Navan, Naas and Newbridge which Mr. Killeen had referred to but Mr. Guthrie said he

knew nothing about this other than that it was aimed to improve the roads between the

towns he mentioned and he confirmed there was no link with this and the M3 planned for

in their Scheme. Asked if there had been correspondence or if it had been discussed at

Mr. Magee referred to the required sight distance and visibility in his Brief of Evidence,

Mr. Guthrie said that was where there was a crash barrier along the middle of the central

reserve and to maintain forward sight visibility it was necessary to widen the central

Cannistown Overbridge was approximately 4 metres and this widened out to 7.45 metres

over the succeeding 200 metres. When Mr. Magee suggested the footprint of the road at

Cannistown was double the normal, Mr. Guthrie replied that it was only the central

reservation that doubled but the overall road with was only 3.45 metes more. Asked

where else this occurred, Mr. Guthrie said it was only in a few places as they had

standardised the cross-section, but where the radius was smaller but still above the

desirable minimum it was a requirement of the standards that the median be widened to

maintain the visibility specified. Asked if this had safety implications, Mr. Guthrie said

the widening dealt with the safety aspect and that was why the extra land was taken in

Mr. Magee referred to his comments in his Brief of Evidence about the need for the

appearance of the proposed bridge at Ardsallagh being compatible with the Bellinter

Bridge and asked how he could achieve this when Bellinter was a stone arch and they

were proposing a concrete structure but Mr. Guthrie replied they were only saying it had

to be compatible which did not mean it had to be identical to it. Mr. Magee thought the

statement should not have been made as he did not see the drawing in Vol. 4B as being

anything like Bellinter Bridge. Mr.Magee asked when the responses to their submissions

to An Bord, which they had been given to them on the previous day, created and if there

was a requirement on them to do so. Mr.Guthrie said that as they had been receiving

these from the Council, who got them from An Bord, the answers were prepared and he

asked if MRAG did not want a written response. Mr. Magee said they would have liked

to have the information two years previously and asked were these part of the EIS. The

Inspector told him that An Bord forwarded those they received to the Local Authority for

their information and that it was normal practice for Local Authorities to respond at the

Mr. Magee said people were only getting these responses when a lot of the Hearing was

over and asked if the traffic study, referred to in the response, on MRAG's alternative

option was available. Mr. Guthjrie said they had not carried out the study themselves and

he would have to inquire if a copy could be made available. Mr. magee said their

proposal was sent to the NRA over two years ago and this was the first they heard that a

study was done. Mr. Guthrie said he knew it was examined and the conclusions were that

even if a combined N2/N3 was provided there would still be a need to improve the lower

ends of both the N2 and N3 and that the traffic study was to predict the traffic flows that

would apply. Asked who did the study, Mr. Guthrie said he thought it was done by

Arups. Mr. Butler intervened and said he understood that Bellinter Residents had sought

that report and it had been made available to them but he would clarify that. Mr. Magee

said they did have a 12 point document but it was not a study, only comments on the

proposal and that was the only response they had been given to their suggestion.

Appendix F of Vol. 4C, and described what they portrayed and said the impacts were

described as severe during the construction and major on a short to medium term basis.

He said their concern was that they had asked the Council to move the road in a northerly

direction where his Clients owned the necessary land on the other side of the Baronstown

road. Mr. Guthrie said he had met Mr. Wilkinson on several occasions and that the

existing boundary fence would be maintained until the end of the formal garden was

reached. He said that as a result of their discussions they were now moving the start of

the Baronstown road realignment around the corner to the next bend which would allow

the road to be essentially contained in the field on the other side of the road and this

would preserve the existing boundary. Mr. Gunne referred to the view of the house in the

EIS ( Ref.No.03.2 ) and said this was taken from a position that was 4 feet above the top

of the overbridge when it was built and that view was what you would see from this

bridge. He asked if that view was far more open that what could be seen of the house at

present and Mr. Guthrie accepted that it was. Mr. Guthrie said it was for that reason they

had taken extra land so the planting could be reinforced and with more planting on the

other side of the road, there was 8200 sq. metres of planting being put in. (SLM 6 in

Figure 5.1.5 Vol. 4A) Mr. Gunne asked if it was intended to go into the existing wooded

area on the house side during construction and Mr. Guthrie said it was not and they had

taken extra land to ensure nothing happened to the wall during the construction of the

realigned road and when that was completed they would hand back the surplus land. Mr.

Gunne suggested thc road and bridge could be moved further north and to run behind the

house to the east of the motorway which would take the line of traffic away from looking

in at Baronstown House. He said the other house was for sale at present while the

Wilkinsons had been in Baronstown since 1829 and they felt if the road was taken further

back into the field and to come out further east towards Skryne that would negate the

visual impact on Baronstown House from the side road. Mr. Guthrie said that while they

had talked with Mr. Wilkinson about moving into his field, this was a new suggestion

but Mr. Gunne said they had written to the Council, having met a Council Official in May

with Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Guthrie said he was not aware of those discussions but

Mr. Gunne then referred to the planting proposed and said the existing trees effectively

blocked out any view of the house during the summer and asked if there was any way of

lessening the impacts for the Wilkinsons until the trees and planting grew and Mr.

Guthrie suggested early planting would help. Mr. Gunne said his Clients privacy in their

front rooms would be gone and asked how long would the deciduous trees mentioned in

SLM 6 take to reach maturity and when Mr. Guthrie said he should ask Mr. Burns, Mr.

Gunne said that realistically there was nothing in five years that would give screening

from the bridge for his Clients. Mr. Gunne said that if the road was moved as he was

suggesting that would be a better route and asked if that was discounted fully. Mr.

Guthrie replied that they had been trying to maintain the character of the road and did not

want to leave small sections of redundant fields and if they did as was being suggested

Mr. Gunne said that the severance of one or two acres of agricultural land could not be

balanced against the visual effect of the bridge on the Wilkinsons house and that was the

point they were making. The Inspector drew his attention to a second house to the east of

the M3 but on the southern side of the road ( seen on aerial plan in Figure 2.2 in Vol. 4B)

and said that the entrance for this house would have to be looked at if the longer

diversion was taken and that all of this land was outside the scope of the CPO before An

Bord. He said that Mr. Burns had earlier given evidence in the Clonee to Dunshaughlin

Section on a somewhat similar situation that planting would take from 7 to 10 years to

take effect but this could be foreshortened by some period with early planting before

construction started. Mr. Gunne said the bridge where it was planned would have a huge

effect on the house and that while it was not too late with the bridge design if the road

could be moved over to the other side it would alleviate the impact. He said it seemed to

his Clients that the resistance to this move was because of its possible impact on the barn

there and the financial implications of possibly replacing this. The Inspector said that,

without prejudice to the overall issue, the only comment he would make was that his first

proposal to go outside the other house was both well outside the CPO line but also was

outside land controlled by his Clients. The Inspector said that for the second suggestion,

opportunity for him to discuss that further with the Council, if he wished to do so.

Mr. Brady said he represented a number of house owners who were not directly affected

realignment did impact on them. He said he represented Mr. & Mrs. Brian Malone, Plot

1111; Peter & Mary Smyth, Plot 1113; both of these were on the north side of the M3 and

on the west side of the Ardsallagh Road. He said that on the other side of the M3 he

represented Thomas & Anna Farrelly, Plot 1127; Robert Fitzsimons, Plot 1126; Joseph &

Patricia Fitzsimons, Plot 1125; John T. & Breda Connolly, Plot 1128; Emmett Clarke,

Plot 1122 and also Marie Clarke, his mother, an adjoining landowner who was not in the

CPO but who shared a common entrance with him. He said his Clients' basic concern was

about how the Overbridge would impact on them during its construction and afterwards

Mr. Brady asked what was the timescale for this section of the M3 and where did the

Ardsallagh Bridge fit in to this. Mr. Guthrie said the they expected the Dunshaughlin to

Navan section would take 3 years to construct but the Contractor would probably be

working on several fronts simultaneously and while there might be a number od different

contractors working on the section, there would be one overall Contractor for the PPP

Contract. He considered the Ardsallagh Bridge would be completed in one portion in a

twelve month period and he said they could require the Contractor to complete it in one

period and would not allow him to do the work there in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Brady

said his clients lived next to the bridge and were concerned that its construction would

drag on over a long period and asked if a specified time could be written into the contract.

Mr. Guthrie said that it could as they could specify the work had to be done efficiently

and in a concise manner. He said that while earthworks could extend over a longer period

since material had to be moved over different parts of the site but that for discrete items

like bridge construction, they could impose time limits for the completion of these. Mr.

Brady asked if there would be any designated area for cranes and other machinery to be

stored and Mr. Guthrie said the contractor was restricted to the area within the CPO

boundaries and if he wanted to go outside of these he would have to negotiate himself

Mr. Brady asked if the CPO boundary went into the wooded area to the east of the

existing Ardsallagh Road and Mr. Guthrie outlined to him on a drawing the extent of the

CPO land take, which went about 130 to 150 metres into that area. Mr.Brady asked what

would be done at the two cul-de-sacs at both ends of the existing Ardsallagh road once

the new bridge was opened and Mr. Guthrie said it was intended to rip up the surface of

all redundant parts of road surface and return the land to the relevant landowner. Asked if

there would be blasting, Mr. Guthrie confirmed that there would not be blasting in that

area as they had not found any signs of solid rock and all excavation in that area would be

Mr. Brady suggested the cut line for the M3 was about 100 to 150 metres from the houses

and asked how deep was the cutting. Mr. Guthrie said the motorway was running at

ground level at that point and said they intended providing an earthen mound and

screening along that stretch, which was why there was an extensive landtake in the CPO

at that location. Mr. Brady asked what was being done by way of noise barriers and Mr.

Guthrie said he was coming to that and the earthen mounding was 3.5 metres high at the

Ardsallagh section to provide a noise barrier and he showed the locations of these on a

drawing to Mr. Brady. He said these mounds would be planted with trees and shrubs all

along the way as well. Mr. Brady then referred to the 3 houses in the triangular area

between the northern side of the M3 and the Ardsallagh road and suggested they would

suffer severely during the construction from dust and Mr. Guthrie accepted they would be

impacted and it would be a severe impact during construction. Mr. Brady then referred to

the houses on the southern side and asked if there were similar noise barriers there. Mr.

Guthrie confirmed there was 2 metre bunding which would be densely planted and that

the road was in cut at that part which would reduce the noise significantly. He said the

bunding was reinforcing that reduction in noise by the extra height and he confirmed the

bunding would also be planted to infill between the edge of the road and the existing

Mr. Brady then asked how access would be maintained to the houses during construction

and Mr. Guthrie said that as the bridge would be built off-line the realignment of the road

would also start off-line and while that was in progress there would be no interference

with the existing road, so the existing access arrangements would not be interrupted. He

said that there would be some disruption while both ends were being tied in but this

should not take more than a few days and there be some sort of traffic management, such

as traffic lights, while the two roads were being merged together. Mr. Brady referred to

the houses on the southern side where there was no realignment and asked what would

happen to their entrances. Mr. Guthrie confirmed there would be virtually no difference

between the existing and new roads levels there as there would only be an overlay on the

road surface and that the existing entrances would be extended out to meet the new road

Mr. Brady asked about the possible effects on their septic tanks, saying all of the houses

were connected to a group water scheme so there was not an issue about wells, and he

raised the possibility of "uneven drying" due to the effects of the cutting on the natural

water table in the ground. Mr. Guthrie said the Contractor would be responsible for

ensuring problems did not occur in relation to the septic tanks. ( Note -- the uneven

drying issue had been raised previously, see Section 25. 8. of this Report and Council's

Ms Martin said she lived on the Colganstown Road, which the Council called the Trevet

Road, and wanted to know what would be the effect of the motorway on their private

wells as all of the residents along her road had their own private supply. Mr. Guthrie

replied that they had undertaken a series of preliminary tests and would be monitoring

wells and that there would be an obligation on the Contractor in the Contract to also

monitor these wells and if there was a drop in water production the Contractor would be

obliged to remedy this and he confirmed if a well was affected, the Contractor would

have to "put this right". Asked how close would the road have to be to a well to cause a

problem, as referred to in Vol. 4A on the lowering of water tables, Mr. Guthrie explained

this was a function of the soil type and that along the Trevet road area the soils were

mainly glacial tills, which meant the zone of influence would not extend very far from the

road as the water would be slower draining in those type of soils. Ms Martin asked about

the risks of vermin being displaced by the road work and he suggested that Mr. Nairn

Ms Martin asked if the Trevet Road would be closed during the construction of the M3

and Mr. Guthrie said that there would be a short period while the ends of the realigned

section were being tied in to the existing road, but this would only involve traffic controls

and the road would not be closed as such. Ms Martin asked about the dead-ends on the

road after the realignment and when Mr. Guthrie said these would be ripped up she asked

when this would happen and was there a risk of this being left for several years with a

possibility of camping taking place. Mr. Guthrie said that the Contractor would deal with

Ms Martin then referred to the route description in Vol. 4A where it passed through Tara

Stud ( See page 2) and suggested there was not a valley behind her house, which faced

the back of Tara Stud. Mr. Guthrie said the landscape was generally flat but that there

was a slope towards a stream, Ms Martin interjecting this was in Commons, and where

the road had been located originally it was on the horizon and would have been more

visible. He said they had moved the road off the top of the ridge opposite their houses and

further down the slope to lessen the impact. Mr. Guthrie said there was 2 metre high

bunding proposed along the road with screening all along the M3 passing the Trevet road

and he showed her the extent of this on the maps on display and said a copy would be

given to her. Ms Martin said their house was on a high point and they would have a bird's

eye view of the motorway for possibly 2 kms. but accepted the screening he mentioned

Ms Martin then referred to Map 5.1.2. in Vol. 4A and suggested their house was missing

from this as there did not seem to be enough "dots" for the number of houses actually

there. Following a discussion on this issue it seemed that there might have been a house

between P27 and P23 which was not shown on the Map which Mr. Guthrie undertook to

have checked out and Ms Martin pointed out to the Inspector where her house was on a

Ms Martin then asked about the references to local borrow pits and to some being outside

of the scheme and asked were theses being identified at that stage. Mr. Guthrie replied

that they had a Map which showed licensed material sites (See Map submitted on Day 4)

and local borrow pits that were outside of the CPO line would require to get planning

permission if the Contractor wished to use these. Asked if the planning application would

have to be advertised and if people could object, Mr. Guthrie said the normal planning

process would apply. Asked if these borrow pits could affect their private wells, he said

the same situation applied there as for the earthworks excavations that he had dealt with

for her earlier and said that if the Contractor left a permanent hole in the ground there

elsewhere south of Ross Cross there could be traffic diverting down the Trevet road and

along the Bog road to get down the back way into Dunshaughlin to avoid tailbacks but

Mr. Guthrie replied that there would be temporary diversions around crossing sites on the

N3 and that he did not expect tailbacks to occur at these crossing sites during their

construction. Asked about the possibility of construction trafic for the realignment of the

Trevet road using their road, Mr. Guthrie said this would have to access the Trevet road

from the M3 site and that there would be no construction traffic along the Trevet road.

Ms Martin concluded by asking to whom could they complain if they had problems when

the M3 was being built and Mr. Guthrie said there would be an Engineer who would be

there as the liaison officer on the site who they should contact and that details of contact

Before commencing his cross-examination of Mr. Guthrie, Mr. O'Donnell advised the

Inspector that he represented a number of Clients, two of whom, Henshaws and Peters

were in the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section, in the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section there

were James Swan, Cathal McCarthy and Tara Stud, in the Navan By-pass Section there

were M/s Sherlock, Murray and Smith and Ms Newman Maguire in the Section North of

Kells and there was what he called Dalgan Park. He said that, with the exception of

Dalgan Park, most of his other Clients had specific issues to be dealt with and for some of

these he would only require to cross-examine specific witnesses and it was possible some

might be resolved shortly. He proposed therefore to start with the Dalgan Park objections,

which were broad, and for which he would be cross-examining most of the design team

and consultants and subsequent to the Dalgan Park evidence being heard, he would then

move on to his other Clients. The Inspector said he had no objection to the course he had

Mr. O'Donnell then clarified with Mr. Guthrie the areas he could deal with and asked him

about the consultation procedure followed about the route selection in relation to the

Dalgan Park Community from which it emerged that there was no specific consultation

with Dalgan Park during the public exhibition period or while the preferred route was

being selected, and Mr. Guthrie said there was no particular reason to consult with

Dalgan Park in preference to anyone else. Asked if there had been consultation after the

route was selected, Mr. Guthrie referred to a meeting he attended with representatives of

Dalgan Park where various changes to the alignment were discussed to try and mitigate

noise and visual impacts. Mr. O'Donnell then asked then asked a series of questions

which sought to establish the activities taking place in Dalgan Park with Mr. Guthrie

replying that the larger part of the lands were agricultural farmland; there was a

Conference Centre there where seminars were held and retreats for priests took place and

the grounds were open to the public as a recreational area. Mr. O'Donnell suggested to

Mr. Guthrie that there had been no discussion with Dalgan Park before the route was

selected and that he could not say what range of activities took place there and Mr.

Mr. O'Donnell then asked if he knew the range of organisations and occupiers of the

buildings in Dalgan Park and when Mr. Guthrie replied he did not, asked how he could

say in his Brief of Evidence that Dalgan Park was a key consideration in the selection of

the route when he did not know what went on there and could not then determine the

consideration since the EIS targeted Dalgan Park principally as an agricultural centre and

secondly as a community amenity and had addressed the issues in terms of amenity,

noise, landscape and visual impacts and with the agricultural impacts considered in the

agricultural section of the EIS. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that if there were significant

matters occurring within the complex of which they were not aware this undermined the

basis of their assessment but Mr. Guthrie did not accept that activities occurring within

the buildings were a function of the road and its impact and said they had assessed what

went on outside the buildings. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he was suggesting what occurred

within the buildings was immaterial to the road but Mr. Guthrie said they had taken

things like access into consideration but that was an external influence. He said the

relocation of the road from the east of the main buildings to the western extremities of the

property gave an overall improvement in terms on noise which was the main impact

affecting the main buildings. He accepted he did not know the specifics of what went on

within those buildings but maintained the positive impact from the relocation of traffic

Guthrie replied it would be closer than the existing N3, asked if he knew what activity

occurred in Dowdstown House. Mr. Guthrie said he understood it was an administration

community of nuns living in that House. Asked if the noise levels would increase as a

result of the new road being close to Dowdstown House, Mr. Guthrie accepted they

would but said they had mitigated for this by lowering the road through Dalgan Park and

in introducing a false cutting by providing extensive bunding to reduce the noise and

visual effects. He said that these were additional measures taken following their meeting

with representatives of Dalgan Park. Mr. O'Donnell then asked a series of questions

relating to the timing of this meeting being after the route had been selected, his apparent

lack of knowledge of the activities within the various buildings within the complex and

that they had ignored the sensitivity of these activities by locating a route through Dalgan

Park before discussing this with the community there. Mr. Guthrie responded by saying

the impact on the buildings was basically from landscape, visual and noise aspects and

that theses were external to the buildings and that they had mitigated for these impacts

Mr. O'Donnell suggested that by ignoring the internal uses they were saying the use was

not a relevant matter for consideration in the EIS. Mr. Guthrie did not agree this was the

case and said the buildings were fairly remote from both the existing and proposed roads.

properties along the route and when Mr. Guthrie said they had provided landscaping and

noise mitigation for Dalgan Park in the same way as was done for other properties, Mr.

O'Donnell then said that if they had been aware of the activities, and the sensitivities of

these, within the buildings they would have kept the road away from Dalgan Park, rather

than treating it no differently than for other properties. Mr. Guthrie disagreed that was the

case and a further discussion followed, which largely repeated the points previously

covered relating to the occupancy of the various buildings and noise impacts and with

community and recreational area and as a farm and they had assessed the impact on that

basis. The Inspector suggested that a view of the Dalgan Park area be put up on the

screen at the Hearing as a visual aid for those present and the buildings being discussed

were then pointed out in relation to the N3 and M3 by Mr. Guthrie, these being the main

buildings, the farm buildings, Dowdstown House and the Gate Lodge. In responses to a

question by Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Guthrie said the main bulidings where residents would

Dowdstown road and he said they had taken extra land there to create the false cutting to

reduce the noise and visual impact and outlined the extent of this on the map on the

screen at the Hearing. He said there had been a perceived visual impact on Dowdstown

House by the original proposal which was why the false cutting was developed and they

considered when this was landscaped there would be no visual impact by the M3 on the

buildings and pointed out that the main buildings were much closer to the N3 than they

would be to the M3 so noise would be reduced. Mr. O'Donnell said he would deal with

the noise impact with their expert later on and referred to an interchange being close to

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he accepted the lands were used extensively by the public and

that they were effectively laid out as a public park and Mr. Guthrie replied that from the

River Skane towards the N3 was generally open to the public with the rest of the land

tending to be farmland and he agreed there were no specific restrictions on where people

could go but indicated on the map on display where the designated walkways were and

said there was also a walkway along the River Boyne that went as far as the Bellinter

Bridge. Mr. O'Donnell asked who did a survey of these land uses and when told it was

Mr. Burns, the landscape architect, he said he would seek the dates of that survey from

( Note -- a map of the walkways and farm access roads, requested by the Inspector at a

later stage of the Hearing, was handed in by the Council on Day 28 and is listed in

Mr. O'Donnell then suggested that the paths gave it the characteristics of a public park

and Mr. Guthrie agreed and said the walks would be improved by the re-location of

traffic noise from the N3. Asked if they had regard in designing the scheme to this usage

by the public, Mr. Guthrie replied they had dealt with the area in terms of farmland when

the route was being selected initially, since that was the use essentially in the part of

Dalgan Park where the route, was but once the decision on the route had been made they

then looked at mitigation requirements in more detail. Mr. O'Donnell suggested he was

agricultural land. Following exchanges between Mr. Butler and Mr. O'Donnell, Mr.

impact considered but there were other impacts associated with the scheme and it was

those that were considered in terms of mitigation at the route option stage. Asked if

additional mitigation had been introduced in view of the public usage as a public park

and part of the overall complex of Dalgan Park, Mr. Guthrie said additional mitigation

had been put in place. Mr. O'Donnell again suggested they put the road through as it

being agricultural land and then decided to treat it as a public park but Mr. Guthrie said

that was not the case and said it was clear the route was some distance from the buildings.

When Mr. O'Donnell asked another question, the Inspector intervened and said that Mr.

Guthrie should be allowed to finish one question before he was asked another one and

following exchanges between the Inspector and Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Guthrie continued.

He said the buildings, car parking facilities, the general public congregation areas and the

start of the walks were all in one general area (near the Main buildings which are

accessed from the N3) and he outlined these on the map on display. He said that when the

route was being considered it was through farmland which was at the western side of

lands but they were aware of the use as a public park and that mitigation would be

required ultimately. He said that when the route was selected they considered it was far

enough away from the buildings and main public areas at the eastern side of Dalgan Park,

which is also on a flat-topped hill there with the M3 in a valley to the south, that no

mitigation was required. He said that it was almost impossible to see the Interchange and

route of the M3 as it passed to the south but when it crossed the Dowdstown road and

into the farmland part of Dalgan Park the route becomes visible from the main public

areas near the main building. He said that was the detail they looked at once the decision

Mr. O'Donnell said his last comment was critical as he said they looked at these things

when the route had been selected. Mr.Guthrie replied it was always the case that as the

design evolved the mitigation requirements came from looking at the detail and that you

could not look at the detail in general terms when you were examining a number of

options as that would become an impossibility. Mr. O'Donnell suggested they did not

consider the public nature of the lands at the stage the route was selected and when Mr.

Guthrie said that was not correct, he asked where in the EIS did it refer to this aspect

being considered. Mr. Guthrie pointed him to the noise, landscape and agricultural

sections but Mr. O'Donnell wanted the location where it addressed the public amenities in

Dalgan Park. Mr. Guthrie said it was considered in terms of landscape and, while it was

not described as a public amenity, the landscape and visual impact had been described for

Mr. O'Donnell then said there had been no references to the uses within the buildings, to

any of the activities or to the public nature of the lands and asked what about the private

nature of the lands in terms of their part of the overall use of facilities within the park.

Mr. Guthrie asked him to be more specific about what he was referring to and Mr.

O'Donnell said it was a pastoral centre, a retirement centre for the Columban Fathers, a

community of nuns lived there, the diocese used it, there were educational facilities there

and he said all of these were issues of the private nature of the use of the land, ancillary to

the particular activities, and should be considered in the EIS. Mr. Guthrie said they were

not considered as specific issues but were considered as part of the general impacts and

he repeated that the re-location of traffic from the N3 to the M3 would significantly

reduce the impact of noise generated by traffic on the existing N3 and would have a nett

benefit overall. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the eastern part of the lands, where the amenity,

ecological and environmental activities were located, would be the most severely affected

by noise and visual terms by the new road but Mr. Guthrie disagreed and pointed out that

the majority of the activities he had described were in the area where there would be a

reduction in noise by the re-location of traffic from the N3 and that the motorway was

remote from the majority of the public usage. Mr. O'Donnell said he had dealt with the

suggesting how the road was modified to meet these when he did not know what the

ancillary activities were. A further discussion on the nature of the activities in Dalgan

Park followed and Mr. Guthrie said he was not aware of the private and public activities

being significantly different. When Mr. O'Donnell was told there had not been a specific

survey of the activities within Dalgan Park to identify them, he suggested that was

shocking admission since Mr. Guthrie had referred to Dalgan Park as being significant

lands in his Brief of Evidence but could not say what went on there or the impacts. Mr.

Guthrie replied they had said that work generally went on within the campus and that

people used the walkways and sports facilities. Mr. O'Donnell said he would be making a

Mr. O'Donnell then asked what factors lead them to choose this route as opposed to any

of the other routes and if this route had any particular characteristics. Mr. Guthrie replied

it was a process of elimination, that the routes to the west of the N3 had slightly better

characteristics but as these routes went through the Tara zone of influence, they were

rejected on archaeological grounds which left them with groups that went east of the N3,

the blue and pink routes. He said the Blue route had a better traffic impact on County

roads as the Pink route would have required an Interchange remote from the N3 and in a

more rural location that would have increased traffic on County roads, such as the

Monktown and Collierstown roads, so that a route with the Interchange closer to the

existing N3 was a better option. Mr. O'Donnell asked if the reason the pink route, the

second best option, was not selected was just because of the distance from the N3. Mr.

Guthrie said the pink route was second best with the orange route and there was also the

impact on communities in the Skryne and Oberstown areas and that there was little to

Mr. O'Donnell asked if the impacts were weighted and Mr. Guthrie said they did not

apply weighting factors since it was very difficult to weight environmental factors such

as archaeology versus air or noise. Mr. O'Donnell suggested this meant they accorded the

same weight to a badger sett as opposed to a dwelling house but Mr. Guthrie did not

agree and said the significance that was considered in terms of the Pink and Blue routes

was the impact on communities around Oberstown and Skryne. Mr. O'Donnell suggested

the impact on the communities around Dalgan Park, including the Bellinter area, was

significant and Mr. Guthrie accepted that it was and said the number of properties

impacted both directly and indirectly, and their closeness to the route, in terms of noise

and air quality were the considerations for that comparison. He said that there was no

significant impact for air quality on the route in general so it would not have been a

Mr. O'Donnell then suggested that from the Hearing it appeared that a number of indices

indicated the Pink route was better than the Blue route it would be appropriate for the

Inspector to choose the Pink route rather than the Blue one and asked if he would agree

with this proposition. Mr. Guthrie said they had already selected a route but Mr.

O'Donnell said it was for An Bord Pleanala to decide whether or not to approve their

proposal, Mr. Guthrie agreed with this and Mr. O'Donnell repeated his proposition of the

Pink route being the better from the various indices such as archaeology and that the Pink

route would have to be chosen and asked Mr. Guthrie to agree with him. Mr. Guthrie said

this was a hypothetical question as he did not think there were sufficient grounds to select

the Pink over the Blue route and Mr. O'Donnell again repeated his proposition with Mr.

Guthrie responding as he had previously done. When Mr. O'Donnell said the Blue route

had been selected without they knowing what activities went on in Dalgan Park, Mr.

Butler intervened and said it was being repeated constantly by Mr. O'Donnell that Mr.

Guthrie did not know the activities when Mr. Guthrie had clearly set out what the

Inspector said he was allowing a certain amount of latitude to Mr. O'Donnell but he had

Mr. O'Donnell referred to the details of earthworks quantities in his Brief of Evidence

and to the details in Section 8.4 in Vol.4A of the EIS and asked if, with the benefit of

hindsight, he would have written these statements in the context of the statutory

obligations on what should be in an EIS and if they had dealt with the significant effects,

both direct and indirect, of the transportation of materials to and from the site. Mr.

Guthrie said this related to issues raised at the start of the Hearing and that all of the

engineers had dealt with that for the relevant sections. He said the 1.2M cubic metres of

imported material was spread out over the entire Section from Dunshaughlin to Navan

and that over an 18 month period this would equate to 270 lorry loads per day, which was

about 3 loads per kilometre every 2 hours based on a 15.5 km. length and an 12 hour day.

Asked if he would find these details in the EIS, Mr. Guthrie agreed that he would not.

Mr. O'Donnell said the Planning Officer had accepted planning permission would be

required and Mr. Guthrie said that it would and they had identified existing licensed

extraction sources and permitted waste tipping sites which could be used but for anything

outside of these the Contractor would have to make a new application. Mr. O'Donnell

suggested this was all speculation and Mr. Guthrie said the figures he had given were the

average spread out along the road since that was all they could assess at this stage. Mr.

O'Donnell said the Inspector could not identify the significant effects since there were

speculative elements involved and Mr. Guthrie replied that would be true when it was

unclear where the Contractor would acquire material from, but he might get it from

When Mr. O'Donnell said his Clients in Dalgan Park were being left to wonder how this

would work out in the course of the construction, the Inspector intervened and said that in

a previous cross-examination it was stated the entry points were identified in that only

specific access points were being given to the Contractor. Mr. Guthrie confirmed that was

the case and that the Contractor would be restricted to using the crossing of the N3 in this

section as well as the two local roads from Ross Cross and Garlow Cross which were

being considered. Mr. O'Donnell asked were these entry points identified in the EIS and

when he was told they were not, he suggested to the Inspector that An Bord could not

deal with this as if it was set in stone, since a planning application would have to be made

and An Bord would have to consider if it was an appropriate location. The Inspector said

he was not getting into a debate on this with Mr. O'Donnell but he had wanted to get

clarification on his recollection of what a previous discussion on these access points had

identified. He said while it did not necessarily take from the point Mr. O'Donnell had

been making, the Contractor was not going to have a carte blanche in deciding what way

he could approach the site since there would be restrictions on what roads could be used,

Mr. O'Donnell said he wanted to be clear and asked if these roads had been identified in

the EIS and when Mr. Guthrie said they had not, he said they were saying to An Bord that

certain roads were selected but these were not being revealed at this stage. Mr. Guthrie

disagreed with this and said the main access points would be from the N3 and that two

county roads were being considered but he had not said they were selected. Asked why

not, he replied that at the time the decision was made it was only the national road

crossing points that were to be used and they were now considering the possibility of the

other roads, but no decision had yet been made. Mr. O'Donnell suggested this was a

critical issue since An Bord had to consider the impacts of the traffic movements and

could not do so when the roads had not been identified. Mr. Guthrie said the impacts

were fairly minimal in terms of the movements spread out over the duration of the

Contract and length of site. A lenghty discussion then followed which involved the

calculations of truck movements, various possible options of one or multiple supply sites

being used, the contractors rationale for choosing a single or multiple sites, and whether

or not it was possible to have identified the effects of the truck movements in the Brief

for the Scheme or in the EIS. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there could be up to 500 truck

movements per day using a particular County road and passing someone's house to get to

a National road, and that they should have identified the source or sources for the

material and specified in the contract that those must be used, and the effects could then

have been assessed in the EIS. Mr. Guthrie suggested it was very unlikely a single source

would be used, that the entry points would be specified in the contract, that contractors

tended to source material on the basis of existing arrangements rather than using a

specified source, that their Brief did not include a requirement to identify supply sources

Mr. O'Donnell said they had a statutory duty to identify the significant impacts in the EIS

and the effets of these truck movements had not been identified. Mr. Guthrie accepted

they had not been identified but maintained that when it was broken down into an hourly

flow it was not a significant impact and that they had said that in terms of construction

impacts in the EIS and had also indicated in the EIS the difficulty in being more precise.

When Mr. O'Donnell again said they had not attempted to quantify truck movements, nor

where these would come from or go to and that his expert, Mr. Bergin, would say these

were significant, the Inspector intervened and said that Mr. Guthrie had earlier indicated

that off-site selection was not included in his Brief as the Engineer, that he had accepted

it was possible to do this, that he (Mr. O'Donnell) would be presenting evidence and

Mr. O'Donnell concluded by saying that Mr. Bergin was asking if the 18 month period

for the earthworks would be a single continuous operation and Mr. Guthrie said it was

likely to be a continuous process. He said Mr. Bergin had reminded him that it would be

necessary to dispose of 490000 cu. metres off-site as well but he presumed similar

difficulties arose there in terms of vehicle movements. Mr. Guthrie confirmed the same

situation applied as for the imports regarding truck movements. Mr. O'Donnell said he

would deal with the remainder by a submission and that he had no further questions for

Mr. Guthrie. The Inspector asked Mr. Guthrie if the 18 month period he had referred to

was related to the Dunshaughlin to Navan section only or to the overall scheme and Mr.

Mr. Sweetman asked what was the meaning of "significant" which he had used several

times in his answers to Mr. O'Donnell and Mr.Guthrie replied that he considered this to

be a subjective statement, saying he would not consider 3 truck movements per hoiur as

significant when compared to the total trafic movements per hour on the existing road.

Mr. Sweetman then asked where these 3 lorries were going to be and when Mr. Guthrie

said that was an average across the route since they could not identify where the material

sites were, so they gave an average, Mr. Sweetman suggested this was saying he had

decided the average impact over a vast area of Meath would not be significant. Mr.

Guthrie agreed and said they had identified the likely construction impacts under the

Mr. Sweetman asked what were the construction impacts on the elderly woman who lived

in the Gate Lodge at Dalgan Park and where were they in the EIS. Mr. Guthrie said these

were noise, dust and air quality from construction plant on the site. Asked if there was

access to the motorway at that point, Mr. Guthrie said there was no access to the

motorway at that point and said this road was one of those they were considering but no

decision had been taken yet. Mr. Sweetman then said he had there was no access and now

was saying there could be and suggested he could not assess the impact in that situation.

When Mr. Guthrie referred to the choice of construction plant being a matter for the

Contractor, Mr. Sweetman asked how many crossings were on the N3 and was told two

on the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and he asked where was the design for these

access points. Mr. Guthrie replied there was no design as such since the Contractor would

Inspector to evaluate if a traffic hazard existed at these points. When Mr. Guthrie said

these were matters for the Contractor, Mr. Sweetman said that all likely significant

Mr. Sweetman asked who was the Contractor and when Mr. Guthrie said he had not yet

been selected, he asked who would employ this Contractor and when told it would be the

Council, Mr. Sweetman said this was all meaningless since neither he nor the Contractor

would be employed by the Council and everything was going to be in the contract. Mr.

Guthrie outlined the relationship between the Council, NRA and the Consultants and a

discussion followed on these with Mr. Sweetman saying the application for certification

of the EIS to An Bord was flawed. He said any planning application must state the owner

or applicant and as it was made by the Council where the developer was the NRA and the

Council were neither the developer, the road builder and were not signing the Contract it

The Inspector intervened and said that, while appreciating Mr. Sweetman was not present

at the time, this point had been raised previously and Mr. Butler made it quite clear the

application was made by Meath County Council and that it was the Council who were

promoting the proposal that was before An Bord. He said the matter of the awarding of a

contract was not something An Bord would be ruling on. Mr. Sweetman said that any

reference to mitigation measures being included in the Contract were without foundation

when An Bord would not be ruling on it and they should be struck from the record. The

Inspector said that any modifications attached to a decision of An Bord were part of their

Order and had to be complied with but Mr. Sweetman disagreed and said he was asking

further investigations which An Bord, if they certified the EIS, were likely to attach since

the archaeological information was totally inadequate. Mr. Guthrie said any conditions

would be included in either the main or subsidiary contracts for whatever was instructed.

Mr. Sweetman said he did not want to hear the word "contract" as he was talking about

the certification of the EIS and his Clients were only interested in the EIS and the

contract had no part in that and no right to answer to it. Mr. Guthrie said he doubted if he

could avoid using the term since any finding by An Bord would be incorporated into a

contract to ensure the contractor carried out the works or into the design so the employers

requirements were met. Asked who would be doing this, he replied they were acting as

the Council's agents and Mr. Sweetman said this was the enforcer being the regulatory

authority as well. Mr. Guthrie explained how the documents would lead to a tender and to

a contract for the construction and Mr. Sweetman asked if he was aware of the Kildare

By-pass and the problems there but Mr. Guthrie said he had no knowledge of these.

conditions on the contractor who was also the developer, Mr. O'Donnell intervened and

suggested this was a matter which he and Mr. Butler might take up by way of submission

and the Inspector said he agreed the line of questioning being pursued would be better

Mr. Sweetman then asked for a copy of the Consultant's Brief for the route and if it was

in the EIS. Mr. Guthrie said it was not in the EIS, nor was it to hand, but they had been

asked to prepare an EIS for the EPR arising from the various 5 sections that comprised

the current proposals. Mr. Sweetman asked if the EIS was to be carried out under any

legal or specific regulations and when Mr. Guthrie said it was taken as read that it had to

comply with legal requirements, Mr. Sweetman said the applicant for consent, as they did

not know who the developer was, was an animation of the State so the direct terms of the

Directive applied and asked what the Directive required An Bord to do when it a carried

out an Environmental Assessment. Mr. Guthrie said he could not say. Mr. Sweetman then

asked a series of questions on what should be in an EIS and on the extent of significant

effects covered in the EIS before the Hearing and whether there were going to be other

planning applications made to extract earth on the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section. Mr.

Guthrie said if that was outside the CPO the Contractor would have to make a planning

application and Mr. Sweetman suggested that application would require an EIS of itself

and that was a significant effect. The Inspector intervened and said this was ground that

had already been covered, Mr. Sweetman said it had not because the Inspector had not

taken in what Mr. O'Donnell was saying and the Inspector said he would get his point

across better with a submission than by questioning the witness. Mr. Sweetman said the

witness did not know, therefore it had not been assessed and it could not be assessed by

Mr. Sweetman, after some initial queries, then asked who did the section on interactions

in the EIS. Mr. Guthrie said this information was in Volume 2 of the EIS and that Ms

Dempsey carried out this in conjunction with the Section co-ordinators. When Mr.

interactions, the Inspector said Ms Dempsey had already been cross-examined on the

overall section. Mr. Sweetman said he was not able to attend for that, the Inspector

replied she had been cross-examined by a number of people and that he had not been

given any indication from Mr. Sweetman of he having a problem attending then, Mr.

Inspector said the Hearing had been sitting for over 13 days at this stage. Mr. Sweetman

then asked Mr. Guthrie how did Ms Dempsey assess the interaction of the earthworks on

the elderly lady in the Gate Lodge but the Inspector said he could not ask Mr. Guthrie

intervened on Mr. Sweetman's behalf but the Inspector said the point being made was not

being advanced by asking one person how someone else assessed it and that Ms Dempsey

project team that was not available in the EIS or to the Hearing, Mr Guthrie replied that

the information was in their previous reports, the constraints reports and the route

information was available to the project team that had not been made available to the

public. Mr. Butler intervened and said that all of the information on the project had been

made available and Mr. Swetman said it was nice to have the undertaking from the

Council that all information available to them was available and he asked if there were no

suppressed documents as had happened in the Dublin Ring Road. Mr. Butler objected to

this suggestion and exchanges followed between them, Mr. Butler saying all their

documents were in the public domain and Mr. Sweetman saying he was taking this as an

Mr. Sweetman referred to the noise issue and the re-location of the N3 and suggested that

as the N3 was not being closed there would still be as much noise from the N3 at Dalgan

Park in 10 years time as there was now and that it was a new noise system they were

putting in, and not a re-location of the noise. Mr. Guthrie replied that the majority of

traffic would transfer to the motorway but that traffic on the N3 would still continue and

grow but at a lessor rate. He said that if the motorway did not go ahead, the noise levels

from the N3 in Dalgan Park would be much greater so they were alleviating the noise by

transferring traffic to the M3. Asked who made the decision to locate thevroute between

Tara and Skryne, Mr. Guthrie said it was, in effect, his decision when the route options

were considered. Asked if he had the full archaeological information available when the

decision was made, Mr. Guthrie referred to the Valerie Keeley desktop study which was

study was available, the Inspector said this had been the subject of cross-examination

previously and copies of it were made available and Mr. O'Donnell said this could be

Mr. Sweetman concluded by suggesting that this was an application to build a road from

A to B with the final details to be worked out later, that it would be subject to further

planning permissions, investigations and various other things and that it was a concept

which the contracts would finalise. Mr. Guthrie said that the contract always finalised the

details and that the process they were going through transferred that concept into a

Mr. Butler asked Mr. Guthrie if he was satisfied the Blue Route was the preferable route,

based on all of the criteria and balancing them out in the route selection process, which

he did. Mr. Sweetman then objected to that question saying it directly contradicted the

evidence Mr. Guthrie had given earlier. The Inspector told him to stop interrupting and

that he could make a point later if he wished and that if it did contradict his evidence, the

Mr. Butler asked if Mr. Guthrie was satisfied that his assessment of the truck movements,

based on the tonnages, was that it would not have a significant effect and Mr. Guthrie

earthworks materials over the whole length of the site. Mr. Butler then said that Mr.

O'Donnell had put it to him and that he had agreed it was possible, in theory and in

certain circumstances, to insert a clause in a contract imposing a condition obliging a

contrasctor to draw material from a particular site and asked him to outline the

circumstances in this instance why that was not possible to do this. Mr. Guthrie replied

that it would be possible to do this by the use of "nominated sites" within the Contract but

that there would be constraints in doing this from the longevity ( reserve capacity) of any

existing sites and by the unknown location at this stage of any future sites. He said there

was a further constraint as the PPP Contract would have a style that gave almost a free

hand to the Contractor as to how he went about constructing the works and where he

located the materials which made the choice of materials sites and their location to be

part of the commercial decision in the Contract. He said that any material sites which

were located would be subject to the usual planning permissions and any sites where

unsuitable material would be disposed of would have to be licensed for that. Asked by

Mr. Butler, Mr. Guthrie confirmed that all of these issues had been identified in the EIS.

Mr. Sweetman asked where in the EIS were the specifics of those issues identified and

Mr. Guthrie said the specifics had not been identified but the general approach had been

identified, and that he had earlier explained it was difficult to be specific when the source

to be used was not known. He said they had identified in the EIS the general impacts and

the overall conditions that would affect the construction impacts and that it was for those

impacts they had identified mitigation. Mr. Sweetman said he was now saying they had

identified them when he had previously said they had not identified them. Mr. Guthrie

replied he was asked if he had identified specific issues and he was saying no, that they

had not, but that they had identified general issues, for example, noise. He said that in the

noise section limits were imposed on construction noise and on the working hours that

Contractor apply to for those permissions and when told it would be to Meath County

Council, he said that it was farcical that he applied to the developer to go outside the

terms of the EIS which was supposed to show all the likely significant effects and that

then he applied to the Council who were promoting the development. Mr. Guthrie replied

that was the legal process and Mr. Sweetman said it was not the legal process, that the

legal process was that the EIS shall identify all of the likely significant effects of the

The Inspector said he wanted to get clarification on the issue of designated access points

again and said he had assumed the N3 access points were at Blundellstowm and at the

Dunshaughlin end and there was also the access from Ross Cross which had previously

been discussed ( See Section 50.2/3 of this Report). He asked what was the position about

the Dowdstown Road from Garlow Cross and Mr. Guthrie said this was being considered

and would involve the Dowdstown Road along the south side of Dalgan Park as far as the

The Inspector said he had given a time frame of 12 months as being the likely duration of

the Ardsallagh Bridge construction period and that there were a number of these off-line

overbridges throughout the Scheme where there were houses adjacent to the construction

site. He asked that they make an assessment of what would be a reasonable shortest

timescale for an experienced contractor to substantially complete the construction work.

He said he had in mind the need to limit local disruption and was inquiring if this could

The Inspector said he wanted them to take the long-sections for the various local road

realignments where these overbridges took the side road over the mainline and, where it

was appropriate, he wanted the house profiles plotted against these long-sections to give a

pictorial representation of what was the "straight across" view from each house of the

overbridge approach road, opposite that house, and this was to be done for all of the

Sections from Clonee to North of Kells. He told Mr. Guthrie that these details were not

(Note -- This information was handed in separately by each of the three Consultants and

50. 14. Cross-examined by Alan Park on behalf of Bellinter Residents Association :

Mr. Park said the Bellinter Residents Association (BRA) were concerned that six out of

working for Halcrow Barry and could have been constrained with a senior Halcrow Barry

person as the Project Manager and asked for his comments on this. Mr. Guthrie said that

the Halcrow Barry Group was very large organisation with over 3500 staff and huge

internal resources and that each assessment had been subject to scrutiny all the way

through. He said thought they had demonstrated the conclusions in the EIS were sound

and said that in the three areas where they did not have the expertise -- archaeology,

landsacpe and flora and fauna they had employed external consultants. Mr. Park said he

was concerned that Mr. Summers, their noise expert, had not visited Ireland until August

2002 and he found it unacceptable that a consultant appointed to do work made his first

visit to the site months after he had completed his reoprt. Mr. Guthrie replied that the

noise assessment report was based on a computer generated noise model and this did not

depend on Mr. Summers having visited the site beforehand and he said that all of the

working in Ireland. Mr. Park said he disagreed with Mr.Guthrie on this point and said that

if he employed an architect to design and build a house, he would be disappointed if he

did not turn up to look at the house until after it was built. Mr. Guthrie replied that he

accepted the point he was making but said this was only a computer prediction and the

motorway was not built yet and the calculations were made by the computer analysis. Mr.

Mr. Park then asked why he had not referred to archaeology as being a key factor in his

Brief of Evidence when referring to the Collierstown to Blundellstown section when he

had included this as a key factor in the Roestown to Collierstown section and when Mr.

Guthrie replied that there were no known archaeological sites within the Collierstown to

Blundellstown area that would have effected the route, Mr. Park said this had been

referred to in several reports as an area of huge significance and they wondered why he

had not mentioned it. Mr. Guthrie accepted it was an area of significance but said a lot of

archaeology was not visible and that they had avoided the effect on Lismullin and its

surrounding sites but said these were known sites which had an effect on the route.

Mr.Park said the sites at Garretstown were also known and he had mentioned those and

Mr. Park asked how the railway line was going to cross the motorway at Cannistown and

when Mr. Guthrie replied that it would be on an embankment to cross over the motorway

there and that the side road realignment at Cannistown had also been designed to be

crossed by the railway, Mr. Park suggested this embankment would be 8 metres high and

Mr. Guthrie agreed it would be about that at the actual crossing and then tapering back to

ground level at a gradual angle. Mr. Park asked how the railway would cross the Kilcarn

Link road but Mr. Guthrie said that was in the Navan By-pass Section and he was not

familiar with the details there. When Mr. Park suggested that crossing would have a

bearing on the crossing at Ardsallagh, Mr. Guthrie said it would and while both were

integrated he was unaware of the precise details, but said he could find it out for Mr.

Park. Mr. Park referred to meetings that took place with Iarnrod Eireann on 10 and 29

August 2000 where Iarnrod Eireann required that the dismantled railway corridors be

preserved both horizontally and vertically and said this meant the horizontal corridor had

not been preserved since Mr.Guthrie was saying now that the railway would go over the

motorway on a bridge that Iarnrod Eireann would have to build themselves and asked

why he could not say how this would cross the Kilcarn Link road. Mr. Guthrie said this

was at the interface between the two consultants and the design was split between them.

Mr. Park said he was the Project Manager and was drawing all the strings together but

Mr. Guthrie said that while he was familiar, he did not have all of the detail, and he said

they had preserved the existing corridor and had not done anything which prevented the

railway from being built along, or at least contiguous to, the existing dismantled corridor.

Mr. Park agreed but said that, if an embankment was being put there, where was there

space for the width of the footing for this which he suggested could be on top of the

houses along the road. Mr. Guthrie said that this would only be if the same centre lines

were used but that Iarnrod Eireann were looking at moving the railline slightly and he

said that it was really a matter for Iarnrod Eireann and that they had accepted the proposal

the consultants had made. When Mr. Park said the conditions in the August meetings had

not been fulfilled, Mr. Guthrie quoted from a further Iarnrod Eireann letter of 2 April

2001 in which it was confirmed that a consensus on the road scheme interface with the

railway had been reached and that Iarnrod Eireann would not be objecting to the scheme

Mr. Park asked if he knew why Iarnrod Eireann changed their conditions from the August

requirements but Mr. Guthrie said he could not speak for Iarnrod Eireann, a case had

been put on what was being provided in the location of the motorway and after discussing

this, Iarnrod Eireann said they were satisfied with the interface. Mr. Park said their

concern was to have the railway line to Dublin reinstated and they saw the solution of a

bridge over the motorway as an impediment as it would impose a major structural work

on Iarnrod Eireann as the motorway was cutting the railway and the solution was being

put back on Iarnrod Eireann. He said they had set out their conditions in August and

suddenly at one meeting everyone seemed to have changed their mind and the original

corridor was not now being preserved. When Mr. Guthrie said they had preserved the

original corridor and, while there were places where it passed between houses that might

pose a problem, Iarnrod Eireann were happy not to object to the scheme in principle, Mr.

Park suggested that the building of a bridge over the motorway would be a substantial

and costly impediment and Mr. Guthrie accepted it would be a problem, but maintained it

was not an insurmountable engineering problem and said that, if they had built the

motorway on an embankment to cross over the railway, this would have created a visual

intrusion which could be a worse solution. Mr. Park suggested the motorway gradients

could be made steeper than that for a railway, so the rail embankment would be longer

which could make the motorway impact the lessor and pointed to the Cannistown road

being on an embankment which could have been availed of. Mr. Guthrie accepted that a

two-level solution was a possibility but pointed out that the existing Cannistown road was

on an embankment to cross the existing railway line and that all they were doing was to

extend the existing embankment to provide for the realigned Cannistown road which was

Mr. Park said they had concerns about the borrow pits as they did not know where these

would be and, suggesting they could be at their back doors, he said the impact should

have been identified as part of the motorway impact. Mr. Guthrie said the requirement for

the borrow pits was the responsibility of the contractor and that they were only

identifying the lands within which the motorway was to be constructed and that if the

contractor wanted to extract material from borrow pits outside the line of the CPO, he

would probably have to get planning permission for this. Mr. Park said their concern

was trying to measure the impact of the scheme and that a borrow pit located near their

Mr.Guthrie replied that as had been earlier discussed, they could not identify at this stage

where these might be and that any borrow pits located outside of the CPO lands would be

subject to the normal statutory processes and said that it was because they did not know

Mr. Park asked if he was satisfied with the concept of interceptors as a means of

controlling effluent discharge from the motorway and said they were concerned about

pollution entering the Skane and Boyne rivers and felt interceptors did not work in heavy

rain. Mr. Guthrie explained that the process was a combination of french drains and

petrol and oil interceptors and that UK studies showed that french drains on their own

could remove up to 80% of oils, hydrocarbons and solids with the interceptors acting as a

last step. He said these interceptors were very effective during normal flows but accepted

there could be carryover efffects in storm flow situations but said there were large

dilutions in the water courses in a flood situation, which was the context in which to look

at that scenario. Mr. Park said there was no mention of french drains in the EIS, only

interceptors but Mr. Guthrie said these had been referred to in his own Brief of Evidence

where he had mentioned that cut-off filter drains would be provided and he confirmed

that it was normal practice for the drainage system to use a filter drain network before the

interceptors and that french drains would be provided in areas of cut and coming to both

Mr. Park then referred to the public consultation process and said that, at the first meeting

in the Ardboyne Hotel in December 1999, the public were shown "route" not "corridor"

options with the Brochure saying"route options from the consultation". Mr. Guthrie said

this had been previously discussed with Mr.Magee and the advertisement used refered to

a "corridor" selection and said that the staff there had made it quite clear that the lines

represented corridors not routes, and were flexible in concept. Mr. Park thought corridor

options were not presented and referred to the " Corridor Selection Report" of January

2002 as never having ben presented to the public. Mr. Guthrie said the corridor selection

process was at the first exhibition and explained how the Blue 2 route emerged as a

combination of two corridors when they moved on the next process as an example of how

the exhibition was about corridors. A discussion then followed on the sequence of the

reports leading to the route selection report and corridor selection report which was

similar to that in previous cross-examinations of Mr. Guthrie, particularly by Mr. Magee.

Mr. Guthrie explained that the "Corridor Selection Report" had followed from a meeting

of the Council and NRA when it was decided to have an overall or appraisal review of

the constraints for the scheme as a single scheme, whereas the initial constraints, from

which the route options had come, had been looked at on a section by section basis by

the individual consultants. Mr. Park suggested the executive summary of the January

2002 Report seemed to indicate that route alignments would be developed from the broad

corridors whereas they produced the Route Selection report before the Corridor report in

this case. Mr. Guthrie said that the main body of the report said the EPR would come

Mr. Park then referred to a document, SGNAVA/61.1, that analysed the questionaires

favoured by the public from that analysis. Mr. Guthrie said there was some weighting

applied to the results since they found some people voted for more than one route, with

four corridors between Tara and Skreen and one east of Skreen and one west of Tara and

that approximately 30% voted for east of Skreen, 30% for west of Tara and 40% for the

central corridors. Mr. Park suggested that from his own analysis of the returns, 70%

opposed the Blue D route which was the one they selected and was only more opposed by

people objecting to the Green route. Mr. Guthrie said he disputed those figures and said

that, with a slightly weighted figure to favour single routes from the split vote, he had

totheblue and pink routes. Mr. Park quoted votes as showing that Pink F and Blue E were

the most favoured by those how returned the questionaires but Mr.Guthrie said taking the

same figures he ended up with 56% favouring a blue or pink route and 44% favoutring a

grennor orange route. When further discussion on the figures continued, the Inspector

intervened and said both were saying the public broadly favoured the pink and blue

Mr. Park referred to the statement of the vertical alignment being altered through Dalgan

Park to reduce noise and visual impacts and asked if he considered that was adequate.

When Mr. Guthrie said the screening provided was adequate, Mr. Park then referred to

the Dowdstown road L-2201 being revised to reduce the impact on properties adjacent to

the road and suggested this was a preposterous statement in the context of those two

properties, one being Mrs. Bradley's who had made a submission to the Hearing ( See

Section 84.1.of this Report). He said the motorway was on an embankment immediately

to their southwest and the L-2201was also on embankment behind them, some 8 metres

high, so the road was level with their roof tops and he asked how this could reduce the

impact on their properties and said Dowdstown Lodge ( the gate lodge) was also affected.

Mr. Guthrie referred to a drawing of that area and said that at present the L-2201 passed

thefront entrances of these houses so that by removing that traffic there would be a

reduced traffic impact. He said the motorway was some 150 metres away from the houses

and the overbridge was about 200 metres away ( Note -- the motorway is about 75 metres

and the overbridge road about 100 metres from the nearest of the two houses at this

location) and that there were landscaping proposals which would act as a visual screen.

Mr.Park suggested people would be able to see into the back of their properties from the

embankment and there would be traffic noise from the motorway and that something

through behind Mrs. Bradley's house as far as the Overbridge, and this bund would be 3

metres high. Mr. Park asked if a cross-section showing this in relation to Mrs. Bradley's

house could be produced and Mr. Guthrie said he would arrange this ( Noter -- A copy of

this cross-section is included in the file of documents handed in by the Council on Day 28

and is listed in Appendix 4 of this Report). Following some further discussion on the

bunding Mr. Guthrie confirmed that the bunding ran on both sides of the road, 3 metres

high, from the Dowdstown bridge to the start of the Bellinter bridge, but did not cross the

Boyne river. Mr. Park suggested this bunding was not in the EIS but Mr.Guthrie said it

Mr. Park referred to Mr.Killen's evidence when he had described the visual impact at

VP1, VP27 and VP28 as severe while Table 4.2 in Vol. 2 of the EIS had said the Blue

Route 2 was moderately negative in the landscaping impact and asked why they had not

used Mr.Killen's opinion in the EIS. When Mr. Guthrie said they had relied on the advice

of the landscape architect, Mr. Park asked if he was saying Mr. Killeen was wrong and

Mr. Guthrie said it was a matter of interpretation. Mr. Park said severe meant severe and

that they had changed the values making Blue 2 more attractive than it was but Mr.

Guthrie would not accept this and said they had taken the advice of their landscape

architect. Mr. Park asked if he accepted Mr. Killeen had used "severe" and Mr.Guthrie

replied that he did but that the assessment had been made by their landscape architect and

he was not sure from where Mr. Killeen had taken his information. Mr. Park concluded

by saying he presumed Mr. Killeen's references to VP1, 27 & 28 were taken from the

Mr. Oakes asked why no baseline noise levels were taken from the Bellinter Road and

how then could the computer model be accurate in that situation. Mr. Guthrie explained

that the model was created from selected places that were representative of the area as a

whole and that te baseline monitoring was used as a comparison with the model output to

see how they compared and if there was good co-relation then future predictions could be

viewed with some confidence and he said it was not necessary, as he understood it, for

Mr. Oakes suggested there would not be sufficient time for a contractor to go through a

planning permission process for the borrow pits between the time the contract was let and

the start-up date and said the borrow pits should have been identified before the

contractor was appointed. Mr. Guthrie replied that there would be a period of about one

year from the time the PPP contractor was appointed until work actually started to allow

for the tender period itself and the design period, and said that this would give ample time

Mr.Magee referred to his cross-examination by Mr. O'Donnell and asked when did he

decide the residents were the primary reason for choosing the preferred route. Mr.

Guthrie said that it was part of the assessment process on the community impacts and Mr.

Magee said the BRA had been writing for over two years looking for the reasons for

choosing this route and this was never mentioned nor was it in minutes of meetings. Mr.

Guthrie said they were talking about community impacts in the impact of noise, air,

visual impacts on properties and that it was in this context of the community impact as a

whole being the deciding factor for the pink route that he had replied to Mr. O'Donnell.

Mr.Magee asked if he was still saying the effect on residents was a primary reason

through the whole process and when Mr. Guthrie replied that it was, Mr.Magee said he

disagreed with him as they had established from Ms Gowan that another route was more

viable, and that Mr. Nairn and Mr. Crawford also admitted another route was more viable

and he suggested they had gone through the Route Selection Report to find something to

justify their selection. Mr. Guthrie said that was not the case and that they had to take a

view of all of the impacts rather than just one or two individual elements. Mr. Magee

asked for proof of the residents being a major factor in the decision and Mr. Guthrie said

the proof was in the conclusions of the report since they had selected the blue route in

Mr. Magee then referred to the Assessment Matrix used on the routes and said the rating

for "occupiers" in this was given as very slightly positive for all routes and when Mr.

Guthrie said that Matrix had been prepared at an early stage in the process and used to

give a presentation to the Councillors and the full implications of the routes had not yet

been analysed at that time, with the final selection matrix being in the Route Selection

Mr.Guthrie said they had not but they were only presenting the implications then and that

when they started looking at how to get traffic on and off the route that they realised there

were larger implications in terms of the more remote routes. Mr.Magee asked if he had

gone back to the Council to give them further information on the residents and Mr.

Guthrie replied that the Council had a copy of the Route Selection Report where the Blue

2 was rated as neutral for community impacts and the pink route was rated as minimum

negative but he accepted there was a difference between the coloured matrix that

Mr.Magee showed and the matrix in the Route Selection Report. Mr. Magee said there

was no difference but Mr. Guthrie replied that there was a difference in the Community

Mr.Magee then referred to the remoteness reason and asked to have the various routes

shown on the screen at the Hearing. A discussion followed about the relative position of

the Pink and Blue routes and the positions of possible junctions in relation to the M3, N3

and Navan. Mr. Guthrie said they considered a split junction would be required using the

Moncton road and the Collierstown road with a Pink route to get local people on and off,

as well as one at the Blundellstown area. Mr. Magee questioned the need for three

junctions for Navan and suggested the Kilcarn interchange was too awkward for Navan

people to get to and they would use Blundellstown or preferably a nearer one on the N3

as there had been several fartalities on the Dunshaughlin to navan section of the N3. Mr.

Guthrie said Kilcarn was part of the Navan By-pass section and that the impacts of the

Interchange was moved to the north of Dalgan to be nearer to Navan, it would be much

Mr. Magee asked why the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section was to the east of the N3 when

all of the other sections were to the west of the N3 and Mr. Guthrie replied that the

archaeological implications of going to the west of the N3 with Tara there were too great.

Mr. Magee said he had questioned Ms Gowan on this and had established that if there

was archaeological potential on the green route (west of Tara), there was equally

potential for the Blue route going between Tara and Skreen.Mr. Guthrie said the Green

route was the basic corridor but it was a non-starter since it went through Tara's zone of

influence. Mr. Magee said that Blue route went through the 3km. zone as well but

Mr.Guthrie said the Blue route did not go through the Tara zone of influence according to

a plan they had which showed it skirting the zone of influence. Mr.Magee said that to a

lay person it did not make sense to cross over the N3 and then a short distancee further on

to cross back again. Mr. Guthrie said the reason they had to go east of the N3 was to miss

Tara and then they had to recross the N3 because the Navan By-pass was to the west of

Navan, saying that if the Navan By-pass had been to the east of Navan, they would not

have had to recross the N3. Mr. Magee questioned the cost of what he said was the extra

bridge crossing and, while he could not give a precise fogure, Mr. Guthrie accepted a

Mr. Magee asked who did the built heritage assessment in the route selection options

since Mr. O'Sullivan had not been involved and Mr. Guthrie said it was a Halcrow Barry

staff member who had since left the Company but that he would try to answer any query.

Mr. Magee referred to the report on the pink route which said they did not cross or come

close to any features or structures and suggested the pink route was better than the blue,

Mr. Guthrie replied that they were able to mitigate the impacts when passing by the

demesnes in the Blue route so it was not considereed as a significant impact in the overal

context and Mr. Magee said there were now four reports that the Pink ropute was the best

option. Mr.Guthrie said they were trying to reach a compromise since no one route was

beter than any other route in every respect. Mr. Magee disagreed and said that in most

categories discussed the Pink route came up as the best and that Blue route was not the

preferred option by the public from Alan Park's figures. Mr. Guthrie replied that while he

had heard Mr. Park's figures, he himself had presented figures from the same analysis

which suggested that a central corridor close to the N3 was the public's favoured option.

Mr. Magee suggested they had chosen the route and then tried to fit everything else into it

but Mr. Guthrie disagreed and said they had made a considered judgement of which was

the best option with the least overall impact. Mr. Magee repeated that the pink route came

community impact since the Pink route went very close to Oberstown and Skreen as well

as to Corballis. Mr. Magee said the Blue route was passing close to the community in

Ardsallagh and Bellinter where two houses were being demolished and that the EIS was

biased as it only gave information about the preferred route and no details about the other

routes. Mr. Guthrie replied that the Pink route affected more properties directly and

indirectly than the Blue route and said he stood over their decision that the Blue 2 route

The Inspector asked that copies of the minutes of meetings with Iarnrod Eireann that had

been referred to be handed in to the Hearing. ( Note-- These were then handed in by Ms

The Inspector asked if Mr. Park and Mr. Guthrie wished to submit their calculations on

the questionaires and Mr. Park said these were in their submission in tabular form which

they would be coming to later on. Mr. Magee handed in the matrix he referred to ( Note -

included in the file handed in on Day 28 and Mr. Magee's Matrix at Day 17 are all listed

Fr. Raleigh asked if the Inspector had considered further the submission made by

Mr.O'Donnell for an adjournment of the Hearing, as he had indicated he would do. The

Inspector replied that he had given his initial response on the previous occasion and had

considered it further over the weekend and that his considered response was still the

same, namely, that the Hearing would proceed and the matters would be dealt with in his

Ms Oakes asked if he accepted that his knowledge of the nature of the amenity and

facility that was Dalgan Park and Dowdstown was inadequate but Mr. Guthrie said he

would not accept that it was and said that they had fully assessed in the EIS their

understanding of Dagan Park and its amenity in terms of its community provisions and as

nature of Dalgan's work and the uniqueness of the amenity addressed and Mr. Guthrie

replied that there were over 20 references to Dalgan Park in various chapters in the EIS

and while accepting that the uniqueness might not have been identified in it, he said that

did not detract from the fact they had made a full assessment in terms of noise, landscape,

visual, agricultural etc. in the EIS. Ms Oakes asked what he had thought Dowdstown

House was used for and when Mr. Guthrie replied that he had thought it was used as an

administrative centre she asked if he now had a different impression and Mr. Guthrie said

he understood from Mr. O'Donell's cross-examination that nuns resided there and that this

did not affect the fact that they had assessed the building. He said the internal uses which

they had not been clear about, did not detract from the overall assessment of the noise

Ms Oakes asked if he accepted that what happened within the buildings was relevant in

terms of the noise impact and when Mr.Guthrie said that they were trying to assess the

impacts external to the buildings and that once they had assessed the outside, then the

inside was further reduced but Ms Oakes said they did not know the use and so could not

take that into consideration. She said that Mr. O'Donnell had spoken about bedrooms and

libraries which had different criteria for the courses and workshop retreats that took place

there and these would be affected by a major noise nuisance and a major visual impact on

the area. She said that if he had listened to the evidence from those who used the

building he would know tthat the grounds of Dowdstown were hugely relevant to what

went on in the House and she said that what happened indoors and outdoors were totally

contemporary retreat works or silent retreats as any building and that if it was affected

imposition of a motorway through their very special grounds. She asked if he still

accepted that his estimation of what happened at Dalgan and Dowdstown was adequate to

compile the EIS and assess the impacts on that work and when Mr. Guthrie replied that

that was till his contention, Ms Oakes said she found it extraordinary and incredible for

him to give such an answer, after all of the evidence they had heard of how little the

Mr. Carty asked if a Bat survey had been carried out on the Cannistown bridges as the

EIS said some buildings were not checked and Mr. Guthrie confirmed that there had been

an assessment of the bridges and said it was referred to on page 9 in Section 2.5.4 of Vol.

4C and also in Vol. 5A on page 98, as it was on the interface between both Sections and

had been looked at by both sub-consultants. Asked if owls had been checked for in the

area, Mr. Guthrie said he did not think they were surveyed and he said that owls were

fairly common throughout the country. Mr. Carty said they were a protected species and

it should have been in the EIS and Mr. Guthrie replied that he was not an expert in flora

and fauna but since there was nothing specific in the EIS he assumed there were no

special requirement other than that trees would not be removed during the nesting period.

Mr. Carty asked if the tree inventory for Cannistown was complete and when Mr. Guthrie

said it was, Mr. Carty said he had objected to the Council and got back a reply saying that

only blackthorn trees would be knocked but he considered that was incorrect as there

knocked to build it. Mr. Guthrie said there was a tree inventory in Vol. 4C which listed

all of the trees in the Section but he was not sure what was the context of the letter he had

referred to. Mr. Carty said the trees at the bridge site were not listed and they could not be

mitigated for as the Council did not know they were there in the first place and Mr.

Guthrie accepted that there was not a specific plan of the trees at Cannistown, but he said

Mr. Carty referred to the crossing through Ardsallagh woodland and said habitats were

being destroyed and asked if the bridge could be built in the open fields on the left (east

of the Ardsallagh road) rather than through the woodland. After he had indicated on the

map what he was suggesting, Mr.Guthrie said they had not considered that in detail but

he doubted if they would get a geometric curve going through the line Mr. Carty was

suggesting and that it would be a sub-standard alignment to take the road around the

back of houses and out again. Mr. Carty said it was only a slight bend to one side of the

Ardsallagh road but Mr. Guthrie said it would also cause major disturbance to the

Ardsallagh road while it was being built and he thought there would still be trees to be

taken out and he pointed out they were re-planting trees in their original proposal.

The Inspector asked Mr. Carty if it was the Ardsallagh Overbridge road he was talking

about and when he said it was, Mr. Guthrie said that the realignment of the Ardsallagh

road was to allow for an off-line construction to minimise local disturbance but that if

they moved it as Mr. Carty was suggesting they would have to provide alternative access.

Mr. Carty referred to it being un-necessary to destroy the woodland habitat and the

Inspector intervened and suggested that Mr. Guthrie might re-examine the possibility of

building the realignment online with the county road, with a temporary diversion being

provided which, he said, need not be to a geometric line and that this might minimise the

removal of trees. The Inspector said that as they were acquiring a house on the other side

of the road it was possible that the vertical alignment could be adjusted so as not to

impact on the other houses and said that, at first glance, it seemed they should be able to

work a solution and stay within the CPO line. ( Note -- Mr. Guthrie submitted a report

and drawing on this suggestion on Day 28 as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report.)

Mr. Carty then referred to the removal of part of the old railway embankment at the

Carnnistown road and said too much was being taken out and that it acted as a noise

barrier for the motorway as it stood since it was 4 to 5 metres high and overgrown. Mr.

Guthrie explained that they were only taking out where the road crossed and that a

separate short section would be removed to allow for the tee-junction with the realigned

and existing Cannistown roads. Mr. Carty asked why this tee-junction was necessary and

suggested the two roads could run into one another which would avoid the embankment

but Mr. Guthrie pointed out that they had to provide a minimum radius of curvature when

they realigned the road. Mr. Carty said he could not see why the roads could not be

merged into one another the same as they did now, but Mr. Guthrie said there were

certain mimimum standards that had to be complied with when a road was realigned and

they had to provide turning areas for the houses there as well. He said they had left as

Mr.Carty asked why a 68 dB noise limit was adopted and when Mr. Guthrie replied that

this was the level that was normally used in road schemes in Ireland, Mr. Carty said it

was the highest in Europe and that it would be a great annoyance for those near it and Mr.

Guthrie said they were providing mitigation for both noise and visual landscape screening

bu they could not remove it entirely. Mr. Carty said they were only doing the minimum

and asked, if there were guidelines for better noise levels in place when the road came to

be built, would these be implemented and Mr. Guthrie said they would be taken into

account. Mr. Carty asked if there would be any check made of the noise levels after the

road was opened but Mr. Guthrie said that noise monitoring was not included in the

afterwards. Mr. Carty suggested there should be more respect for the people on whom the

mitigation was minimal and he said there was a noise level of 63 dB predicted for his

back garden and he had a letter from the EPA which said that level caused people a lot of

stress. Mr. Guthrie said that they had followed the normal practice but that if they were

directed to use a different noise level they would adhere to that. Mr. Carty asked if the air

quality would be monitored after construction but he was told that, like the noise, there

were no plans in the contract for monitoring air quality on a longterm basis. Mr. Carty

commented that it was an act of vandalism to put a motorway through Dalgan Park, the

He asked if old the railway bridges at Cannistown would be preserved and he was told

that there were no plans to knock them and that the roads had been designed to stay away

from both bridges. Mr. Carty raised a concern about the new road levels interfering with

access to the GAA pitch through Cannistown No.2 bridge but Mr. Guthrie told him the

road realignment was designed to be at the same level as the existing road at that point so

there should be no effect on the GAA entrance and the old bridge would be left there.

Mr. Carty said that originally Iarnrod Eireann had no interest in the railway line and only

became involved after there had been a protest and said that nobody asked the residents

about this rail corridor and that the crossing would be a masive structure and an eyesore.

designed the motorway to make provision for the rail line at some future date and said

that the EIS only dealt with the motorway as it was not their brief to consider the impact

Cannistown because they thought the motorway would be better down in the cutting at

that point from a noise and visual point of view with a three tier crossing being better

for them. Mr. Guthrie said that noise mitigation was being provided and that Iarnrod

Eireann were happy with the arrangements now proposed. Mr. Carty suggested that a

railway line and ordinary by-passess of Dunshaughlin, Navan, Kells and Carnaross would

be cheaper than the M3 but Mr. Guthrie said that it would still be necessary to upgrade

the existing N3 to a dual carriageway or motorway as well, since the future traffic growth

predictions required that level of service at least between Navan and Dublin. Asked if

those predictions included for a railway being in place, Mr.Guthrie said the assessment

took all factors into account but was not certain if the railway being operational was in

The Inspector asked Mr. Carty to point out where his house was on the Cannistown road

and he showed it as the house next (south) to the one which had a stream beside it.

Mr. McGrath asked about the route selection process and the width of the corridor used

and Mr. Guthrie explained the sequence that lead to the blue corridor being selected and

said they initially worked on a corridor width of about 500 metres, assessed this and

selected the best alignment within that 500 metre corridor. Mr. McGrath then asked him

to describe the factors taken into account when the final route around Gerrardstown

House was selected. Mr. Guthrie said that effectively there were two lines being

considered in that area, the Blue line and the Pink line both crosing over the N3 at

Roestown and passing through Garretstown and separating through the Tara stud area to

go further on. He said the main constraints within that section were the adjacent

properties, which he pointed to on the map displayed on the screen at the Hearing, and

said that they were trying to equalise the environmental impact between all of these

properties and that when they picked the centreline which appeared to be approximately

Garretstown ( referred to as P9 in Figure 5.1.1 in Vol.5A of the EIS), they assessed the

impact as being of an equal nature since both had almost the same area of severed land.

He said that when they discussed the line with their Archaeologist she had advised that

they should stay away from those three features, as they might have archaeological

potential and were clearly landscape features, but he said their line was already to the east

of those features so that they were not an issue. Mr.McGrath suggested that this reflected

what he had said in his general evidence at the start of the Hearing of the impact on

landowners being a very important consideration and Mr. Guthrie said it was always an

important consideration but they did not rank different types of impact since it was

difficult to rank different types of environmental impact and gave as an example

Mr. McGrath asked him to explain the concept of putting the road equi-distant between

property owners and Mr. Guthrie said this was an attempt to establish the impact on

people's lives and where they lived rather than on the land itself. Mr. McGrath suggested

this was a case of "sharing the pain" and Mr. Guthrie agreed with this and Mr. McGrath

asked about the influence of Area 26 which, he understood, caused a further shift in the

alignment. Mr. Guthrie explained that when they had discussed the impact of the route

with Ms Gowan and the encroachment on Area 26, she had asked if it could be removed

from the site or the impact reduced and said that they had agreed the route could be

Gowan had been advocating for a move to avoid Area 26 entirely. Mr. Guthrie replied

that the geophysical survey had been done and that Ms Gowan had asked if it could be

moved from the main area to preserve the main aspects of the find and he said she was

satisfied that the 15 metres move allowed this. Mr. McGrath suggested that Route D was

about the same distance from Area 26 as was the EPR and Mr. Guthrie agreed that for the

bulk of the site both routes were probably equi-distant from the edge shown on the

significant background noise level from the existing N3 and that this would be higher

than it was at Gerrardstown House Stud and that it was not quite a matter of being equidistant

since background noise was higher in one. Mr. Guthrie said he accepted the point

he was making but that they were trying to improve the situation for the community as a

whole with general refief from visual, noise and other impacts. Mr. McGrath suggested

that another aspect of equalisation was in severance and when Mr. Guthrie said that was a

factor, he asked if they were aware when selecting theroute that Mr. O'Kane's holding

was non-residential. Mr. Guthrie replied that they did not know that at the time of the

initial selection but said that they had beome aware of this before the EPR was selected

and that while it was preferable to go through a non-residential holding, all things being

equal, he said there were also issues of severance to be factored into the selection.

Mr.McGrath then referred to the severance issue and suggested that while both area

appeared equal in area one was on a stud farm and the other on a non-residential

"ordinary" farm and that was not comparing like with like. Mr. Guthrie replied that they

were not aware of the different uses when their first assessment was made but that when

they did become aware of it and considered the matter they still felt the best line was

where it was located. Mr. McGrath put it to him that they had not adequately considered

the nature of his Client's holding as a stud farm as opposed to an agricultural farm which

Mr. O'Kane's property was but Mr.Guthrie said they had consulted with their Agricultural

Asked when was Mr. Osbourne consulted, Mr. Guthrie confirmed that he had not been

consulted until after the route had been selected and accepted that his advice could have

been obtained earlier, if they had sought it. Mr. McGrath said that Mr. Osbourne accepted

a stud farm could not be equated with an ordinary farm and that the EIS acknowledged

the impact on a land holding depended on the nature of the enterprise and Mr.Guthrie

accepted these points. Mr.McGrath said they had not shared the pain equally as they were

not comparing the background noise levels properly and did not compare the holdings on

a like for like basis. Mr. Guthrie said he heard what was being said but they had taken the

overall impact into consideration and that there were noise, visual and landscaping

impacts to be considered and their view was that what wasproposed was the best location.

Mr. McGrath suggested that all things being equal they should put the route where there

were least objections as opposed to where there were vigorous objections but Mr. Guthrie

objections were coming from. Mr.McGrath referred to the six landowners who were not

objecting to Route D and with Gerrardstown were objecting to Route A suggested that it

would be preferable to put it through lands where there were no objections but Mr.

Guthrie did not consider that could be answered without a full EIA of Route D since the

Mr. McGrath then referred to the impact of Route A on Gerrardstown Hose Stud and

asked if there would be blasting when the cutting was being excavated and Mr. Guhtire

said their site investigations indicated that rock could be excavated by ripping and that

they did not see a necessity for blasting but could not say this was a 100% certaintity.

Asked if ripping was noisy he said that it was and that it would be fairly constant over the

day but that there would be breaks during the day. Mr. McGrath said that such irregular

noise would have an impact on bloodstock but Mr. Guthrie said he could not comment on

that. Mr. McGrath asked if cost was a factor and when Mr.Guthrie explained about the

CBA undertaken, he asked what percentage did land costs make up in the overall. Mr.

Guthrie said it was about 25% and said that those costs were for the overall scheme and

only a small part was contributed by Gerrardstown Stud and that land acquisition costs

suggested that the variations as between compensation for the Stud and other lands were

not factored in. Mr.Keane intervened to say that was more appropriate to a compensation

discussion. The Inspector said Mr.McGrath was trying to establish that the cost would be

more in route A and Mr. Guthrie said he was not experienced in land prices and accepted

Mr. McGrath suggested that the only adjustment made to the route was a 15 metre shift to

the east to mitigate for Area 26 and when Mr. Guthrie said that was so, asked if he was

Mr.Guthrie said he was. A discussion followed about the various meetings in May 2001

and February 2002 between Gerrardstown representatives and the Council about these

alternatives and what consideration was given to them by the Consultants and the

Council. Mr. Guthrie confirmed that they had not specifically consulted Philip Farrelly,

alternatives and he maintained that they had sufficient advice from them previously to

enable a decision on the alternatives to be taken. Mr. Guthrie confirmed that Route B & C

had been rejected primarily on road engineering grounds and that Route D was rejected

Mr. McGrath suggested that he had earlier accepted that Route D was a viable alternative

while not as good as Route A and Mr. Guthrie said their brief was to produce a freeflowing

sections had similar standards applied but Mr. Guthrie said they were more sympathetic

with the general flow of the sections beside them and that Route D was probably the most

sinuous section on the entire 50 km motorway. Mr.McGrath asked if the noise at house

F2 (P9) could be mitigated but Mr.Guthrie said there would be visual impacts from the

bunding required to do this as compared to the impact from the EPR at that location since

Mr.McGrath then referred to the three features and suggested these were considered as a

difficulty as well since Route D went through them. When Mr. Guthrie said Option A

missed the three features but Option D went through the middle of them, Mr. McGrath

consulted their archaeologist and Mr. Guthrie said their archaeologist had previously

advised that they should avoid those features so they did not need to go back for advice.

Mr. McGrath suggested the scene had changed with the discovery of Area 26 which was

after their discussion with Margaret Gowan and that it would have been prudent to go

back for further advice but Mr. Guthrie maintained that they had a preferred alignment

with geophysics only carried out within the CPO boundary and those features were

outside the scope of the geophysical survey so no-one knew what might be under them.

Mr. McGrath said that a proposal had been put to them in February 2002 which they

faulted on archaeological grounds and yet they had not consulted their archaeologist at

all. Mr. Guthrie accepted they had not consulted but said he saw no reason why they

should have gone through those three features rather than Area 26 and said that it would

make more sense from a relocation viewpoint to move the route eastwards rather than to

A discussion followed about the garden features and Area 26 and the potential for impact

by Routes A & D on both of these with Mr. McGrath saying he was trying to understand

why their archaeologist had not been consulted about Route D. Mr. Guthrie replied that

their assessment of Route D was that it was not significantly different in terms of Area 26

to their route and that D affected the three features while A did not. Mr. McGrath said

that the EIS referred to them as being garden features that might have archaeological

importance and asked why they did no testing to establish if there was going to be an

archaeological impact. Mr. Guthrie replied that he thought the onus would have been on

Gerrardstown to show they were non-archaeological and Mr. McGrath pointed out they

were on Mr. O'Kane's land where only the Council would have statutory powers to enter

Mr. McGrath said he was putting it to him that they did not give Route D sufficient

serious consideration since they had not consulted their archaeologist and did not carry

out any testing on the features because if they had no archaeological significance the

difficulties with them evaporated. When Mr. Guthrie replied that to do all of that after the

meeting of February 2002 would have delayed the CPO, Mr. McGrath suggested that was

the real issue and that the reason they had not properly considered Route D was because

they did not want to delay the CPO publication date. Mr. Guthrie disputed that suggestion

and said he considered they had carried out sufficient assessment to show that Route D

was not a significantly better option than the one they were providing in the EPR there

and that, in general terms, the impact of D was worse than that of A. Mr.McGrath

concluded by suggesting that the assessment of Route D was made without they going to

Mr. Keane referred to the map shown in fugure 4.2.1A in Vol. 4A of the EIS and to the

elevation on the land shown as 125 metres OD and asked if the land as one went towards

the edge of the O'Kane and Gererardstown land was higher than that of the winter pasture

which was to the south and Mr. Guthrie confirmed that it was higher there. Mr. Keane

then referred to the 15 metre shift and asked if the arcghaeologist had asked for that. Mr.

Guthrie said they had been asked if the line could be moved for any of the identified

features and that when they went through the line they suggested the 15 metres eastward

movement and this was agreed on in a discussion as alleviating the problem. Mr. Keane

then asked him to give details of the noise asessment carried out on the property at P9/F2

for the Route D assessment. Mr. Guthrie said their assessment for the first floor noise

with the preferred route( Route A) was 66.2 decibels in 2024 while that for Route D was

70.6 decibels in 2024 and he said this would require a noise barrier since it was above the

Mr. Keane asked him to outline the route that Mr. O'Kane would have to follow if Route

D were adopted to get to his severed lands and Mr. Guthrie showed this on the maps but

he did not have a note of the actual distance. The Inspector asked if he would follow the

same route for the EPR and Mr. Guthrie confirmed that he would. The Inspector pointed

out that the house at P9/F2 was not a designated noise receiver in the EIS and Mr. Keane

Mr. O'Donnell said he represented both Mr. Swan senior and Mr.Swan junior and, as they

were the same family, that he would deal with their objections together. He asked

Mr.Guthrie if he was familiar with the existing Planning Permission which had to be

modified as part of the scheme ( Ref. 98/1340 and in Seventh Schedule, Part 2 ) and how

the scheme would affect that permission. Mr. Guthrie said that the permission was for a

two-storey house and a number of stables and a biocycle treatment plant and that it was

located in the corner of a field that the proposed motorway passed through. He said the

Council had discussions with Mr. Swan Jnr. about re-locating his proposed house and

stables to the back of his property and they were proposing to provide an accommodation

bridge crossing the motorway which would give access to Mr. Swan's property. Mr.

O'Donnell suggested that the planning permission was now useless by the motorway

cutting off the part of his field where the house was to be by built and that the Council

could not guarantee a grant of planning until the motorway scheme had been decided and

Mr. Guthrie accepted that was so but said the intent to grant was there since they were

providing an access for him. Mr. O'Donnell referred to the possibility of a third party

objection and also that the site behind (west of) the motorway would not be as attractive

as the site he had got permission for from the impacts identified in the EIS and Mr.

Mr. O'Donnell then referred to the sensitivity of horses to noise and road traffic and

suggested the site as a facility for stables and a house would be seriously undermined

even in the alternative location being suggested and Mr. Giuthrie accepted that was so.

When Mr. O'Donnell said the motorway severed 16 acres of land from the rest of the

holding and that this would be a major disruption to his horse business, Mr. Guthrie said

they had mitigated for the severance by providing the accommodation bridge for the

property, but he accepted there would be some extra inconvenience because of additional

suggested the impact on the Swan's farm would be very severe, Mr. Guthrie said he

accepted there would be an impact but he could not comment as to the degree of severity

Mr. Keane intervened and asked Mr. Guthrie to identify which plots were owned by each

party and when Mr. Guthrie said that plot 1062 was owned by James Swan senior and

plot 1063 was owned by James J. Swan junior, asked if they were presently divided by

the Trevet Road and Mr. Guthrie confirmed that. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he was aware

that both plots were farmed as one unit and Mr. Guthrie said that James Swan junior had

told him they farmed the lands as one unit. Mr. O'Donnell asked if the Trevet Road was a

minor road and only about three metres wide and when Mr. Guthrie confirmed that was

so, Mr. O'Donnell commented that two cars could not pass on that road which indicated

Mr. O'Donnell then referred to Tara Stud, owned by the Limestone Land Co. Ltd. and

asked how much land was being taken for the motorway. Mr. Guthrie replied that about

32 hectares were being acquired in total which was about 11% of the Stud's holding,

with about half being for the motorway and the other half for Mr. Swan's accommodation

O'Donnell suggested that there was more land being taken as they considered there was

about 45 hectares involved in the CPO and Mr.Guthrie said they would re-check the

Mr.O'Donnell asked if the motorway would be in cut or on fill and Mr. Guthrie explained

that it followed the contours of the ground and that the Tara Stud was located generally

on a sort of plateau which then fell down towards a stream that ran along the bottom of

the property and, with the road located on the downslope, part was in cut on the west side

and part was on filling on the east side. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that there would be a

need for filling to be imported and that there were major structures to be built for the

Swan's access but Mr. Guthrie said that it might not be necessary to import fill since there

might be sufficient from the cutting and that the bridges to be constructed were standard

construction activity on the Tara Stud property. Asked how long the construction work

would take within the Stud property, Mr. Guthrie said it was difficult to put an exact

figure on this since the construction involved a series of operations but he felt it would be

about 2 years. When Mr. O'Donnell suggested that was being optimistic, Mr. Guthrie did

not agree with him saying it was a relatively short part of the Dunshaughlin to Navan

section of 15.5 kms., but Mr. O'Donnell suggested the construction work would involve

considerable noise, dust and general interference for an extended period and Mr. Guthrie

Mr. O'Donnell then said that horses, particularly thoroughbreds, were very sensitive to

the sudden types of noise such as those coming from jackhammers, lorry brakes, tipping

of materials and the like and that there would be sudden bursts of noise having a tonal

content. Mr. Guthrie replied that he heard what was being said but would not like to

comment on the effect on thoroughbred horses but said they had mitigation measures

within the contract to deal with nuisances from dust and noise. Mr. O' Donnell suggested

considerable importance and Mr. Guthrie agreed the mitigation measures were not site

specific but said there were general principles laid down which would apply to the stud

during the construction. Mr. O'Donnell said that what might be suitable for docile

Charolais cattle would not be adequate for thoroughbred racehorses but Mr. Guthrie said

Mr. O'Donnell suggested the motorway would have a very significant visual impact on

the Tara Stud when it was constructed with overbridges and the road where there were

only fields at present. Mr. Guthrie outlined the landtake in the CPO specifically to

provide for landscape screening all the way through the stud and said they had met with

Mr. Iceton of Tara Stud to discus the relocation of the original line to move it further

away from the main stud properties and said that the line now was off the top of the

plateau and below the brow of the hill to try and mitigate the visual impact. He said the

road would not now be seen from the main properties and that while the landscaping

mitigation proposals would not make it invisible, he felt the impact would not be

significant. Mr. O'Donnell acknowledged the line of the road had been moved but said it

would take 15 years for the landscaping to come to fruition and that the road would be

very visible for that period. Mr. Guthrie said it would be below the brow of the hill and

the eyeline but Mr. O'Donnell suggested the road would still be visible as people walked

around the 600 acre farm, which he said was a beautiful pasture land of the sort that

people wrote music about. Mr. Guthrie accepted that the road would be seen from certain

parts of the farm but maintained the landscaping would create a new line on the horizon.

Mr. O'Donnell suggested that the noise from the road would be very noticeable and that

this would be a major impact in what was a rural tranquill area at present. Mr. Guthrie

accepted there would be a noise level from the road and Mr. O'Donnell suggested that

they had encircled Tara Stud with a motorway on one side and the existing N3 which he

said would still be carrying significant traffic from people avoiding the tolls on the M3.

Mr. Guthrie pointed out that the toll plazas were at the other ends of the scheme and that

without paying tolls at all and said that there would be a reduction in traffic to between

10 and 15% of the present levels on the N3. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that the entire

surroundings were quiet and peaceful for horses to be raised but once the motorway was

in place there would be noise and general activities associated with it that would disrupt

that quietness. Mr. Guthrie said he would not comment on the operation of the farm but

that there would be a reduction in noise at the boundary with the N3 with the transfer of

Mr. O'Donnell then asked what provisions had been made to drain the lands so they

would not be impacted by the scheme. Mr. Guthrie said that any of the existing field

drains which were cut during construction would be reconnected into the motorway

drainage system and when Mr. O'Donnell asked to see the drawings showing how this

would be done, Mr. Guthrie replied that there was no drawing of that detail. Mr.

O'Donnell said that the EIS was there for that detail to be shown to the landowner but Mr.

Guthrie replied that the EIS showed the overall drainage scheme which indicated how

water could be collected from the motorway and fed into the local water courses and they

had given details of the culvert sizes to do this. He said they did not prepare a detailed

drawing of the sort Mr. O'Donnell was seeking since that was a detail issue that the

contractor would pick up during the course of his construction operations. Mr. O'Donnell

then asked if there would be drains on either side of the road that his Client's drains, both

over and underground, would feed into and Mr. Guthrie explained that they had identified

the existing drains and watercourses but had not picked up any underground drains that

Asked what assurances would be given that no ponding or obstruction of drainage would

occur from the construction work and how these would be dealt with, Mr. Guthrie said

that it would not be in the contractor's interest to allow ponding since that would affect

the road foundations and said the design catered for storm periods and all of that would

fall into the drainage network and that it was the contractor's responsibility to deal with

any difficultiesthat might occur. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that his Client would have 3.3

kms. of motorway and another 1 km. of secondary roads crossing his property where the

natural drainage would be bisected by these roads and that all they were saying to him

was (1) the design was not complete (2) there was additional survey work to be done and

(3) if there was a difficulty it was a matter for the contractor and not the Council. Mr.

Guthrie replied that it was the contractor who would operate the scheme as a PPP and that

in a case where a difficulty could not be rersolved with the contractor as the operaor of

responsibility. When Mr. O'Donnell said that could not arise since the contractor would

own the land and would operate the scheme, Mr. Guthrie said the contractor would not

own the land and would only have a licence to operate and maintain the road and that the

Mr. O'Donnell referred to what he said was a disparity between what was in the CPO and

what Tara Stud owned and asked how were the Stud gain access to their land on the

eastern side of the road and when this was explained by Mr. Guthrie as involving the use

of an access track coming off the Collierstown Overbridge realignment,then back to Ross

Cross and along the existing N3 to their present entrance, he suggested the length

involved would render those severed lands useless to the Stud but Mr. Guthrie said that

was a matter of opinion. asked how wide was the track, Mr. guthrie said it was 4 metres

wide with a 1 metre verge on either side and was uintended as a gravel surfaced road.

When Mr. O'Donnell said the land for this access was not on his CPO maps, Mr. Keane

intervened and said it was being acquired from a different owner ( Plot 1066a.202) and

that was why it was not on the CPO maps sent to his Client. A discussion followed about

the maintenance status of this access track with Mr. Keane clarifying that it would remain

in the ownership of the Council as a private road from the edge of the Collierstown Road

as far as Tara Stud's land ( circa 200 metres) unless Tara Stud agreed to accept

Mr. O'Donnell then said the map was incorrect since his Client owned additional land

that was not shown and said this was covered by trees at present and referred to plot

1064c.203 saying the red line should extend to the townland boundary. Mr. Guthrie said

that land shown as Tara Stud land had been taken from the folios from the Land Registry

and Mr. O'Donnell said that land where the trees were was part of his Clients farm as

well. Mr. Keane then asked if Mr. O'Donnell could advise if there was a different folio

intervened and said that having examined the map this was not a matter that affected the

CPO as such since the lands being referred to were clearly well away from the CPO'd

lands ( Note -- These are shown as being under trees approx. opposite chn. 25450 to

25750 on drawing 4B/3.4and can be seen on drawing 4B/2.2 to the east of the road line).

He said that it was a matter for resolution on the compensation terms between the

Council and Tara Stud if An Bord approved the Motorway Order, but it did not require a

modification to the Schedule to the proposed Order. Mr. Keane agreed with this and Mr.

Mr. O'Donnell concluded his cross-examination of Mr. Guthrie by suggesting that there

difficulties for the stud farm operations and asked how far from the motorway would one

have to go to get back to the levels of noise that existed in pre-motorway uses but Mr.

Guthrie said he could not say as this was outside his expertise. Mr. O'Donnell then

suggested that the noise boundary would extend far beyond the boundaries of the land

being acquired and Mr. Guthrie accepted the noise profile would extend some distance

Mr. O'Donnell asked if what was proposed in the vicinity of Cathal McCarthy's property

could be outlined and Mr. Guthrie explained how the Blundellstown Interchange would

be constructed adjacent to Mr. McCarthy's property with a small part of this being

affected by the actual motorway. He said that during the construction of the Interchange

the existing N3 would be realigned almost on top of itself at a higher level with the

motorway going through the valley and the realigned N3 taken over the top of this. He

said that a temporary road would be provided around the Interchange site during its

construction for normal traffic to be maintained and that there were also access facilities

for Mr. McCarthy to both parts of his property. Mr. O'Donnell asked how high would the

Interchange be over the existing road and Mr. Guthrie said the motorway was at the level

O'Donnell suggested this would be the single biggest construction process along the full

extent of the motorway, Mr. Guthrie agreed. Asked how long the work would take, Mr.

significant adverse impacts on his Client's property during this construction period and

suggested it would not be possible for him to continue living there while that work was

going on. Mr. Guthrie accepted there would be disruption but said the house was some

200 to 300 metres away from the main works and said he would have thought one could

Mr. O'Donnell asked the distance from the existing N3 to the nearest corner of the house

and when told it was about 50 metres suggested there would be major works in that

location as well. Mr. Guthrie said the tie-back at that point was virtually at grade so the

work there would be mainly road surfacing and that it was about 100 metres to where the

major works would start. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the impact during construction would

be very severe even if they did not have to move out and Mr. Guthrie accepted that it

would be severe. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested there would be considerable levels of

noise from the traffic using the interchange since it was the main connection for Navan

but Mr. Guthrie pointed out there were two other interchanges for the Navan area and

interchange being in the vicinity of the McCarthy house there would be considerably

increased levels of traffic having regard to the motorway, interchange and east/west and

north/south movements but Mr. Guthrie pointed to the expected traffic growth on the

existing N3 even if the motorway was not built and a discussion followed about the likely

affects with Mr. O'Donnell suggesting induced traffic effects would increase the

attraction of the motorway and Mr. Guthrie saying studies on induced traffic in the UK

both proved and disproved the claim of there being induced traffic and maintaining that

the greater flow of traffic would now be further away from the house so the impact

Mr. O'Donnell then asked about the lighting effects from the Interchange and, having

established that the lanterns would be 10 metres above the overbridge which was 7

metres above the motorway, he suggested the lighting would be very visible from the

McCarthy house. Mr. Guthrie said that all of the lighting used would be of the fully cutoff

variety and that would prevent light spillage, with the light directed down towards the

road surface but he accepted Mr. McCarthy would be able to see the lights. When Mr.

O'Donnell suggested the lights would be 17 metres high within 200 metres from the

house and that would leave his house constantly lighted when the motorway was built,

Mr. Guthrie accepted the lights would be seen from the house but not that the property

would be lighted from the interchange because the design directed the light down to the

road surface and did not allow light to escape sideways or upwards. Mr. O'Donnell

suggested the lighting would be like the effects from "high mast lighting" which spread

the light all round the area but Mr. Guthrie said that high mast lighting was not being

used and said that while he was not saying Mr. McCarthy could not see the lights he was

saying that there would be no sideways transmission of light towards his house. Asked if

17 metre high had not the same effects, Mr. Guthrie explained that with the relative

ground levels the top of the lights would be at eye level at the McCarthy's house and

focussed downwards whereas high mast lights were well up in the air. Asked if any

mitigation measures to limit the lighting impact were provided, Mr. Guthrie said they had

landscaping around the Interchange but none in the immediate vicinity of the house.

Mr. O'Donnell asked how access would be maintained to the McCarthy farmyard which

was on the opposite side of the existing N3 to the house and Mr. Guthrie said there would

still be access off the existing N3 since the tie-back did not affect the relative levels at the

entrance. Mr. O'Donnell then concluded by referring to a temporary bridge being required

and Mr. Guthrie said that referred to the temporary crossing of the Lismullin River

which crossed the N3 by the diversion road and said a tempoaray culvert would be need

Mr. Keane asked Mr. Guthrie if the existing N3 passed between Mr.McCarthy's house

scenario would have all trafffic still passing there. Mr. Guthrie said that it would and that

a significant part of that traffic would be diverted to the motorway in the do-something

50. 22. Further cross-examined by Alan Park of Bellinter Residents Association :

Note -- This took place on Day 24 and followed from information submmited to the

Hearing by the Council following a request by the Inspector. See Sections 62.6, 70 and

Mr. Park referred to Mr.Guthrie's reply about the transposition of the symbol's in the

matrix and Table RSR 6.6.1 arising from the BRA cross-examination of Mr. Burns in

which he said that the transposition of symbols between routes Blue 2 and 3 was a

document compilation error and did not affect the overall ranking which had been based

on a full route assessment process with Blue route 2 becoming the EPR. He suggested

that was not correct and said that if Blue 2 was correctly shown in RSR 6.6.1 as being a

moderate to high impact, which was shown in other similar entries as being greater than

was shown in Table 4.2, and for Blue 3 there was a moderately high impact which he had

shown as less than that. He said that if these were reduced to numerical values, these gave

Table 4.2 with 4 positives and 4 negatives which gave an overall zero value which, he

Mr.Guthrie replied that he thought it was Mr. Sweetman had raised at the beginning of

the Hearing how you compared or ranked different elements in the EIS and he had tried

to explain that giving any sort of numeric value was difficult because it would be very

subjective and that he had given the example of comparing archaeology to flora and

fauna since it depended on who you were speaking to as to the value placed on one over

the other. He said he did not think you could put a numeric value across the board on

elements in the EIS process and say that was how it was done. Mr. Park suggested that

preparing a matrix as was in the EIS with a series of "blobs" was in effect putting a

numeric value on them and Mr. Guthrie said he would agree with this but not with the

suggestion that you could add them up, across different disciplines, like doing an

arithmetic sum and coming to an answer that way as, he said, that would imply there was

a weighting between the various disciplines which was not the case. Mr. Park said that if

there was not a weighting placed on them it still remained numerical and if there was a

Mr. Guthrie said this weighting was a subjective view in terms of the various impacts. He

said that everyone would agree that the archaeological impact was a significant impact on

the choice of route between Dunshaughlin to Navan but that archaeological impact was

not the same as one on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section and the same applied toother

aspects like flora, fauna etc. He said each would have a different weighting enen

throughout the scheme which made it impossible to assign any sort of weighting to the

analysis. Mr.Park said that it had been stated earlier that it was not weighted and when

Mr. Guthrie said that was correct, Mr. Park asked if the values in Table 4.2 were

weighted and Mr. Guthrie replied that they appeared to be talking at cross purposes. He

said the original question to him was "is there a weighting" and his reply was that there

was no such standard weighting. Mr. Park said he had not asked that question about

weighting. Mr. Guthrie replied that the answer was in respect to the particular aspect that

there was no standard weighting applied to the individual elements within that table.

Mr. Park said that the value recorded was incorrect and asked if he wanted to see their

(BRA) results. Mr. Guthrie said that he need not do that since he understood what was

being said and he repeated that you could not put in numeric valiues and simply add them

up and said that was why they used symbols initially to try to dissuade people from

doing what Mr.Park had now done. Mr. Park asked would he change what was shown in

Table 4.2 to what was the correct value according to RSR 6.6.1 and Mr. Guthrie said this

would be done but that it would not alter the assessment of the Blue route being the

preferred option. Mr. Park said he expected him to say that, and said he thought it should

be re-assessed since there was a change and that they had purported something in Table

4.2 which was a piece of non-factual evidence. Hc said it might be a mistake, but it did

Mr. Hamill said he wanted to query the Project team about the number of completed

questionaires used in the Route Selection process for the Dunshaughlin to Navan section.

He said that a list of completed questionaires supplied to the BRA showed a total of 319

discrepancy of 26 from the figure of 293 given in the Route Selection Report and asked

for an explanation of this. He said that it was also stated the preferences of those

favouring Routes E or F were double any other option but said his analysis showed first

preferences of A as 75, B as 9, C as 17, D as 7, E as 34 and F as 64 and suggested the

report was misleading and said that the details should be re-examined to include an

Mr.Guthrie said he would have to investigate why Mr.Magee's questionaire appeared to

have been omitted as he had no idea why that should have occurred and, in relation to the

preferences, he said they had weighted some of the responses since some people voted

for one route and others voted for multiple routes and listed their preferences. Mr.Hamill

said he did not know how that could be done as there were 6 routes and he only referred

to the first choice but Mr. Guthrie said that where there was a choice and people voted for

more than one route and not for another, this had to be represented in a statistical

analysis so they applied a straight weighting of 6 through to 1 for first choice as the

fairest way to do it. Mr. Hamill said that might be a statistician's way but he felt if you

put down route 1 as your first choice that was it and all other routes were of lessor

importance. Mr. Guthrie said he heard what was beng said but that was the way they had

used to present the information in the report and Mr. Hamill said he understood that, but

it was not a way he would go along with, and said that it required more investigation.

Mr. Park said they understood Mr.Summers was not going to be available and they had

wanted to ask him some more questions because he had some problems with the figures

previously which he had to re-work. They had received these re-worked figures from

him but still had some questions to ask and as they had now heard from the Council that

new noise criteria were being applied, they were not entirely happy with the situation. He

said that Mr. Hamill had some specific items relating to the taking of the noise

measurements which BRA believed should be taken up relating to the response about

Mr. Hamill then handed in a copy of his submission, which is listed at Day 24 in

Appendix 4 of this Report, and read this to the Hearing. ( See also Sections 55, 70 & 71)

He said that Dublin Airport Met. Station was the closest to Dalgan Park at 32 kms with

Clones being 74 kms. and he would only refer to the Dublin data. He said the Project

Team used a 24 hour average to get their mean speed of 7.7 metres per second while he

considered that, as the sample was taken between 10.49 am and 13.40 pm, the average

from 10.00 to 14.00 of 9.46 metres per second for a force 5 should be used which was

almost twice the 5.5 m/sec. stated. He said the Project Team did not refer to the gust of

35 knots shown which was 18 m/sec. or force 8 and he had been told on the phone by the

Met. Office that occurred at10.33 qam and was the highest in that 24 hours. He said the

Met. Office also told him of a gust of 22 knots for 10 minutes between 11.00 and 12.00,

which was 11.3 m/sec. or force 6, all of which showed there was an unstable airflow.

He said the project team said measurements were taken in the vicinity of the south side of

the main building of Dalgan Park and that trees to the north acted as a shelter belt. He

said the wind was from the north-west in the Met. Report, and not as stated as " generally

from northwest to northeast" and he pointed out the EIS gave the location of location 3

on page 50 as the western side of the main buildings. He said that the noise from those

trees, which were 75 metres from the nearest gable, was considerable and said there could

also be turbulance in sheltered areas. He said that location 2 had mature trees in the hedge

to the northwest and southwest with substantial stands of trees to the northeast and an

extensive area of semi-mature tres and he showed these on a map and had a photograph

taken some years previously to illustrate what he was saying. He said that one of the

maps in the EIS, which he noted as M3 ENG 019, showed the tree cover nearer location

2 at Dowdstown Bridge. He said he was underlining this as it was important, which was

why he had mentioned it previously and said that as he had been present when the survey

was in progress, he could state that the wind-generated noise in the trees was very much

Mr.Park said that this just further served to question the credibility of the noise

measurements when the report stated the wind speed was measures at 5 m/sec and as was

Mr. Guthrie responded by saying that the reference to the northeast was to the trees that

surrounded the north part of Dalgan Park and that he had been saying those trees to the

northeast and northwest of the main building generally acted as a shelter belt for winds

comingfrom that direction but he was not saying that the wind came from that direction

specifically. Mr. Hamill said there was a noisy atmosphere that day from the trees which

must have had abearing on the ambient level and the readings. Mr. Guthrie replied that he

accepted what he was saying but that it was a colleague who was there and his references

to specific factors at Dowdstown did not mention wind noise, so he took that it was not a

factor. When Mr. Hamill said that it had to be a factor and asked if he did not believe

what he was saying about it being very windy, Mr. Guthrie said he was not present there

himself and was neither believing nor disbelieving him, Mr. Hamill said he was not

On Day 25 Mr. Sweetman indicated that he had some queries of a general nature that he

Mr. Sweetman then referred to his query to Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch about fox-hunting and its

tourist potential and asked Mr. Guthrie if he knew anything about the tourism impact of

fox-hunting in the area of the motorway. Mr. Guthrie said he was aware that there was

fox-hunting in Meath but did not know anything about its tourist impacts. Mr. Sweetman

said one of the two best areas for fox-hunting in Ireland was between Dunshaughlin and

Navan and said it was an industry that was worth a lot of money and that if a road was to

be run down through the middle of the territory that would kill one of the greatest tourist

attractions in Ireland. Mr. Guthrie repeated that he was not aware of its tourist potential

as he described it and when Mr. Sweetman said that it had not been assessed and Mr.

Guthrie acknowledged it was not in the EIS, Mr. Keane intervened and said this issue had

not been raised previously and that he had understood Mr. Sweetman would be raising

matters that had been raised but left unanswered. ( Note -- The query about fox-hunting

had actually been raised with Mr. Osbourne, not Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch, see Section 54.4.)

deemed to be more important by the Project Engineer there than the site at Tara ( See

Section 46 of this Report). When Mr. Guthrie said he had not been involved with the

details of the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section, Mr. Swetman said he was the Project

Manager and should know about the overall route selection there, Mr. Guthrie said the

route had been selected by MC 'O Sullivans and if he had queries, then Ms Joyce was the

Project Engineer to ask about them. Mr. Sweetman then said he was saying the route

selection was done for separate sections and not as it said in the EIS where a route from

Clonee to North of Kells was selected. Mr. Guthrie replied that he had been over this

ground on several occasions previously where he had explained to several people,

including Mr. Sweetman, that the scheme had been divided up into five sections and that

this was the basis for the route selection. He said that when they came to do an overview

this was done by linking all of the sections into one coherent link rather than to tie-back

Mr. Sweetman said this was the same as saying that they had arrived on the job with a

route from Clonee to North of Kells and that the object of the EIS was to get it through

rather than to fully investigate the likely significant effects, and to avoid the issues where

possible. Mr. Guthrie said the purpose of the EIS was to investigate the preferred route

that was being proposed with the selection process being done before that. Mr. Sweetman

disagreed with him and said the EIS was to describe what the impacts were and to

Mr. Sweetman said he had got a person to phone both Kildare andWicklow Councils to

ask to speak to the "liaison" officer for the N7 and N11 schemes in the context of the

previous evidence of such people being always appointed and he said neither County

Council knew anything about any such person. Mr. Guthrie said it was his experience

with PPP and DB works in the UK that this person was an integral part of the supervision

Guthrie said it was not proposed there, Mr. Sweetman asked how did they know it would

be proposed and Mr. Guthrie replied that it would be in the contract documentation which

Mr. Sweetman then said that the Hearing was six months too soon, since the EIS was

published before it was even half ready. He said that the answer to every question asked

was "that will be in the contract" and said that the Regulations said clearly the mitigation

measures must be shown and when there was a European site they must be shown that

they would work. He said that Mr. Nairn did not know anything about them as there were

no mitigation measures visibly shown at the bridge at Dalgan Park. Mr. Guthrie said the

advised, so there were no piers in the channel to avoid impacting on the channel itself.

that if Mr Nairn's evidence about the compound was anything similar to that at the N11,

then mud would flow into the river without mitigation measures. He said the Habitats

Directive required them to show the mitigation measures and to show that they would

work and asked if these had been designed or were just being talked about. Mr. Guthrie

said that it was not clear if there would be a construction compound as such at the bridge,

since that was a decision for the contractor and he would have to provide the mitigation

51. 1. Suzanne Dempsey cross-examined by Peter Sweetman on behalf of An Taisce :

Mr. Sweetman asked about her previous experience on completed road schemes and if

she had been responsible for the interaction section of the EIS and Ms Dempsey said she

interaction sections in each volume of the EIS stated how these were assessed. Asked

who did interaction between people living at the roadside and the noise pollution, she

replied that this was done by the noise expert for each section, Mr. Sweetman said it

would not have been done that way since the interaction was between human beings and

the noise level. Ms Dempsey said that it would be done that way and said that the

assessment on noise was based on its interaction with human beings, and where there

were interactions between noise, animals, fauna, agriculture etc. these were covered in

those specific chapters and were also referenced in Volume 2, where it was stated that the

references to interactions were shown on a different coloured page at the start of each

He then asked if she had been present at the earlier cross-examination of Mr. Guthrie and

where were the interactions on material being brought into the site assessed. Ms Dempsey

asked him to state the aspect he was talking about and if it was noise, air, landscape or

safety as each was assessed in a different chapter. She said that in the chapter on soil they

had identified the quantities required and the approximate number of truck movements

and had said that, at the stage the EIS was being written, the origin of the soil was not

known and the impact of movements on induvidual properties could not then be fully

assessed. Mr. Sweetman asked if a quarry over 5 hectares in area required an EIS and

when Ms Dempsey agreed it did, asked what was the other criteria for an EIS being

required and when Ms Dempsey replied she was not familiar with that, he said she was

quarry. Mr. Sweetman said she was presenting an EIS which contained all of the likely

significant effects of the development on the environment and Ms Dempsey said that the

quarry would be subject to a separate planning process and an EIS would be carried out

then if required, but her understanding was that was not required as part of the EIS for the

road. Mr. Sweetman said she had made a sweeping statement on the law and, referring to

the EIA regulations 1989 as amended by the 1999 regulations and Directive, asked where

in those was there a provision to exempt her from " all the likely significant impacts" of

Ms Dempsey replied that they had identified that material would be required and that the

source was not known at this stage and that therefore they could not fully assess the

impact of its importation. She said they would have done so if they could have and said

she had already answered a lot of questions about this and that this would be covered by a

separate application for the excavation or quarrying of the material. She said the

legislation required them to indicate any difficulties encountered in compiling the

required information and that, as previously pointed out by the Inspector the legislation

allowed for their knowledge at the time the EIS was prepared ( See Section 18.3 of this

Report). She said they had stated in the EIS that due to commercial constraints they did

not know where the material would be sourced at this stage and that this would be

covered by the relevant legislation. Mr. Sweetman asked where in the regulations did it

say that commercial constraints permitted her to produce an inferior EIS. Ms Dempsey

replied by reading an extract from Section 50 ( 2) of the Roads Act which said " --- an

indication of any difficulties, technical deficiencies or lack of know how encountered by

information is relevant to the given section of the consent procedure ------ the road

authority in preparing the EIS may reasonably be required to compile such information

having regard inter-alia to current knowledge and the methods of assessment". Mr.

Sweetman asked the date of that amendment and was told it was from SI 93 /1999 to the

Mr. Sweetman said that as the EIS was for an animation of the State it came under the

Directive and when Ms Dempsey said she was not aware of that and that these were the

most recent regulations relating to a road development, Mr. Sweetman said he would he

interpretation of the regulations did not comply with the Commissioner's view of it.

He asked if she had heard of the term "project splitting" and if she knew what it meant.

Ms Dempsey said she had heard of it, that it meant different things in different contexts

and asked him to explain it to her. Mr. Sweetman asked if she would agree that splitting a

quarry directly related to this road from the EIS was project splitting and Ms Dempsey

replied that it was not. Asked why not, she said that any material imported into any

construction project was subject to its own legislative regulations and an EIS could not go

into every piece of material and its manufacture and that, if it had to, an EIS would never

be completed. Mr. Sweetman asked was she present when he read the letter from An

Bord Pleanala to Waterford County Council and she replied she was and that it referred

to the dumping of spoil. Mr. Sweetman then asked where the spoil from her road would

be dumped and Ms Dempsey said they had said they would identify locations when they

knew how much spoil needed to be dumped and that this was also in chapter 8. When Mr.

Sweetman asked when this information would be made available, Ms Dempsey read an

extract from Chapter 8 in Vol. 3A of the EIS at page 196 which ended by saying "---- The

extraction and the disposal of material for the scheme will be subject to compliance with

Ms Dempsey replied that this would be done after the contractor had been appointed and

agreed, in response to a further query, that this would be after the assessment had been

carried out. Mr. Sweetman then asked if she wished to correct her statement that " the

assessment has been carried out" and when Ms Dempsey asked the Inspector if she could

read from the EPA guidelines, he said these were "draft" Guidelines. Ms Dempsey said

they were guidelines on the information to be contained in an EIS and Mr. Sweetman

repeated these were "draft", Ms Dempsey said they were final and were published in

March 2002, the previous ones being "draft", Mr. Sweetman asked if they were a legal

document, Ms Dempsey said they were a published document and the Inspector told Mr.

authority made its decision to refuse, grant permission or seek additional information and

said that at this stage they were at the stage in the process where the EIS had been

presented. Mr. Sweetman said that was not what she had said earlier but he would accept

that and Ms Dempsey said she would correct that she said it wrong but that was what she

Mr. Sweetman asked who was consulted in the scoping of the EIS and Ms Dempsey read

a list of the statutory bodies and NGOs that were consulted from Table 1.6 in Volume 2

of the EIS and said the public also had an opportunity to consult with the Council's Road

Design Office who passed their concerns on to the consultants. Mr. Sweetman said An

Bord, in the letter read out to the Hearing earlier, had considered in relation to the

Waterford By-pass that the sites of the waste disposal were relevant and that any large

importation of material would also be relevant and asked why she was working under

different rules with An Bord in this case. Ms Dempsey said she was not working under

different rules and was working on the information they had and this was given to the

Hearing and she asked him when this ruling was made. Mr. Sweetman replied it was

Directive. When Ms Dempsey said it complied with the regulations as implemented by

the Irish Regulations, he asked for a yes or no answer as to whether it complied with the

Directive. Ms Dempsey said her brief was that it complied with the Irish regulations and

that she was not as familiar as he seemed to be on the differences between the Directive

Mr. Sweetman said that the Council and the NRA were animations of the State and when

intervened and said to Mr. Sweetman that he thought the question of the Council and

NRA being animations of the State was a matter for submissions rather than a question to

the witness. Mr. Sweetman said he disagreed and would put it on the record that he

disagree with the Inspector on this. The Inspector said that Mr. Sweetman might not

necessarily agree with him but that was what he was saying. Mr. Sweetman asked if the

Inspector was aware there were three recent opinions by the Advocate General of the

European Court of Justice on the non-implementation of the EIA directive in Ireland and

the Inspector replied that he was aware of this but did not see it as being relevant to this

EIS which was carried out under the current regulations. When Mr. Sweetman said to Ms

Dempsey that these opinions were saying the regulations did not comply with European

Law, Mr. O'Donnell intervened and said he thought it might be helpful to Mr. Sweetman

if this was addressed by the parties later on by submissions and the Inspector said that if

Mr. Sweetman wished to make a case on this point he could do it by way of a submission

Mr. Sweetman asked if there were any more errors found in the EIS since her Brief of

Evidence was prepared and when Ms Dempsey said all of the errors had been identified

in that Brief, he referred to page 2 of that list and asked why was the first one on page

replied there were two different reports here for CPO 139/144, an agricultural and an

equestrian report and the most onerous one should have gone in and the pre-mitigation

impact should have gone in instead of the post-mitigation impact which was what was in

the EIS and it was a compiling error. Mr. Sweetman said he could not see any point in

asking her further questions since she often did not answer the ones he asked her.

deposition of materials being a largely commercial decision. Ms Dempsey said she was

referring to this as being a decision the contractor would take and Mr. O'Donnell

suggested this was not relevant to the Hearing. Ms Dempsey replied that the information

was not available at the time and it was commercial in the context that if they had

identified a particular quarry in the EIS, with the impact from passing the Gate lodge, and

that quarry or source was not available to the Contractor when the scheme came to be

developed then the impact would have been speculative and not a real impact. She said it

was very difficult to speculate where the material would come from and to put in an

impact based on speculation, since the contractor might not choose that quarry or it might

not be available to him. Mr. O'Donnell said they were deciding how the scheme would be

constructed and that if you applied what she was saying and if the construction were to be

done slightly differently in places, then she would say they could not have assessed how

the scheme would be constructed and the logical conclusion from that was there would be

O'Donnell asked if she had heard Mr. Guthrie saying it would have been possible without

any great difficulty to have identified sites for disposal of material. Ms Dempsey said she

thought Mr. Guthrie had disputed his suggestion of there being no great difficulty and

that her point was that they did not know when the Scheme would actually start and that,

by that time, any particular site might no longer be available. She said that expecting at

this stage of the process to be able to identify a site, seeing if the material was suitable

and that sufficient was there and then to go through the due process, would be so onerous

that she did not think it was possible to do that. She said they had prepared the EIS on a

basis which did not include the identification of the sites and that this was not in their

Mr. O'Donnell asked if the scheme must consider both the direct and indirect significant

effects of the development and when Ms Dempsey agreed with him, he suggested there

were a number of direct and indirect effects that were not considered in the EIS. Ms

Dempsey disagreed and said they had been considered and they had identified where they

had not been able to identify the impact in detail. Mr. O'Donnell suggested they were

considered to the extent they were not able to analyse the effects and Ms Dempsey

replied by referring to the analysis of truck movements made by Mr. Guthrie and saying

that this showed that a certain amount of analysis had been done as far as they could go

and they had identified that the detailed impact of specific properties had not been

possible. Mr. O'Donnell again suggested they had not considered some of the constituent

impacts and that it was not sufficient in the EIS just to recite a particular matter and say it

was mentioned so this complied with the obligation. When Ms Dempsey said they could

talk around the subject but they had identified that they could not go further at this stage

as they did not know, Mr. O'Donnell said he was putting it to her that the purpose of the

information and while they did not have the detailed impact their initial analysis

suggested the impact would not be significant in the overall. Mr. O'Donnell concluded

by saying this was the only chance his Clients were getting and that he would be making

Mr.Sheehy said he had over 30 years experience as a Civil Engineer, with a considerable

period in structural engineering and bridge design and he was the Structures Team leader

for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and responsible for the bridges and culverts. He

said there were 6 overbridges with a skew less than 30 degrees, 2 over bridges with a

skew greater than 30 degrees, 1 underbridge, the Boyne Bridge and 12 culverts. He said

that two of the structures, the Ardsallagh Overbridge and the River Boyne Crossing were

more than 100 metres in length and so they required further consideration in terms of

Mr.Sheehy said that the proposed route of the M3 entered the wooded area in Ardsallagh

north of the River Boyne and crossed under the Ardsallagh Road, L 4009, in a cutting

with the Ardsallagh Overbridge carrying the realigned section of this road over the M3,

He said their preliminary site investigation showed a layer of stiff brown clay some 3.5

metres below ground level as the likely foundation material with no geotechnical issues

likely to present design problems. He said the proposed crossing length was 190 metres at

the top of the embankments at a skew crossing of about 60 degrees and the overall width

woiuld be 10 metres made upof a 6 metre carriageway, 2 No. 1.5 metre verges/ footpaths

and 2 no. 0.5 metre parapet copes. He said the vertical profile was determined by the

need for a clearance of 5.3 metres over the M3 giving an overall height of approximately

He said the design options considered were various forms of Girder bridges with Cable

Stayed, Arch and Framed bridges considered as alternatives to a Girder bridge but these

were more intrusive to the surrounding environment, requiring much higher structures

that would dominate the landscape. He said all girder bridge options examined had a

similar deck construction width but the thickness varied with the option selected and said

that the thinnest deck was likely to be got by using a box girder with a composite

reinforced concrete deck slab, with that design using steel boxbeams with a composite

reinforced concrete deck slab and parapet upstands. He said other beam options such as

steel plate girders, steel open box girders and precast prestressed concrete SY beams were

also considered and that all steel options would require protective coatings to be applied

and would require additional maintenance during the structures life. He said a feature

headroom clearances for the M3 to be met and the appearance should be compatible with

the standard overbridge design and that their preferred design option was for a multi-span

girder bridge. He said the structure would not be particularly visible from the Ardsallagh

road but would be seen by users of the M3 from where the visual perspective would be

that of a standard overbridge. He said the use of largely symmetrical spans and decks of

constant cross-section should create a visually balanced structure and that careful

consideration should be given to the detailing of the structure, particularly to the finish on

He said the impacts during construction were likely to be more severe and have a greater

risk but these would be short-term and good management could mitigate the temporary

construction impacts. He said the main impacts would be from construction traffic, noise,

vibration, dust, risk of emissions to adjacent watercourses and disturbed habitats. He said

that within the methods available for a contractor there were some that produced less risk

to the environment and he gave, as an example, the use of precast elements or steel

construction which would minimise the amount of on-site preparatory work necessary.

Mr. Sheehy said the River Boyne Bridge was required to carry the M3 across the River

Boyne and its valley and it was located some 140 metres east of the present Bellinter

Bridge. He said that bridge was a six span 19th century masonry bridge. He said Belinter

bridge and the Boyne walkway below it were the main locations from where the proposed

river crossing would be viewed. He said the M3 mainline was in cutting to the south of

the bridge and on embankment towards the northern end of the flood plain which was

about 260 metres wide, with the river channnel being from 30 to 35 metres wide in

He said their preliminary site investigation showed bedrock some 2 metres below ground

level with this foundation material likely to present no geotechnical design problems. He

said the main drainage scheme carried out on the Boyne river in the 1960s created the

present river profile with an area for flood flows of 185 sq. metres at the Bellinter Bridge

which the river crossing should equal or exceed. He said it was preferable piers did not

interfere with the river flow and cause erosion and sedimentation downstream. He said

carriageways, 2 No. 2.5 metre hard shoulders and a 4 metre central reserve, 2 No. 0.6

raised verges and 2 No 0.5 metre wide parapet copes giving and overall width of 25.2

metres for the bridge structure. He said the vertical profile was determined by the route

vertical alignment and by the need for clearance to allow vehicles and pedestrians below

the structure with the approximate height from riverbank to theM3 carriageway of 7

He said the design options considered were all for a girder type of bridge since alternative

considered the new bridge should reflect the arch nature of the existing Bellinter Bridge.

He said that all girder bridge options examined all produced the same width of deck

construction but the depth of the structure would vary depending on the materials used

and final sizing of spans, with material options using a variety of beam types, such as

steel plate girders, steel open box girders and precast prestressed concrete beams, all with

a composite reinforced concrete deck and parapet upstands. He said the detailing of the

structure would require careful consideration and the piers and abutments should be clad

with masonry facings. He said the bridge solution for the river crossing would have to

Bridge construction should not interfere with river flow and quality of water and

He said the preferred design option was for a multi-span girder bridge and the steel box

beam and composite slab option would require the thinnest deck construction which

surrounding landscape. He said that in addition, the road below the structure was largely

within the cutting so that the impact from it would also be minimised. He said that careful

consideration should be given to the detailing of the structure, particularly to the finish on

He said the impacts during construction were likely to be more severe and have a greater

risk but these would be short-term and good management could mitigate the temporary

construction impacts. He said the OPW and Waterways Ireland had both stated they did

not require construction to be kept outside of the river channel, while the ERFB had

indicated their preference for the river piers to be set back from the bank to avoid

contaminating the river water and interfering with fishng. He said time constraints might

have to be put on any work within the channel and the use of booms to protect the river

downstream from accidental discaharges into the river during the bridge construction

He said the main impacts were likely from temporary site compounds involving crane

movements, storage and assembly of materials and welding and painting of steelwork as

well as construction traffic, noise, vibration, dust, risk of emissions to adjacent

watercourses and disturbed habitats. He then referred to the methods available for a

contractor that produced less risk to the environment which he had already described for

Mr. Brady said he represented a number of houseowners who were not directly affected

realignment did impact on them, as well as the Overbridge there. He said he represented

Mr. & Mrs. Brian Malone, Plot 1111; Peter & Mary Smyth, Plot 1113; both of these were

on the north side of the M3 and on the west side of the Ardsallagh Road. He said that on

the other side of the M3 he represented Thomas & Anna Farrelly, Plot 1127; Robert

Connolly, Plot 1128; Emmett Clarke, Plot 1122 and also Marie Clarke, his mother, an

adjoining landowner who was not in the CPO but who shared a common entrance with

him. He said his Client's basic concern was about how the overbridge would impact on

them during its construction and afterwards and to the proximity of the motorway to their

Mr. Brady asked Mr. Sheehy to explain where the Contractor would store his plant while

the bridge was being constructed and if the Ardsallagh road would be closed while the

bridge was being built. Mr. Sheehy said the bridge would be built off-line so the existing

road would not be affected except when it was being tied in to the realigned section. He

said the Contractor would only be given the land within the CPO line and of he wanted to

use anything outside that he would have to make a private arrangement with some local

landowner. Asked how long it would take for the bridge to be built, Mr. Sheehy said he

could not say, as it would be a matter for the Contractor to produce a program, but he

thought it should not take more than 12 months. Asked if that was the maximum, Mr.

Sheehy said he could not be definite as the Contractor might build all of the piers for

several bridges first and then come back with the beams or he might complete it in a

shorter period. Asked if there was any time constraints on how a contractor could put his

Mr. Brady asked how high above adjacent ground levels would the top of the new bridge

be and Mr. Sheehy replied the bridge sloped from north towards the south and from the

drawing it appeared that the bridge would be about 1 metre above the ground level at the

northern end and more or less at ground level at the southern end. Asked if there would

be any blasting, Mr. Sheehy said the preliminary site investigation showed a boulder clay

as the foundation so there should not be any blasting required but he said a detailed site

investigation would be carried out. Asked if there would be consultation with the

adjoining landowners about the final bridge design, Mr. Sheehy said it was a design and

build contract but he did not know if there would be any consultation since he only dealt

bridge, applied to the Boyne crossing as well and when Mr. Sheehy said the detailed

design would be done by the Contractor, he suggested the photomontage shown to the

approximately the proposed design and there were requirements on the Contractor to

keep the piers out of the water and that they be stone faced. Mr. Magee said that anyone

reading the EIS would have expected the structure shown was what would be put there

Contractor. Mr. Sheehy replied the contractor had been given the minimum spans he

could use, the minimum clearance he must have and that he could not interfere with the

channel and must stone face the piers but they had not said if it was to be a steel or

concrete structure and he said that it would be similar to the shape shown in the

photomontage. Mr. Magee suggested that he had previously indicated it might not be like

the photomontage and asked who created the photomontage and when Mr. Sheehy said

photomontage should be withdrawn from the EIS since it was not a drawing and was

misleading to people, since he had now said the bridge that would be built there might

Mr. Magee said most people believed that if the road was approved it would be built as

was shown in the EIS but they were now finding out that the details of the bridge were

still up in the air. Mr. Guthrie then intervened to clarify what Mr. Sheehy had said and

explained that the within the PPP contract the Contractor could offer alternatives but

there was a Specimen design shown in the EIS which was the basis against which any

alternative would be assessed. He said that, if the alternatives did not meet the Council's

requirements, they would be rejected and the specimen design which was in the EIS

would be used. Mr. Magee asked if the public would be consulted if there were changes

and when Mr. Guthrie said if there were significant changes such as a cable stayed

proposal then the Contractor would have to do his own EIS, Mr. Magee said it was subtle

changes that concerned him, not major changes. Mr. Guthrie replied there was no formal

process for this but he thought the Council could make any changes available if required.

Mr. Magee suggested that the public would not be informed of changes and that a minor

change could be important for those living nearby. Mr. Guthrie asked him to suggest the

sort of minor change he had in mind but Mr. Magee said it was keeping the public in the

dark by not allowing any input to the alternatives. The Inspector then intervened and said

that if the shape of the bridge was retained it complied with the EIS, even though there

might be some minor changes in the dimensions but these would be in millimetres rather

than in metres. He said if the Contractors proposals meant a different shape to that in the

EIS, the Planning Authority would have to take a view on this but this was likely to

require a Planing Application being made by the Contractor if the different shape was to

be used and that process gave an input for the public, the same as in any standard

Mr. Halligan, of Raynestown Residents Asociation and also of MRAG asked Mr. Guthrie

what was the design life of the road and the bridge and he was told the bridge structure

was designed for a life of 120 years and the road had a design life of 40 years, due to the

Ms Ryan asked what his brief was when he was asked to design a bridge, of which there

appearance, suitability of a form of construction and at economics. Asked was a needs

analysis done on the roads requiring overpasses Mr. Sheehy said it would but he was not

part of that process. Ms Ryan asked if he would have been given an estimate of the traffic

usage to determine the load-carrying capacity and he replied that the traffic people would

have determined the number and width of lanes and if a footpath was required and said

that the loading requirements was a function of the road class, such as if it was a national

or county road and that the number of vehicles using it were not part of that. Ms Ryan

asked would a specific number of vehicles using it be required to justify it economically

and Mr. Sheehy said he was not involved with the economics or the needs, only with the

structure. He said she should ask Mr. Guthrie about the economices. Asked if the traffic

Ms Ryan asked him if he thought there was a traffic need required to identify whether a

bridge should be built, Mr. Sheehy said that when access was cut off from a property an

alternative access had to be found and when Ms Ryan asked if this could be either by rerouting

a road or building a bridge, he replied that was not his field but he presumed it

was an option. Ms Ryan asked if you would look at both options from an aesthetic,

suitability and economic point of view but Mr. Sheehy said those parameters were for the

bridge structure and he was not talking about a road. Mr. Keane intervened to say Mr.

Sheehy only dealt with the structural design but the Inspector said Ms Ryan just wanted

to get some clarification and Ms Ryan said she would come to her point and asked if a

bridge being designed should be suitable for its use. When Mr. Sheehy agreed she asked

if he would be surprised to know there would be less than 10 vehicles per day using it and

its dimensions were similar to the Collierstown and Baronstown Bridges where there was

much more traffic. When Mr. Sheehy again agreed, Ms Ryan suggested the economics

for the Lismullin Bridge would be a huge cost and Mr. Sheehy said he presumed it would

Ms Ryan suggested he should have to look twice at the bridge and query if there was a

more viable option from the costs involved and suggested they should be careful when

putting in structures that were un-necessary and where there were cheaper options, such

as a re-routing of the road. The Inspector said that Mr. Sheehy had already indicated he

was only the designer of the bridge and that Mr. Guthrie was the more appropriate person

to answer her query. He also pointed out that she had already spent some considerable

time covering this area with Mr. Guthrie previously. Ms Ryan asked if he could describe

Lismullin Lane but Mr. Sheehy said he had not seen the site of the bridge and that other

people would have gathered the details of the site for the design tean. Ms Ryan said the

Lane was only a cul-de-sac, there was only room for one car to travel on it as it was about

3 metres wide and asked why they were building a bridge that was a two-lane bridge with

two footpaths. Mr. Sheehy replied they could not build a 3 metre wide bridge, that there

were standard widths and a minimum requirement for County roads to be met. Asked if

he foresaw a huge increase in traffic going down this cul-de-sac in the future, Mr. Sheehy

replied that he was not a Planner and the Inspector commented that she had covered that

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had been involved in the design of any structures in what he

called the "interchange" near Dalgan Park. Mr. Sheehy asked was this the Dowdstown

Overbridge he meant and when Mr. O'Donnell agreed it was, he said he had overseen the

preliminary design, but that none of the structures had been detailed as this would not be

done until the employers requirements were met. Asked when these would be ready, Mr.

Sheehy said they could not be completed until the outcome of the Hearing was known,

since there might be restrictions arising from the Hearing to be included, but he said they

were available in draft format. When Mr. O'Donnell asked why these were not included

in the EIS so regard could be had to the methodology involved, Mr. Sheehy replied that

some of the restrictions were given in their Briefs of Evidence. Asked why they all were

not made public and submitted as matters the contractor would be bound to at this stage,

Mr. Sheehy replied that this was part of the design process they went through and that

their evidence was based on the EIS. Mr. O'Donnell asked why were his Clients having to

accept that there was a secret arrangement with the prospective contractor that nobody in

the Hearing would know about. Mr. Sheehy replied the details were not finished at the

time of the EIS and were still not finished and would not be until after the Hearing.

Asked why they were not produced as part of the EIS, Mr. Sheehy said he had given in

his Evidence the constraints that would apply to the important bridges, which they were

required to do in the EIS and for the minor bridges there was a general statement on

them. Mr. O'Donnel said there was no opportunity being given to anyone to test what his

judgement of what might be critical or appropriate to put into these constraints and he

suggested it was extraordinary that they were finalised as far as he was concerned and

nobody was being allowed look at them. Mr. Sheehy said they produced a preliminary

report on the structure for the EIS and they had drawings available that showed the form

of the structure. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there was lots of material not being made

available and Mr. Sheehy replied the constraints were based on these drawings with some

latitude to the contractor in the vertical design but he had to work within the confines of

the CPO. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that meant the contractor could go as high as he liked

and that his Clients would have no idea how high the structure at this "interchange"

could be. Mr. Sheehy said there was a minimum clearance he had to provide for and if he

made it too high, that would need more material and would cost more, so it would be

likely to finish close to what they had shown on the drawing. Mr. O'Donnell said this was

asking his Clients to rely on the goodwill of the Contractor and when Mr. Sheehy said it

would be on his economic sense, he said his Clients would not be reassured by that being

the only constraint. Mr. Sheehy replied that the preliminary designs for the design and

build tender process they would be checking the design proposed and that they would not

allow the structure to be way up in the air. Mr. O'Donnell asked if his Clients would be

involved in this process and when told it would go back to the Council to approve, he

said that was not objective since the Council was the developer and that was policing

themselves. Mr. Sheehy said the Council would take cognisance of local concerns and

when asked if the contractor would have discretion on the height, Mr. Sheehy said that he

would within certain tolerances, but it would not be like the structure in Dundrum. After

some discussion about "landmark structures" and that these had been ruled out for the

M3, Mr. Sheehy said he was talking in terms of fractions of a metre and that they had to

approve the design before the contractor could build it but Mr. O'Donnell said it was for

Mr. O'Donnell then referred to his Brief of Evidence and need for the mitigation

Overbridge. Mr. Sheehy replied that he did not deal specifically with that Overbridge in

his evidence but agreed that similar measures would be used there. Asked if he had

Dowdstown, Mr. Sheehy said they had not been done specifically for that structure but

there were general measures proposed. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the area was particularly

sensitive for pollution and Mr. Sheehy agreed the Boyne Valley from Dowdstown to

Ardsallagh was sensitive and that crossing a river like the Boyne was particularly

sensitive as pollution could affect the river. Asked if he knew there were spawning

grounds in the Skane river, Mr. Sheehy said he did not know that but they had met the

O'Donnell then suggested it was extraordinary that they had decided to place a major

construction site adjacent to the Skane River where salmon spawned, which he admitted

not being aware of, and when he had accepted the area was sensitive. Mr. Sheehy said the

major construction site was across the Boyne and that Dowdstown Overbridge was a

construction activity adjoining the Skane river and Mr. Shehy agreed there were road

works and an overbridge nearby. Mr. O'Donnell suggested these would present a major

threat to the salmon fishery and salmon spawning grounds there and Mr. Sheehy accepted

it could be a significant risk but said they had discussed it with the ERFB. Mr.O'Donnell

asked if he had discussed it with the experts in the EIS team who did the flora and fauna

Mr. O'Donnell then repeated that Mr. Sheehy was not aware until now of the Skane being

a spawning grounds but Mr. Sheehy replied that he did know that and had thought Mr.

construction. Mr. O'Donnell expressed his amazement at this. Mr. Sheehy said he had

known there were spawning grounds in the Skane but not the exact location and said they

were treating the entire Skane as a salmonid river and that they were not interfering with

the bed of the Skane where two culverts would be used to cross it. Mr. O' Donnell

suggested these crossings would be injurious to the health of salmon from the silt and

run-off but Mr. Sheehy said this would be mitigated against and Mr. O'Donnell suggested

the best form of mitigation would be to not construct them there. Mr. Sheehy replied the

road had to cross the Skane somewhere and Mr. O'Donnell said that if the Pink route

were used it would not cross the Skane. Mr. Sheehy said mitigation could involve putting

a constraint on the period when construction could take place and when Mr. O'Donnell

said there would still be run-off, Mr. Sheehy said if he read the Flora and Fauna Report

Mr. O'Donnell asked how long would it take to build this section of road and Mr. Sheehy

said the critical sections were the culverts and these could be built in two weeks with the

roads section immediately adjacent to the Skane taking two months. Mr. O'Donnel asked.

asked if he was seriously saying that this would be built in two months and Mr. Sheehy

replied that the critical structures which would affect the Skane, the culverts, could be

built in two months. Asked for the timeframe for the "interchange", Mr. Sheehy said that

six to eight months would build the totality of the "interchange" and Mr. O'Donnell

suggested this meant a construction site on the banks of the Skane for at least eight

months with Mr. Sheehy replying that the river could be protected by mitigating against

anything getting into it. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that accidents could happen and

referred to the Galapagos Islands. Mr. Sheehy said it was not a major construction site

immediately adjacent to the Skane was not a significant area. Mr. O'Donnell said that if

they choose to build it in the non-spawning period in the summer, there were low flows

then and there would be a huge risk to the existing fish in the river because of these low

flow conditions. Mr. Sheehy said he was not a fisheries expert and when Mr. O'Donnell

said it was he who identified the site for a major construction site, he replied that he did

not design the road nor locate the structures on it. Mr. O'Donnell said he was the expert in

designing such structures and building the road in this location and Mr. Sheehy replied

that any construction operation involved a risk but they could mitigate against damage

that the risk might cause. Mr. O'Donnell concluded by saying the best way to mitigate

was not to put the building site there in the first place. Mr. Keane commented that Mr.

Nairn would be dealing with that and he quoted from Mr. Nairn's Brief of Evidence that

"the crossing points of the Skane and its two tributaries are not suitable as spawning or

nursery habitat for salmon" ( See Section 57.1.) Mr. O'Donnell remarked he would deal

Mr.Sweetman asked if part of the 1993 EIA Regulations required that the design for the

shown the preliminary design, he said they were supposed to show "the design of the

project" and the regulations did not say "preliminary design" and asked if he had a

finished design for the project. Mr. Sheehy replied he had not and Mr. Sweetman asked

why they were at the Hearing and when Mr. Sheehy said the complete design would not

be available until the contractor was appointed, he was asked when the public would be

consulted on the final design. Mr. Sheehy said he was the Bridge Engineer and that Mr.

Sweetman should ask the Project manager or the Council about the consultation process.

Mr. Sweetman said that from experience he would say there would be no consultation but

the EIA directive required the public to be consulted and they could not be consulted on a

concept which was what the bridge was at present. Mr. Sweetman said there was no

facility to carry out an EIA on an outline planning permission or for a concept and when

Mr. Sheehy said they had parameters and restraints and the employers requirements, he

the Fisheries Board and when Mr. Sheehy said Mr. Nairn would answer that, he said that

Mr. Sheehy had told Mr. O'Donnell the relevant construction constraints for the culverts

had been agreed with the Fisheriesand asked how did he know this. Mr. Sheehy replied

that he had read the minutes of the meeting held between the Fisheries and the Drainage

and Flora and Fauna people but he himself was not at this meeting. Mr. Sweetman asked

where he would find this in the EIS and Mr. Keane intervened and read an extract from

Vol. 4C at page 19 of the Flora and Fauna report on watercourses which said the Boyne

Crossing would not have works in the river bed, that bottomless culverts would be used

on the Skane and Lismullin rivers, that no works would be conducted in salmonid rivers

or streams during the spawning season and that all water courses would be fenced off at a

distance of at least 10 metres to avoid direct impacts. ( See also section 57.1) Mr.

Sweetman asked if that was from the minutes of the meeting and Mr. Keane told him that

was from the EIS. Mr. Sweetman said he was not asking about the EIS but Mr. Keane

said he had in fact asked what mitigation proposals were being put in place and that those

arose from the EIS. Mr. Sweetman said that was not a proposal, that it was a concept. The

Inspector said he had asked what details were in the EIS and Mr. Keane had given them

Mr. Sweetman asked for a copy of the culvert and mitigation measures they had agreed

with the Fisheries Board and when Mr. Sheehy replied that what had been read out was

basically what had been agreed, he said he wanted a copy of the minutes of the meeting,

Mr. Sheehy said the minutes were not part of the EIS but that was effectively what was

agreed and Mr. Sweetman replied that he had earlier been assured by Mr. Butler that

there was no information that was not in the EIS and now Mr. Sheehy was saying this

information was not in the EIS. The Inspector intervened and said that a letter from the

ERFB had been circulated earlier in the Hearing and that confirmed they were satisfied.

Mr. Sweetman replied that it was a fundamental part of the EIA process that the public

shall be consulted and that meant no behind doors agreements and it was because a letter

had been circulated that he wanted to see what exactly had been agreed. Mr. Keane said

Mr. Sweetman said the main construction impacts were likely to come from temporary

site compounds and asked where they were located and when told the contractor would

decide on this, he suggested the existing Bellinter Bridge was a protected structure and

compound. When Mr. Sheehy said the Hearing was the planning for the compound and it

would be within the CPO area but the exact location was for the contractor to decide on,

he suggested they were applying for something which would be decided on later and that

it was not an exempted development since it materially affected the view of a protected

structure and he said it had to be shown in this application as it was not exempt. The

Inspector said the witness had stated it would be within the CPO area and that was his

view and that Mr. Sweetman had another view and he could make a submission about

Mr. Sweetman asked how they would stop silt run-off from the compound into the boyne

and when Mr. Sheehy said there would not be any significant silt run-off than there

would be from any road construction work, he said that was a different matter and asked

how they would stop silt run-off from rainwater on the road from this into the Boyne. Mr.

Sheehy replied that was mitigated in the road construction proposals and Mr. Sweetman

said the EIS should contain the mitigation measures proposed and asked how would they

deal with this point. Mr. Keane said that matter was dealt with in what he had read out

and he re-read part "--- all watercourses that occur in areas of land that are to be used for

accommodation works will be fenced off at a distance of at least 10 metres to avoid any

direct impacts. Ponds, siltation ponds and hydrocarbon and gritting receptors will also be

put in place as apropriate to control pollution and run-off." Mr. Sweetman said he wanted

the specific mitigation measures for the River Boyne at this point as it was a qualifying

site under the Habitats Directive and because it was a salmonid river containing a species

of salma salma which was a protected species under Annex 2 of the Directive. Mr.

Sheehy said that until the contractor was appointed they could not be specific but had

Mr. Sweetman asked him what species were in the Boyne at that point and when Mr.

discussions with the Flora and Fauna people, Mr. Sheehy said he was not party to those

discussions and Mr. Sweetman asked if he had spoken to Duchas, Mr. Sheehy replied he

had not and was then asked how he could propose mitigation when he did not know what

to mitigate against. Mr. Sheehy said his involvement was only for the bridgeworks and he

had put a constraint there that the construction was not to interfere with the river, the

piers and excavations were to be sufficiently distant from the river and the form of

construction should have no temporary works or any spliilages into the river during

construction. Mr. Sweetman concluded by asking if he could tell him the location of any

road construction in Ireland where no sediment went into the river at a river crossing and

Sweetman said there had been a plume of mud for half a mile downriver and that EIS was

The Inspector asked Mr. Sheehy to give consideration to the degree of tolerances that

would be regarded as being the acceptable limits in the context of a Design Build project

and that these tolerances should be for both the vertical profiles shown on the longsections

applied to the overall M3 and they should come back before the Hearing ended. ( Note --

A response by the Council to this request was handed in to the Hearing on Day 28 and is

Mr. Park asked if he could explain how the bottomless culverts, which Mr.Daly had

spoken about, would be built. Mr. Sheehy said these would be designed for the 1 in 100

year flood and consisted of a wall built on the bank of the river with a slab over the top

and said the Fisheries Board had a preference for a concrete structure as it gave more

light that a semi-circular metal one and the fish preferred the light. He said that

essentially it was a rectangular structure and could be pre-cast or built in-situ. He said it

would be high enough to walk through for mainenance and that the foundations would be

on the bank but away from the edge of the bank. Mr.Park referred to a walkway through

familiar with Ambrose Bridge but said they would be providing an animal passage along

part of the bank at these culverts. Mr. Park asked what was the sectional area in relation

to Dowdstown bridge and Mr. Sheehy confirmed that it would be greater than that of

Mr. Park asked about the structure proposed for the Boyne Bridge and Mr. Sheehy said

that as it was a PPP Contract they had only prepared a preliminary design and that it was

likely to be a plate girder or box girder construction with a concrete deck on top of the

steel structure. He said that, as they were specifying that the river could not be interfered

with, it was unlikely to be a concrete structure as that would be too expensive when it had

to be kept clear of the river. Mr. Park asked what height were the parapets and when told

they were 1.2 metres above the road, he suggested that traffic would be visible over these.

Mr. Sheehy said that you could see the roof of a car but that more of buses and trucks

would be visible. A discussion followed on the effect of the crown height in making truck

wheels more visible and Mr. Sheehy said the cross fall was 3% and the crown was some

Mr. Oakes said they felt that there would be a lot of noise from traffic crossing the bridge

since there was so little freeboard between the crown of the road and the top of the

parapet, while they accepted that if the parapet were raised it would spoil the appearance

and they wanted his opinion on this issue. Mr. Sheehy said there would be a concrete

plinth parapet as distinct from the normal open parapets and he thought the impact would

be less than from a normal bridge. Mr. Oakes said they were concerned by the likely

noise and visual impacts particularly from trucks as their wheeels would probably be

Mr. Oakes said the area around the location for the Skane bridge was susceptible to fairly

severe flooding and asked if the road embankmentwould act as a barrier to flood waters

and to the detriment to houses there as the last flood water had come to the back doors of

the two houses there. Mr. Sheehy said this was more a drainage issue but they had

designed for a 1 in 100 year flood so that he did not anticipate the road contributing to the

flooding. When Mr. Oakes asked if the road would act as a dam, Mr. Sheehy replied that

there would be a bigger opening in the new bridge than was in the existing bridges so this

would not present a problem but Mr. Oakes said he was referring to the existing situation.

The Inspector intervened to say that he had earlier asked Mr.Daly to have the drainage

assessment of the Skane catchment re-examined to look at the flooding issue being

raised, as it was somewhat similar to the issue raised at the Summerhill Road in

Dunboyne, and suggested that this matter could be leftover until the Council had been

able to look at it. ( Note -- A report on flooding on the River Skane was included in items

53. Evidence of Philip Farrelly, Agricultural Consultant on behalf of the Council :

Note -- As Mr. Farrelly had already given evidence for the Council on the Clonee to

Dunshaughlin to Navan Section, only the parts in his Brief of Evidence that are specific

Mr. Farrelly said said his Brief was to carry out a detailed assessment of each farm along

the selected routes impacted by the proposed M3 on the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section

for inclusion in the EIS and to assess the macro effect of the proposed scheme on

agriculture locally and nationally for inclusion in the EIS. Mr. Farrelly said there were

36 farms impacted on by the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section with each of these visited

by a consultant who interviewed each owner or occupier, using a set questionaire for all

of them, with a map of each farm showing the M3 impact prepared and a report prepared

for each farm. He said these reports were summarised in Table 10.6 in the Material

Assets section in Vol. 4A of the EIS with the full details in Appendix D of Vol. 4C of the

Mr. Farrelly said they examined the nature and style of agriculture along the proposed

route corridor in the macro report, which commented on the soil types encountered and

specifically on the Soil Associations in the effected area, and that agriculture in the DEDs

along the route was examined and compared to agriculture locally and nationally. He said

that the soil types encountered were principally Soil Associations No. 38 and 40, as

defined on the Soil Association Map of Ireland, which were characteristically fertile and,

when well drained, were suitable to a wide range of crop production. He said that no

farming enterprise along the route was so severely severed as to render it non-viable and

that no farm of national or local importance was being impacted in a way that would

Mr. Farrelly said the the impact of the scheme would be felt by individual farmers and

farm units rather than nationally or regionally and that the area being acquired was

insignificant in terms of the national agricultural area or the agricultural area in Co.

Mr. O'Donnell suggested there would be a severe logistical and financial impact on the

farming activities of his Clients and when Mr. Farrelly agreed he suggesed the severance

impact would render the present activities totally unviable for farming but Mr. Farrelly

disagreed with this and said Dalgan Park was a huge farm and while he accepted the

severed part could not be used to graze dairy animals, he said that part could be used as

part of the total operation to provide winter feed and to graze animals not needed for

replacement stock etc. which were part of the farm and ccould still contribute to the dairy

operation. Asked if Dalgan operated dry stock, Mr. Farrelly said the Farm Director had

confirmed in their interview that they had dry stock on the land and, in reply to further

queries about the use of the severed lands by dairy cows, he said that about 50% of the

feed was grazed by the cows directly and 50% was conserved and eaten during the winter

and that, with some inconvenience, the severed lands could still be used for producing

winter fodder. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that the financial effects of this could readily be

calculated but Mr. Farrelly said he had not made any calculations as he did not believe

the viability of the farm was at stake. Asked if he had any idea what the impact would be

in financial terms, Mr. Farrelly replied that about 90% of farms operated a split holding

Mr.O'Donnell said that was not what he asked and said that Mr. Farrelly had not looked

at a critical factor, namely the effect the motorway would have on the viability of the

overall lands. Mr. Farrelly replied that he was conceding this was one of the finest farms

in the Country and that there would be an effect but said that he had not calculated the

inconvenience and additional cost. He said it was a very, very, large farm or dairy

enterprise and the viability of the entire operation would not be challenged by what was

proposed. He said that it was outside his Brief at present to calculate a monetary impact

as that would normally come when the scheme was approved and negotiations opened on

degree of hardship for the owners and Mr. Farrelly agreed but said there were options

available since the farm operated for dariying, tillage and dry stock and he suggested

tilage or dry stock as the leasdt profitable elements could be cut back and that dairying

which wasthe most profitable part couldbe maintained and he considered that with a farm

the size of Dalgan that was possible. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there should be a link

between the severed parts f the lands by either an underpass or a flyover and when Mr.

Farrelly said that was outside of his competance but the easier the access the better, Mr.

O'Donnell said he was the agricultural expert and should be saying how the impacts

would be mitigated. Mr. Farrelly said he understood the costs of an overbridge would

greatly exceed the inconvenience and compensation for not providing one and when Mr.

O'Donnell established this costs had not been discussed with the Engineers, he asked how

he came up with that reason, Mr. Farrelly replied that it was from looking at the maps and

Mr. O'Donnell suggested the Council had a responsibility to mitigate the impacts.

Mr. Farrelly said alternative access was being provided by means of the public road

network adjacent to the lands and Mr. O'Donnell referred to a part of the lands which

would be between the cul-de-sac part of the Bellinter Road and the M3 and asked how

this would be of any use to the farming operation and Mr. Farrelly said it could be used

for grazing or for conservation but that was a matter for compensation. Asked what area

was in this severed part of the land, Mr. Farrelly said there was 4.81 acres and a

discussion followed about the praticalities of using a 4 acre field and possible stocking

rates for cows and the hazards of moving them back and forth across a road, with Mr.

Farrelly pointing out the the N3 was presently being crossed and that traffic movements

on the N3 would be reduced significantly giving a "swings and roundabouts" effect.

Mr. Farrelly agreed that there would be effects in the operations of the farm, he suggested

that the farming system could be re-organised on such a large farm so the effects could be

minimised but he would not accept that the viability would be effected or that there

would be significant financial repercussions. He said there would be less land, more

inconvenience and an adverse effect and accepted that it would cost money to mitigate

these effects but said that was a compensation matter. Asked where the effects on the

farm were addressed in detail in the EIS, Mr. Farrelly said they had looked at each farm

on an individual basis and in assessing Dalgan made a decision that the viability would

not be affected, that it would be possible to reorganise the dairy operation, and had

looked at the land loss and possible mitigation measures. Asked if the impact would be

significant on the value of the land in financial terms, Mr. Farrelly agreed it would.

Mr. O'Donnel asked if he accepted the severed lands would be unsuitable for dairying

and Mr. Farrelly accepted this but said they could still be used as an integral part of the

dairy operation. Asked what percentage of the dairying operation would be lost as a result

of the scheme, Mr. Farrelly said he did not believe any part would be lost but that this

weas getting into operational matters which were choices for the owners. Mr.O'Donnell

asked for actual areas lost in acres, and Mr. Farrelly said that the actual area of the lands

would be reduced by 7.8 hectares out of 169.3 hectares, which was a reduction of 7.8%.

He said the utilisable agricultural area left was 386 acres, which was much smaller than

the total size of the farm which was 563 acres, of which there was 104 acres of woodland

and 41 acres taken up with houses and grounds, with the road taking 32.37 acres. When

Mr. O'Donnell said that he had already accepted the severed lands would not be capable

of being used for dairy purposes, Mr. Farrelly replied that he had already said five times

that they were capable of being used and that the lands could be grazed by cattle for the

seven months of April to October, and for the other five months the cattle would be

eating fodder conserved on those lands. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that 100 acres would be

taken out of the Dalgan Park farming operations because it could not be used as it was

being used at present but Mr. Farrelly did not acccpt that meant it was being taken out of

operation and a discussion followed on the possible uses and choices available. Mr.

O'Donnell then put to Mr. Farrelly that there was 60 acres being severed and 32 acres

going in the road, so this made almost 100 acres no longer available to Dalgan to with

continue their current dairying operations. Mr. Farrelly did not agree and said that silage

conservation was presently carried out east of the N3 but after further discussion he

accepted that it would not be practical to graze cattle of one side of the road, bring them

back across the road and down to the milking parlour and then to drive them back across

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had examined the gradient on the Dowdstown Overbridge for

its possible impact on the use of it be agricultural machinery and he suggested it was

hazardous, Mr. Farrelly said they had been given an outline of where access was tbe

given but he could not comment on the suitability or otherwise of these access points as

his study had been completed before the final details of the bridges was decided.

Mr. Sweetman asked where in the EIS were the mitigation measures proposed for Dalgan

Park and when Mr. Farrelly said they were in Appendix G of Vol.4C, he asked where

were the proposals put forward for the changes in the farming aspects which he had told

Mr. O'Donnell would be necessary to mitigate for the impact on Dalgan Park. When Mr.

Farrelly said that would be outside his remit, Mr. Sweetman said an EIS should contain

the mitigation measures proposed or necessary and that all he was proposing was that

they would get access. Mr. Farrelly said they needed to make operational changes but

those were not mitigation measures and Mr. Sweetman said his evidence was that the

profitability of the farm would be reduced and there would be an impact and that they

would have to make changes to mitigate the effect. Mr. Butler intervened to say that

questions regarding the farm's operation had already been put by Mr. O'Donnell and he

asked what was An Taisce's input into that. Mr. Sweetman replied that the object of the

exercise was for An Bord to perform an EIA of the development and that one of the

requirements was the mitigation measures proposed. He said that An Taisce had claimed

all along the this was the wrong project in the wrong place and they could take any farm

on the route as an example of this, and said that it was one more example of the EIS

being totally deficient, since the witness had stated mitigation measures were necessary

but that he had not bothered to produce them. Mr. Sweetman said the EIS did not address

the likely significant effects of the development and the mitigation measures proposed,

environmental impact of the construction of the M3 form Dunshaughlin to Navan and

Kells from an equestrian aspect a number of properties along the route and these were :-

Mr. Osbourne said that the methodology he used commenced with an examination of the

maps followed by farm walks, discussions with the owners and design team and the

consideration of good farming practice and horse health. (Note -- the basis for his

assessment and the impacts he identified were detailed in Section 28 of this Report on the

Mr. Osbourne said the principal mitigation measures he identified to reduce the impacts

of the motorway were based on common sense, good farming practices and practical

reasons and these varied from farm to farm and were generally of the following :-

Mr. Butler asked him if the same principles as he had outlined for the Dunshaughlin to

Navan Section would apply to the Navan By-pass Section and Mr. Cosbourne agreed that

they would. Asked what properties he had examined on the Navan By-pass Section, Mr.

Osbourne replied that there was only one on that Section which was the Ardbraccan

thoroughbred horses and Mr. Magnier had been a very successful jockey and that their

problems arose from the dissection of their lands by the motorway at a part where they

had a "gallop" that could now be used totally within their land but this was being severed.

He said that once the motorway went in the two parts of their land would be separated

and he asked what would Mr. Osbourne suggest they could do to alleviate this problem.

Mr. Osbourne replied that they had an old all-weather "gallop" up near the farm and this

was about 3 furlongs in length and he understood from the Magniers that they had

intended re-developing that but they could not do so when the motorway went in. He said

their only alternative now was to re-locate the "gallop"either in the lower field which was

separated by the motorway so access could be a problem or to go up near the house but

that was only about 500 metres at most in length. Asked if the old all-weather "gallop"

could be repaired, Mr. Osbourne said it could but that if it could be extended, even by a

little, this would help. Mr. Gunne asked if the only feasible solution was to make a new

"gallop" to suit the land available and Mr. Osbourne agreed but suggested this should be

(Note -- Their objection had been withdrawn on Day 1 and Mr. Gunne availed of Mr.

Mr. McGrath asked how many times had he visited Gerrardstown Stud and when these

took place and Mr.Osbourne said he had visited it twice, once when he met the manager

and had walked the farm with him and the second occasion was when he wanted to get

the location right and he said that his first visit was on 3 November 2000. Asked what

stage was the route selection process in November 2000, Mr. Osbourne replied that he

had nothing to do with the route selection and he had been asked just to visit the property

and said that he had a map with him and he recalled the manager also having a map of the

route then. Mr. McGrath asked if he was saying he was only assessing the impact of the

route on the stud farm and that the route had been decided on in November 2000 and Mr.

Osbourne repeated that he had no involvement in the route selection and said he had no

idea when the route was decided on. Mr. McGrath said he had been given a copy of his

report called "The Final Equestrian Report" which was unsigned and undated and asked

if this was compiled after his first visit. Mr. Osbourne said it was and when asked about

his second visit, he replied that it was only to check that he had the details of the severed

Mr. McGrath asked what was his impression of the Gerrardstown House Stud as a stud

enterprise. Mr. Osbourne said it was a very good stud farm and occupied around 200

acres of generally good land which got better the further west one went but was a bit lowlying

near the Skreen road and said it had historic value as a horse farm having produced

good horses over the years. He said it was a well-established stud farm and while he had

not visited prior to November 2000 he was aware of its reputation and found that it had

been upgraded significantly from what he would have been expecting to see and he

acknowledged this would have involved a significant investment and that it could be

Mr. McGrath then asked him to elaborate on the importance of shelter and hedgerows in

terms of the operation of a stud farm. Mr. Osbourne said that firstly these were used to

define paddocks as a backdrop for stud farm fencing and secondly there were benefits

that were not so apparent, particularly if there were deciduous trees as these gave

mineralisation to the topsoil and the effect of wind blowing leaves onto the paddocks had

a soporific effect on horses. Mr.McGrath said it would be generally accepted he had

extensive experience in running stud farms and asked if well-run commercialy successful

stud farms would tend to have good shelter belts and when Mr. Osbourne agreed that they

were one of the four components needed, he asked if the main shelter belt to the west of

the farm were removed as part of the road construction would that have a very significant

effect. Mr. Osbourne agreed it would have an effect but not that it was very significant

Mr. McGrath asked if him to identify the other three components, apart from shelter and

Mr. Osbourne said that soil was the most important, then water, then shelter and then

management and staff. Asked if the co-existence of these four components in one stud

than elsewhere and said that one could pay a lot to get all four and he agreed with Mr.

McGrath's suggestion that it was not easy to find a replacement for a stud farm. Mr.

McGrath asked if the road had an effect on the water table would this have an impact on

the stud farm and Mr. oOsbourne said it depended on whether the source was the only

Mr.McGrath then asked about the effects of dust on the stud farm during the construction

phase and Mr. Osbourne said he understood there was a deep cutting of about 7 metres

near where the stables were and there was an obligation on the contractor to minimise

dust and emissions from the site and said that the amount of dust depended on the

weather conditions at the time. Asked what effect dust had on the herbage of a stud farm,

Mr. Osbourne said that had never been quantified but he felt it would not be as palatable

as if no dust was on it but he said it was a transient problem where there were many

variables involved and the further it was from the source, the less the deposition took

place. Mr. McGrath asked about the impact of noise during the construction phase and

Mr.Osbourne said this could be of significance since the cutting was so deep and there

would probably be blasting. He said there were obligations on the contractor but the work

would have to be done in consultation with the stud management since it was sudden

noises that affected horses, and not so much with constant noise. Following a discussion

about the implications of blasting and dust blow on the operation of the stud, Mr.

Osbourne agreed that horses would have to be moved away from the work site and that

there would be a sterilised strip as well as the severed land removed from use during the

Mr. McGrath suggested the possibility of the road being moved westward so that the

shelter belt, which he pointed to on the map, was left in place and asked if that would

mitigate effects during the construction phase and when Mr. Osbourne agreed it would

Gerrardstown sStud had proposed but Mr. Osbourne said he knew nothing about that and

said he was not consulted about that suggestion. Mr. McGrath then asked about the

severed triangular parcel of land andasked if that could be used during construction or

afterwards and Mr. Osbourne said that it could not be used during construction and it was

unlikely to be used afterwards which was why he had not recommended an overpass to it.

Mr. McGrath asked him to comment on the importance of "winter paddocks" for a stud

farm and Mr. Osbourne said they were important and had to be on free-draining land and

he accepted that the road would be going through the area used as winter paddocks by the

stud. Asked if this would have a very significant impact on the stud, Mr. Osbourne said it

would have an impact but he would not quantify this. Mr. McGrath asked if he would

accept that winter paddocks had drainage and shelter issues and needed easy access to

make them suitable for use in winter and it was not just a case of picking an area but Mr.

Osbourne said there were 195 acres available and various things could be done which

was why he would not quantify the scaleof the impact. Asked how long would it take to

make the adjustments needed to get the stud farm back to whre it was now, Mr. Osbourne

replied that it was like a ball of twine as there were so many things that could be done. He

gave as an example the stud's intention to build a new foaling unit and said he himself

would not build it in the area they were talking about as they would be moving paddocks

that had not previously been used for that purpose but he accepted that any changes

significant. Mr. Osbourne said the size of the stud farm gave room for alternatives but he

would not express a view on the time involved in developing trhese. When Mr. McGrath

asked him if the alternative route that Gerrardstown were proposing would be preferable

from the stud's point of view, Mr. Osbourne replied that he was not going to get involved

in something that he did not know much about but he accepted that a route not going

through the stud would be preferable from their point of view and that it was not easy to

get replacement land for a stud farm as compared to ordinary agricultural lands.

Osbourne said that he only had a report about a farm visit there and had no data as such

since there were no likely significant effects. Mr. Sweetman then asked if he had been

involved in the original N7 Hearing or if he had given evidence about the Ballymany

Stud and when Mr. Osbourne said that he had not been imvolved in the inquiry for the

Sweetman asked if the road had a negative impact on Ballymany but Mr. Osbourne said it

did not as the road did not cross its lands. Mr. Sweetman then asked if a motorway from

bloodstock industry but Mr.Osbourne said he would have to indicate specific stud farms

and say where the road was going before he could answer that hypothetical question. Mr.

Sweetman then asked what effect would the road have on fox hunting and Mr.Osbourne

hunting was part of the horse industry, Mr. Osbourne said "not peripherally". The

Inspector said Mr. Osbourne had been put forward to deal with stud farms specifically.

Mr.Sweetman said he would go to the socio-economic aspacts and asked if he could

mention a stud farm in Ireland that had a motorway running next to it that was not

negatively affected by such a road. Mr. Osbourne said he could not deal with such a

question as he had not that sort of knowledge and Mr. Sweetman said he had no further

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he would agree with Mr. Guthrie's statement that the road would

have a significant impact on the operation of this stud farm andwhen Mr. Osbourne

agreed it would, asked ifit would be difficult to maintain a studfarm while construction

was in progress over the 3.3 kms. stretch through it. Mr. Osbourne agreed that it would

cause difficulties and when Mr. O'Donnell suggested that thoroughbred horses were

particularly susceptible to construction noises, Mr. Osbourne said that depended on

whether the noise was constant or sudden in nature as horses got used to constant noise

and that once the noise source was more than 300 metres away it had very little effect but

he said that effects increased as one got closer from the 300 metres distance. Mr.

O'Donnell suggested the stud farm would be affected both by the existing N3 and the

consrtruction work on the new road simultaneously but Mr. Osbourne said the existing

road was a constant source of noise and that there was some mitigation from the new road

being to the eastern side where it was down wind of the prevailing wind and he suggested

the noise factor might not then be so bad, but did accept that it would have an impact.

Mr. O'Donnell then asked about the effects on the mares and foals losing their normal

summer pastures when they would have to be kept back 300 metres from the road works

and Mr. Osbourne accepted this would be a restriction. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the

problems would continue when the motorway was in operation fron brake noises or tyre

blowouts but Mr. Osbourne did not agree that this would become a major issue. Mr.

O'Donnell said the road would sever the farm and that the land severed would be of no

use for the stud horses and suggested that there would be about 170 acres lost between

severed land, sterilised land from the 300 metres strip and what the road CPO took and

further suggested this would have a serious impact on the Stud's land availability and on

its future viability. Mr. Osbourne agreed there would be impacts on its operations as it

was not a one-stallion operation and land was needed for the number of mares at any one

Mr. O'Donnell asked if it would be necessary to re-configure the overall layout and when

Mr. Osbourne agreed but said this was something that could be done at the construction

stage, Mr. O'Donnell said that specific proposals woyuld be required and asked what

deciduous trees was essential with peripheral planting between the fence and road and

when Mr.O'Donnell suggested that a wall along the full lenght of the road would be

needed as mitigation, Mr. Osbourne said that was a belt and braces way of doing it. he

said that he generally advocated there should be fairly deep and intensive planting to at

least about 5 and 10 feet or between 3 and 6 metres depending on the height of the road

relative to the land, with post and rail fencing with verticals to abolut 2 metres high and

that acted as a screen. He said that good planting of quick growing trees worked quite

well and that when you put in a wall you usually lost hedgrows which were good for

wildlife. Mr. O'Donnell said there were hedgerows being removed anyway and suggested

that Tara was important enough of a stud for a wall as the appropriate form of boundary

treatment but Mr. Osbourne said that he would not dictate to the planners what they

should put there and that his preference was for a post and rail with a hedgerow beside

the road. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested that the best solution was for a wall with the

hedgerows and Mr. Osbourne agreed that was the ideal solution and also agreed that Tara

permission for a house and stable on the Trevet Road and suggested the motorwaywould

have a serious impact on his stable block and that it would be difficult to implement this

planning permission once the motorway was going in there. Mr. Osbourne said that the

road would have an impact but said he thought that the stables had not been built yet.

Mr.O'Donnell said the planning had been suspended but askedif the road put a question

on their viability and Mr. Osbourbe acceoted that it did due to the proximity of the road

Mr. Keane asked if he would be happy with either a wall or a post and rail fence with the

hedgerow and Mr. Osbourne said that a wall would keep vermin out but that he liked the

thought of looking at hedgerows and their wildlife and said that they had a purpose on a

principle subject and had been engaged in accoustics, noise and vibration work for over

14 years, specialising in noise aspects of planning and transportation including studies for

Dunshaughlin to Navan Section in September 2000, initially carrying out baseline

surveys at the 12 locations shown in Tables 4.1.1 to 4.1.4 in Vol. 4A of the EIS, followed

by traffic noise predictions using the procedures in CRTN 1988 and then developed a

noise model using the program "Road Noise 98". He said the model was used to assist in

designing the noise mitigation and to evaluate the traffic noise at various locations , as

shown in Figures 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 in Vol.4A for the various years and scenarios required for

He said the baseline results indicated very high noise levels existed close to the N3 with

Berrillstown. He said that at isolated locations, such as at the west side of St. Columbans

College (Dalgan Park) Site 3, and at Lismullin Site 5, the ambient noise level was around

Mr. Summers said that traffic noise levels on the M3 in 2024, without mitigation, were

predicted to exceed 68 dB LA10 18hour at several locations and mitigation measures

consisting of noise barrier fences, concrete walls or earh berms were proposed to

ameliorate noise impacts at these properties. He said the performance of noise barriers

was controlled mainly by its height and the barrier should be sited as close to the road as

possible to maximise noise reduction. He said there were barriers proposed at 11

locations and at all except one location these would reduce the predicted noise level to

properties 62 and 63 where the noise level in 2024 with the barrier in place would be 69

dB, but he pointed out that the Ardsallagh Road itself was a contributor to the noise

levels in the vicinity ( See also Section 108A of this Report for further details on this)

He said some more isolated properties would experience significant noise impacts due to

the new road but noise levels at those locations would still be below 68 dB and he said

these included locations 11at Berrilstown and 24 at Lismullin. He said the M3 would pass

within 250 metres of the Lismullin Centre, location 36, where the impact was considered

to be major significant negative due to the low baseline but other elevations of the

building, facing the existing N3, would benefit by experiencing minor significant positive

He said that for St. Columban's College (Dalgan Park), which was some 900 metres from

the M3, the college buildings closest to the new road would not be directly affected by

traffic noise from the M3 but the College should experience environmental noise benefits

from the reduced traffic on the existing N3. He said the front fa�ade of the main building

would experience noise reductions of 14 dB, bringing the existing noise down to 56 dB

Mr. Summers said that ground-bourne vibration from the new road was expected to be

insignificant since that effect only arose from surface irregularities which would not be

expected on newly constructed carriageways. He said the construction of the scheme

would involve the usual range of road construction plant and it was possible that rockbreaking

from the site using existing roads. He said there was a potential for significant noise

levels to be generated on the site from construction activities and that the Contractor

would be required to use machinery that complied with EU noise regulations and to take

specific noise mitigation measures to minimise disturbance to occupiers from the

construction noise. He said this would include specified working hours and noise limits to

relative changes in noise levels at the 334 properties along this Section as between

thedo-nothing 2004 scenario and the 2024 tolled scheme with and without mitigation

which indicated that for the 2024 tolled sceanrio for 94 there would be no change, 133

would experience a decrease of 3dB or more and 95 would experience an increase of

3dB or more. He said that 69 properties (within the 133) would experience major or

severe decreases of 10 dB or more with 62 experiencing major or severe increases of 10

He included a note on traffic noise in his Brief of Evidence which outlined the basis of

"decibels" in assessing noise, the use of LA10 18 hour for traffic noise, the background to

the origin of 68 dB LA10 18hour as the traffic noise criteria used for new roads in Ireland

and the changes in degrees of "loudness" from 2dB to 10dB on the logarithmic scale used

Mr. Brady suggested that the 68 dB crriterion he had used was one of the highest in the

EU and that the 68 dB standard had been set in the UK in 1975 with present thinking in

the USA being that it should be moving down to 57/58. Mr. Summers accepted what he

had said about the other EU levels, he said the implementation of the 68 dB criteria in the

UK was different to that in Ireland and that the EU thinking was not along the USA lines,

since the recent Directive required noise to be mapped by each Member State and that it

was likely each Member state would be required to come up with its own noise strategy

in time. Mr. Brady said his point was that the criteria being used was exceedingly dated

and it was unlikely to be acceptable if the EU were looking at it now and Mr. Summers

Mr. Brady referred to the Ardsallagh Road area and suggested it had a rural pastoral

scene and Mr. Summers agreed but said the existing noise levels were not necessarily low

due to the traffic on the existing road. Mr. Brady refered to locations 62 and 63 where a

level of 69 dB was predicted and asked where these were. Mr. Summers said these were

shown in Figure 4.2.4 in Vol. 4A and were south of the M3 cut on the Ardsallagh Road.

Asked what was the noise level for the houses north of the motorway, Mr. Summers

replied that at location 66 the 2024 prediction with the M3 in place was for 61dB and the

M3 was slightly above the existing ground level there. Mr. Brady said there would be a

severe noise impact on these houses during the construction period, which could extend

over 3 years, and asked if he acepted that and Mr. Summers replied he would have to do

an assessment before accepting it would be severe, but agreed that high noise levels

Mr. Brady quoted from the conclusion of his Brief of Evidence that 76 properties would

experience increases of 10dB or more and 86 would experiences decreases of 10dB or

more and suggested his Clients' houses were in the major increase category during

construction. Mr. Summers replied that they might well experience such increases but

they had not presented a detailed construction noise assessment and without doing this he

would not necessarily use the term severe. Mr. Brady said that he had predicted a noise

level of 69 dB at locations 62 and 63 with noise barriers of 3.5 metres heigth on one side

and 2.2 metres on the other side with planting and that was in excess of the 25 year old

criteria and he suggested this meant a large increase in noise levels. Mr. Summers pointed

to paragraph 4.2 in the EIS which identified noise from the Ardsallagh Road itself as a

large contributor to the 69 dB and he said that the traffic effects from the Ardsallagh

Road were not directly attributable to the effects of noise from the operation of the M3.

Mr. Brady asked if other types of noise barrier to earth banks, such as timber fences or

other types were envisaged. When Mr. Summers said he was not sure of the contractual

arrangements, the Inspecror intervened to say that on another section Mr. Dilworth for

the Council had stated once the height was specified the material was not an issue, as the

same result would come from a proprietary barrier as would from an earth bank or

concrete wall. Mr. Brady then put that to Mr. Summers and he agreed provided a certain

Mr. Begley asked if the Colllierstown Overbridge would be likely to have piled supports

and if so how many piles would there be per pier and when Mr. Summers said he was not

aware of those details which were more appropriate for the Project engineer, Mr. Begley

Summers said that they were not required to carry out an assessment of construction

noise for the EIS so he had no details of possible piling noise. Mr. Begley asked if there

would be blasting in the locality of Collierstown and Mr. Summers suggested he should

ask the Project Engineer about this as well but said that, from earlier answers given, he

Ms Martin asked him to explain how the survey results shown in Table 4.3 in Vol. 4A of

the EIS were derived and she said she knew where the locations were, the sites she was

interested in being Berrillstown 8 on the N3 and Berrillstown 9 on the Trevet Road. Mr.

Summers explained about the use of LA10 and that each survey was taken over a 15

minute period and that for Site 8 the average LA10 of 82 was arrived at by taking the

arithmetic average of the three figures of 83.5, 83 & 82.5 and subtracting 1 from this. He

said this was known as the shortened measurement procedure and gave an estimate of the

LA10 over an 18 hour period which was used to represent the traffic noise over thc whole

Ms Martin asked was 45.8 the average noise at location 9 and Mr. Summers said it would

be and she then referred to Table 4.7 where the "do-something without mitigation" noise

mislead by those figures since the numbers for the receiver locations used in the

predictions were different to those used in the measurements. He said figures 4.1 to 4.1.4

locations used for the predictions and asessment. He said that as her house was beyond

the 300 metre zone from the carriageway they had not predicted noise levels there but the

nearest to her was location 13 in Figure 4.2.2 where the " do nothing" level was 50dB in

2004 and this was predicted to increase to 61dB in 2024 with no mitigation. Ms Martin

said she was confused since she saw location 9 in Berrillstown in figure 4.1.2 in the EIS

as being the closest to her house but now he was saying that was not a receiver. The

Inspector said that was where they had talken a reading but then this was put into a model

and receivers were predicted, the nearest to her being at 13. Ms Martin said she would

have to go through it again since she had thought from the Tables ( See 4.7 & 4.8 ) that

for location 9 in both scenarios of with and without mitigation the figure stayed the same

Mr. Summers said that would be correct for location 9 since no mitigation measures were

being implemented there and he said that for location 13 there was a reduction of 1dB

with mitigation. Ms Martion asked why the reduction was only 1dB and Mr. Summers

said this was because the mitigation was targetted at locations where the noise levels

were over 68dB. Ms Martin then referred to the bunds which she had seen on drawings

given to her and asked if these were put in to reduce noise. Mr. Summers said that was a

further screening that was being proposed over and above what had been assessed so

there would be a greater noise mitigation than what had been assessed in the EIS.

MsMartin said if there were changes to what was in the EIS they should be given this

information and suggested it would not be unreasonable for another survey to be done so

intervened and asked Mr. Summers to carry out a specific survey at Ms Martin's house

and to give her a written report on it. Ms Martin said the fact bunds would be there

should be included and Mr. Summers agreed they would. ( Note -- The result of this

survey was included in the File of responses and documents handed in by the Council on

Mr. Farrelly asked him to quote the noise levels for the existing N3 and the future M3 at

Blundettstown and Mr. Summers said the N3 level was 71dB where they had measured it

and for the M3, where there was a slight difference in survey and receptor locations, they

predicted 74dB in the 2004 "do-nothing" scenario, which reduced to 69dB with the "do

something" and mitigation scenario. Mr. Farrelly asked if the 71dB would dissappear or

be added to the 74 dB and give 145 but Mr. Summers said noise levels did not work like

that. He explained the noise level at location 38, which was where he had quoted from,

would continue to be dominated by noise from the N3 even after the M3 was built and

the noise level was reduced because the traffic on the N3 would be reduced. Mr. Farrelly

said he did not understand why that was so since people still had to use the N3 to get onto

the M3 and said he had picked the Ross Cross to Blundelstown section of the N3 because

people would travel on that to reach the M3. Mr. Summers replied that the traffic flows

opened.When Mr. Farrelly asked how could people get onto the M3 without using the

Engineers but his understanding was that most of the N3 traffic would not join the M3 at

When Mr. Farrelly suggested that trafffic coming off the M3 there and travelling on the

N3 would make noise, Mr. Summers said traffic on any road created some level of noise.

Mr. Farrelly then asked if the M3 was going to be higher or lower than the N3 between

Ross Cross and Blundellstown, Mr. Summers said he was not very familiar with the

scheme there but the N3 went over the M3 at Blundellstown so he assumed the M3 was

lower at that point. When Mr. Farrelly suggested that, as there would now be six lanes of

traffic against the two at present (M3x4+N3x2), instead of a reduction in noise from 71 to

69 there would be an increase to about 100 at least and more if the M3 was higher than

the N3, Mr. Summers said that if you combined two noise levels of 70 dB each at a

particular location, the result would be 73 db as it was a logarithmic scale and an increase

of 10 dB was a subjective doubling of noise. Mr. Farrelly said the noise levels would be

doubled or trebled but Mr. Summers said they had identified properties where there

would be increases and decreases in noise levels and that for the Scheme as a whole, he

considered there would be a benefit on balance. Mr. Farrelly said noise always rose and

there was no screening to stop noise going up the Hill of Skryne. Mr. Summers said his

house was outside the 300 metre zone so they did not assess the noise in Skryne in detail

in their study. Mr. Farrelly said he would leave it at that but it was still unsatisfactory.

The Inspector asked Mr. Summers to look at Table 4.8 on page 57 and to put Figure 4.2.3

on the screen at the Hearing and suggested that receivers 38, 39, 40 & 33 seemed to be

the neaest to Blundellstown Interchange and that the predictions in Table 4.8 for the " donothing

Inspector then asked him to outline what the changes were for receiver 38 and Mr.

Summers said that in 2004 the level was 74 with only the N3 existing while it would fall

to 69 in 2004 when the M3 went in and this would rise to 72 in 2024. The Inspector said

that if the other receivers around Blundellstown were examined the changes were similar

to those at 38 and he told Mr. Farrelly that the Tables indicated the noise levels around

the Blundellstown area, close to the M3, would stay much the same as at present.

Mr. Farrelly said he was still not clear if the fact of the N3 staying in use was taken into

account in those Tables. Mr. Summers then explained how the digital model worked but

Mr. Farrely still maintained there was traffic on both roads and this must automatically

increase the noise levels. Mr. Summers said noise was dominated by the section of road

with the highest flow and the noise was being redistributed, but Mr. Farrelly said the

traffic passed the same receiver twice and suggested Mr. Summers was only counting it

Blundellstown and gave an example where a car going direct from Clonee to Kells only

used one road but if it went from Ross Cross to join the M3 at Blundellstown it used two

The Inspector intervened and said he had asked for readings for the four receivers to be

compared as he had hoped this might clarify the point for Mr. Farrelly but it did not seem

to have done so. He said Mr. Summers was correct in what he was saying of the issue

coming from the relative traffic flows, but that was a traffic matter which Mr. Summers

was suggesting someone else would deal with better than he felt he could do. He said Mr.

Farrelly had raised a valid point for clarification but, at this stage of the Hearing, he was

not disposed to bringing back the Traffic Engineer to clarify that point. He said the issue

was likely to arise again and the Council could clarify the matter in more detail for him at

Mr. O'Donnell suggested this was the first scheme in Ireland that Mr. Summers had been

involved in that had reached the Hearing stage and when Mr. Summers agreed, he asked

who told him what standards were to be applied. Mr. Summers replied that Mr. Guthrie

and the Project Team had been in communication about these with the Council and the

NRA and the 68 dB over 18 hours was confirmed as the standard to use. Mr. O'Donnell

asked if that was the level he had come up with himself initially, Mr. Summers said it

was their initial level and then this was confirmed. Asked if he stood over that figure, Mr.

Summers said he did not dispute anything he had put in written evidence. Mr. O'Donnell

suggested the 68 dB level was a UK figure used for noise insulation purposes and used to

determine compensation in the UK. When Mr. Summers agreed this was so, he asked if

the level of 68 dB was an acceptable level of noise in Ireland and Mr. Summers replied

that was the instruction they had received. Mr. O'Donnell said he had given his first

answer that he had come up with the 68 dB but now was saying they were directed to use

this and asked which it was. Mr. Summers replied that there were two parts to the

criterion, the L10 18 hour and the 68 dB and he was unsure which part was being sought.

Mr. O'Donnell suggested the 68 dB came from noise insulation standards in the UK and

that it was commonly used in mitigation in Ireland, Mr. Summers agreed with this and

was asked if he had looked at the figures applied in other jurisdictions and Mr. Summers

said he had recently heard of a decision relating to the Outer Ring Road in Dublin.

Mr. O'Donnell referred to traffic noise being different to other noise sources but that

generally, noise was noise, and asked if he had looked at the levels set by An Bord

Pleanala for private or housing developments and Mr. Summers said he had not and when

asked what would An Bord impose as a condition for the level arriving at a bedroom

window, Mr. Summers said he did not know. Asked what would be the UK position, Mr.

Summers replied that was laid down in PPG 24 Planning Policy Guidance, which set out

four noise exposure categories. Mr. O'Donnell asked what the UK arrival level was and

noise. Mr. O'Donnell suggested this was saying that 68 dB was the acceptable arrival

level over 18 hours at a bedroom or in a garden of a house and Mr. Summers said he had

mistakenly said category B and C when he should have said category C and D for the 68

dB. Mr. O'Donnell then asked what was the acceptable noise level within a bedroom

specified in the UK, he asked what international figures were available. Mr. Summers

replied that a night time level would be 30 to 35 dB Laeq and Mr. O'Donnell asked what

attenuation would an open window give and when told 10 dB, he suggested this would

give an approach level of 40 dB as being reasonable to give 30 dB within and Mr.

Summers agreed, if this was at night-time. Mr. O'Donnell then asked how could he justify

a level of 68 dB which was 28 dB over this reasonable level, and saying that each 3 dB

increase was a doubling of noise energy, asked what was the increase in energy from that

28 dB. Mr. Summers said he could not say without working it out and he said that, for a

night-time 68 dB L10 18hour level, the typical night-time traffic noise would be expected

Following a discussion about the basis for the L10 18 hour measurement period and the

"averaging" of 68 dB, Mr. O'Donnell asked if it was reasonable to allow occupiers of

bedrooms or sittingrooms to have their windows open and when Mr.Summers agreed, he

asked what would be a reasonable level in a sittingroom. Mr. Summers replied that

unreasonable, Mr. Summers said the figures of 30 and 40 dB were more of a guideline to

minimise health effects and Mr. O'Donnell suggested the health of the population would

be affected if these levels were increased but Mr. Summers replied that, on balance, with

the new road there would be fewer people exposed to high levels of noise. Mr. O'Donnell

then said that he was proposing a level that was 28 dB above the safe level which meant

it was 6, 7 or 8 times higher than what was acceptable and Mr. Summers replied that with

an open window it was an 18 dB difference. Mr. O'Donnell asked how he could justify a

Summers said if it was accepted that roads needed to be built then there had to be

compromises between various effects, Mr. O'Donnell said that his answer was saying it

did not matter if people's health was affected and asked why an appropriate level on noise

to meet the public health standards had not been specified. Mr. Summers again replied

Mr. O'Donnell said his Clients owned a Gate lodge where there was an elderly woman

living immediately adjoining this road at the back enterance to Dalgan Park and he was

saying to her that the road must be built and that she must suffer the consequences there

in the period at the end of her life. Mr. Summers said that if this was the property he

thought it was, then the scheme would give a benefit there by a positive noise impact. Mr.

O'Donnell asked if he had taken noise readings at the Gate lodge and when Mr. Summers

said they had not, asked if he was aware there was an occupied house at that location and

Mr. Summers said it was included in the EIS assessment. Mr.O'Donnell again asked why

directed to use, he suggested Mr. Summers should have said "that figure is wrong,

people's health will be affected" and a discussion followed on the use of 68dB and the

high noise levels from increasing travel by HGVs during nightime being hidden within

the 18 hour 68 dB "average". Mr.O'Donnell told Mr. Summers that An Bord used figures

development and suggesting he was allowing for figures as high as 80 or 90 dB with his

standard, but Mr. Summers disagreed such levels would be reached by traffic noises

which, he said, tended to be more constant with increasing traffic. Asked again why he

had used such an inappropriate standard, Mr. Summers replied that a criteria had to be set

that balanced the need to build roads with various environmental effects, Mr. O'Donnell

suggested he was not comfortable with the figure of 68 dB and asked if he would like to

sit in his own front or back garden and be exposed to an average of 68 dB measured over

18 hours and Mr. Summers agreed he would not but said he would repeat his earlier

statement of the scheme resulting in fewer people being exposed to high levels of noise

on the existing road. Mr. O'Donnell said it found this to be unbelieveable and that he

could not give a single reason for this other than to say roads have to built and questioned

the purpose of the EIS when he had prepared a report using figures he admitted he would

not like to be exposed to himself. Mr. Summers said that he could only repeat that the

balance of his conclusions were that fewer people would be exposed to higher levels of

noise and he considered that was an environmental benefit. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the

problem was being transferred to other communities and that he was talking about 28 dB

higher than the acceptable level but Mr. Summers said they had agreed it was 18 dB and

Following some exchanges between M/s Keane and O'Donnell, Mr. O'Donnell then asked

what figure was being used for construction noise and when Mr. Summers said the main

noise limit was 75 dB, asked had he surveyed where rock blasting would take place, Mr.

Summers replied he had recently learned there would not be blasting required on this

Section of the road scheme and Mr. O'Donnell suggested he had written the EIS without

knowing where rock blasting was required, Mr. Summers agreed that was so. Having

discussed the possible types of plant which might be used, Mr. O'Donnel asked why the

construction noise levels were not identified and considered in the EIS since all the likely

effects must be asessed there and Mr. Summers replied they had identifed that there

would be noise impacts from construction and had identified the appropriate mitigation

measures in the EIS but did not present an analysis of noise levels in it. Mr. O'Donnell

suggested that he could not say what noise levels at any particular section would bc

could not give that in any great detail, Mr. O'Donnell suggested he could not give any

indication to his Client, living in a house near where considerable extraction would take

place and exposed to noise levels, of what these might be and Mr. Summers replied that

he would be able to, if he had been instructed to do so, but that was not reqiuired for the

EIS. Mr. O'Donnell said he was instructed to do so by the requirement to identify the

likely significant impacts, Mr. Summers said they had identified and discussed impacts

but had not analysed them in detail and when Mr. O'Donnell asked if he was aware of the

significant cutting through Dalgan Park where rock could be extracted and asked how

long that would take, Mr. Summers said he did not know the rock type or length of time

involved and suggested this was a matter to raise with Mr. Guthrie. Mr. O'Donnell said

he was required to have considered the interactions in the EIS and Mr. Summers said it

was not uncommon to present EISs without including detailed consideration of the

construction works. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that might be the case in the UK but that

Mr. O'Donnell referred to a recent High Court case involving the Council relating to

construction noise where the Judge ruled that 60 dB with a rated penalty of 5 dB was the

appropriate level for a construction project carried out by the Council and when Mr.

Summers said he was not aware of this ( Note -- this case relates to a deep rock cutting

adjacent to a house and has been referred to by Mr. Searson and Mr. O'Donnell at several

other Hearings) Mr. O'Donnell asked how he could justify 75 dB in the context where the

Irish Courts had ruled the appropriate figure was 60 dB, with a penalty of 5dB for the

tonal or impulsive content of the noise. Mr. Summers replied that the figure of 75 dB was

the figure agreed on by the Consultants for the various Sections of the M3 and he

considered it to be an acceptable level given the temporary nature of the works. Mr.

O'Donnell said that he had not been able to say how long the cut through Dalgan Park

would take and that temporary works could extend for many years in Ireland with Local

Authorities being among the worst offenders. Mr. Summers replied that a construction

site could not be permanent but he agreed it could become intolerable if thc work affected

any one location over a number of years. Mr. O'Donnell suggested the same applied to an

intermittent basis over a long period at one location but Mr. Summers did not respond to

Mr. O'Donnell referred to the sugggested improvement in the noise environment at the

Gate lodge area and asked how this could be. Mr. Summers said they had modelled the

noise level in 2004 to be 60 dB over 18 hours and when Mr. O'Donnell suggested this

could contain noises as high as 75 to 90 dB, he said that was unlikely since the L10 18

hour index used to assess traffic noise commonly showed a variation during daytime of 3

to 4dB. Mr.O'Donnell, having again referred to the compensation origin of the 18 hour

index, asked if he had measured the noise level at the Gate lodge and when told that he

had not, suggested he could not say what the present background noise level was. Mr.

O'Donnell said that Mr. Searson had taken measurements at that location which gave a

level of 34 decibels and he suggested this undermined Mr. Summers entire evidence by

his assumption of it being about 60 decibels. Mr. Summers replied he would need to see

details of the measurements and Mr. O'Donnell outlined Mr. Searson's qualifications and

asked why Mr. Summers would doubt his capability to carry out the tests which came up

measurement details were outlined in the EIS and he would expect to see similar details

presented beforec he could comment. When Mr. O'Donnell said they had not taken any

measurements there, Mr. Summers said they had used a proven digital noise model with

of calibration measurements taken at a number of locations to predict the 60 dB L10 18

hour level at that location and Mr. O'Donnell said this model was clearly flawed since

Mr. Searson had measured the background noise as being 34 dB. Mr. Summers said he

would need to see the details of Mr. Searson's measurements if he was to answer the

Mr. O'Donnell then said Mr. Searson was asking why measurements were taken at 15

replied it was at Dowdstown House ( Note -- This is Site 2 in Table 4.3 in Vol. 4A of the

EIS at page 63) and Mr. O'Donnell asked had he his notes on what climatic conditions

were at the time these were taken ( See also T. Hamills submissions). Mr. Summers said

he did not have these details with him but could have them sent on from his office later

on. Mr.O'Donnell returned to the 15 minute intervals used and asked if that was the

appropriate method saying Mr. Searson would say they should be taken over 3 hours. Mr.

Summers replied that there was a shortened procedure in CTRN ( Calculation of Road

Traffic Noise) that allowed for a sample measurement to be taken over three consecutive

hours. Mr. O'Donnell asked if this was on page 31 in CTRN and Mr. Summers agreed

and said his measurements were taken from 11.20 to 11.41, 12.24 to 12.45 and 13.20 to

13.40 and represented the noise levels between 11am to 12 noon, 12 noon to 1 pm and 1

pm to 2 pm. Mr. O'Donnell then said this was not in accord with the CRTN requirements

and he quoted these as "using an L10 3hour as an arithmetic mean of 3 consecutive

values of hourly L10" and Mr. Summers replied it was possible to use a shorter period

than 1 hour. Mr. O'Donnell suggested he had not followed the shorten measurement

procedure since he has used 15 minute intervals instead of 3 consecutive hours and Mr.

times and said the equation there allowed for a sampling period of "Tmin" that would be

less than the full hourly period. Mr. O'Donnell asked where this allowed for what he had

done to occur and Mr. Summers outlined how the calculation was based on the hourly

traffic flows to give the minimum sampling time but Mr.O'Donnell suggested this was

saying he could disregard the contents of paragraph 43 ( on page 31 in CRTN which is

quoted above) and Mr. Summers replied he was not disregarding it and that it was part of

Mr. O'Donnell said the shortened procedure was set out in paragraph 43 and that he had

procedure said 3 hours but Mr. Summers said it was a perfectly accepted practice to use a

shorter sampling period to represent the hourly intervals. Mr. O'Donnell repeated that

paragraph provided for the shortened method but he had decided to take an even more

shortened method and Mr. Summers replied that it might not be to the exact letter of the

standard but the instrumention standards were much lower than current technology when

CRTN was written. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested the standard was out of date and when

Mr.Summers said certain aspects might be out of date, he suggested the standards he had

relied on in his evidence must also be out of date. Mr. Summers disagreed with this and

said it was only some of the measurement standards were out of date and not the whole

standard and he said he followed what was normal practice for virtually all noise

Mr. O'Donnell then suggested he adopted the 15 minute interval because the 3 hour

intervals were inconvenient and asked why he did not stick to what the standard required.

Mr. Summers replied that it was a normally accepted practice to carry out measurements

in that way as more measurements could be done within a given period and it was not for

O'Donnell then reminded him of his answer when asked about the climatic conditions and

that Mr. Summers had not said that he was not on the site at that time and asked why he

did not say so. Mr. Summers replied that he did not have the document with him as it was

in his files and that if Mr.O'Donnell had asked if he had carried out the measurements

himself, hewould have given him that answer. A discussion followed about what was

technical staff from Halcrow Barry that carried out the measurements, he said Mr.

Summers had queried Mr. Searson's measurement and it was now clear that the readings

Mr. Summers relied on were not made by a noise expert. Mr. Summers said he had not

criticised Mr. Searson's measurements but had said he would need to see them to be able

comment on them and that the surveys had been carried out to his specification and under

his direction. Further exchanges then followed between Counsel, when Mr. O'Donnell

sought the names of those involved in the survey, until the Inspector told them to stop.

Mr. O'Donnell suggested the Mr. Summers did not have noise reports carried out by

competent people, that he had represented to the Hearing he had personally done them

and he had cast doubt on Mr. Searson who had carried out a survey for an ordinary

citizen whose resourses were limited and that it was a bizarre situation to be in. Mr.

Summers denied he was casting doubt on Mr. Searsons qualifications but said noise was

a very technical issue and saying the background noise was 35 dB raised queries about

what index was used and one would expect to see details of the measurements made. Mr.

O'Donnell said the figure Mr. Searson had in front of him was of LAF 90 equaling

35dBA and asked if that was background noise and Mr. Summers said it was, but that it

could not be directly compared with the L10 levels he had quoted. Mr. O'Donnell said

that Mr. Summers had not made any measurements there nor did he know the conditions

or what basis was used and Mr. Summers replied that he knew what base was measured,

and that the measurements were carried out under his direction and to the specifications

he had laid down. A discussion followed about whether the climatic conditions were

noted which Mr. Summers said he had notes on, the expertise required to do the survey

which Mr. Summers said his specification allowed for and whether CRTN was adequate

and could deal with LAeq and LAF measurements with Mr. Summers saying it could not

deal with those indices directly and the inadequacies were only in certain respects. Mr.

Prediction Method" which he said that Mr. Searson said incorporated LAeq and LAF

mass into the design of road traffic noise and Mr. Summers said he was not. When

Mr.O'Donnell suggested he should have investigated to see if there was a more up to date

approach to dealing with road traffic noise, Mr. Summers replied that the standards and

methodoligies for the various Sections of the M3 were considered and it was decided

which ones would be used, including the CRTN, and that Mr. Dilworth had reviewed a

Mr. O'Donnell said he was back to his earlier answer that he had been effectively directed

to use certain standards and that he had not brought his own expertise to bear. Mr.

Summers replied that his expertise was to find out what standards were used in Ireland

and when he established there were none available, he had suggested to Mr. Guthrie that

they should use the UK road traffic procedure in the UK DMRB and said that, initially,

Mr. Guthrie agreed this would be used. He said that, subsequently there was a debate

about this and it was agreed they would still use the CRTN prediction procedure with the

68 criteria for noise mitigation with certain other methods as shown in Tables 4.7 and 4.8

in his part of the EIS being used to assess the impact of noise changes from the scheme.

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had discussed this with Mr. Guthrie and suggested this was a

slightly different history of events to that he had given earlier and Mr. Summers replied

that he had been asking several separate questions then where now he could give wider

Mr. O'Donnell then referred to another document given to him by Mr. Searson from the

Building Research Establishment and said it gave figures for acceptable noise levels in

different buildings and asked if he was familiar with the activities occurring with the

Dalgan Park campus. Mr. Summers said his knowledge was mainly from listening to the

evidence at the Hearing and from further questions Mr. O'Donnell established that Mr.

prepared and that Mr. Guthrie had told him prior to the EIS being written Dalgan Park

Lismullin Centre were the two most important locations relating to noise. Mr. O'Donnell

suggested he had written the EIS without ever being near Dalgan Park or other areas of

the road such as the Gate lodge and Mr. Summers replied that as the assessment of noise

from a road scheme was principally a prediction exercise about something that had not

yet been built and was done by using a digital model based on accurate topographical

information, it was not essential to have visited the site. Mr. O'Donnell asked what he had

been told about the Gate lodge and when told it had not been specifically mentioned,

suggested he prepared the EIS without knowing who lived in that building. When Mr.

Summers replied that they would not normally make special provision for any partoicular

property since there could be hundreds or thousands of properties on a road and that level

of detail was not necessary, Mr. O'Donnell said that each and every household were

entitled to have their situation considered and Mr. Summers said the same noise criteria

would be applied to any dwelling. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested the different uses in

Dowdstown House, like the library, should be assessed against different standards and

referred to levels given in the Building Research document as being in the middle 30s for

libraries and those in bedrooms as being around 25 dB. Mr. Summers said he would like

to see that document and was given a page by Mr. O'Donnell saying that, in any event,

he had not examined the buildings to see what uses were within them. Mr. Summers said

it appeared from the diagram on the page that Mr. O'Donnell had been quoting from that

these were indications of typical noise levels that could be expected within certain

premises and vehicles, but were not a design guide as such or an indication of standards

to be achieved from a development and it was not guidance to be considered in the

assessment of a road as such. Mr. O'Donnell said it gave a bedroom level of 25 but Mr.

Summers said they had discussed 30 or 35 dB as the sort of figure recommended by the

environments like offices and libraries but they were not design guidance values. Mr.

O'Donnell concluded by saying that Mr. Searson would be giving evidence on that and

The Inspector asked Mr.O'Donnell who had published the " Nordic Prediction Method"

he had referred to in his cross-examination and Mr. O' Donnell replied that it was

Mr.Sweetman asked if his written instructions on how the noise levels were to be carried

out could be made available and Mr. Summers said he could but it would take a few days

and when asked was he saying that levels of 85 dB(A) would have significant effects on

health, Mr. Summers replied that level was a risk of hearing damage. Mr. Sweetman

referred to Table 4.6 in the EIS Vol. 4A where the maximum permissible noise level at

adjoining dwellings during construction Monday to Friday 0700 to 1900 was given as 85

mentioned in the construction phase in the Non-Technical Summary, Vol. 1 of the EIS.

Mr.Summers said Vol. 1did not specifically mention either construction noise or health

risk. Mr Sweetman asked if he accepted the Non-Technical Summary was fundamentally

flawed and Mr. Summers said it did not mention construction noise and Mr. Sweetman

suggested he was not disagreeing that it was fundamentally flawed as the significant

health risk was not mentioned but Mr. Summers said he did not think it was a significant

health risk. Mr. Sweetman then asked him if he had written the section on noise in Vol.

4A and Mr. Summers said parts of it were drafted by a colleague but that he had charge

of the overall final wording. Asked if he had noise qualifications, Mr. Summers said he

Mr. Sweetman asked where in the EIS, which he had overseen but did not write, it stated

there could be a significant health impact from construction noise. Mr. Summers replied

that he did not believe there was a significant health effect since the 85 dB referred to as

being the hearing damage risk level was an average level and not a peak level and that it

was a peak level that was referred to in that Table earlier. Mr. Sweetman said the level

was written as a peak level and that Mr. Summers had no evidence and had admitted that

he had none since he did not know what the type of rock or construction noise would be,

that he did not know if a rock-breaker, blasting or crushing would be used and could not

compensate for that since he had no idea. Mr. Sweetman then asked where in that section

of the EIS did it say there would be a significant impact from construction noise and

when Mr. Summers replied that it was in paragraph 4.6.1 which read "construction of the

new road may give rise to significant levels of noise", Mr. Sweetman said that was not

Mr.Park asked if he could give details of the days and times the measurements were taken

in the vicinity of Dowdstown House that were discussed in his previous evidence. Mr.

Sunmmers replied that the measurements at Location 2 near Dowdstown bridge, Site I at

Ardsallagh and Site 3 in Dalgan Park were all taken on 8 November 2000 when wind

westerly direction and said he did not have a note of what day in the week that was, but

Mr. Keane intervened to say it was a Wednesday. Mr. Park suggested the wind was very

gusty and asked if he could give it in terms of the Beaufort scale. Mr. Summers said he

Mr.Guthrie intervened to say he had just calculated it at 12 mph. Mr. Park sugggested the

wind speed seemed too much for readingsto be taken and when Mr. Summers said that it

was within the maximum allowed in the CRTN, the Inspector asked what that was and

( Note -- Subsequently the Council handed in a Note on the Beaufort Scale of Wind

Speeds, listed at Day 21 in Appendix 4 of this Report. From this it can be seen that a

wind speed of 10 metres per second, which is 36 kms. per hour or 22.5 mph, is described

as a Force 5 or a "Fresh Wind", when small trees may start to sway. Windspeeds of 3 to

5 metres per sec would equate to a Force 3 or a "Gentle Breeze" when leaves and twigs

Mr. Park then referred to Figure 4.2.4 on page 77 of the EIS, Vol.4A, and Table 4.8 on

negative impact and when Mr.Summers agreed, he referred to receptor 44, Farrelly's

house near Dowdstown bridge, where the impact was shown as moderately positive. Mr.

Park expressed surprise that at this house, which would be 100 metres from the motorway

and with a realigned L-2201 elevated some 7 to 8 metres above the motorway at the foot

of their back garden, being assessed as moderately positive. Mr. Summers said he was

fairly certain that they had represented the noise levels at the front of that house, saying

that you could look at noise on each of the four sides of a building. Mr. Park asked if a

person was living in a house where there was no motorway and a motorway was then

built 100 metres away from it, would it be noisier or quieter. Mr. Summers replied that

the property was very close to the existing local road and that a 3 metre bund was being

put in to mitigate the noise impact from the motorway and that their calculations

demonstrated the effects of that. Mr. Park asked if he accepted the house would be more

happy the calculation presented in the EIS was representative, he repeated the question

but Mr. Summers said it depended on whether an individual property or in general was

Mr. Park said he could not understand how he could come to the Hearing and say that

there would be a positive impact on Receptor 44 who lived about 100 metres from the

motorway and would have more traffic than at present using the L-2201 as people would

be heading towards the Interchange at Blundellstown and he could not understand how he

reached the conclusion that it would be quieter in 2024 than at present. When Mr.

Summers said he could show a cross-section of the mounding on the screen, the Inspector

intervened and said to leave the mounding to one side for the present, that Mr. Parks had

asked him how he was happy with the figures and he suggested that Mr. Summers might

explain what the figures in Table 4.8 represented rather than just saying there was going

to be a 3 metre bund. Mr. Summers then said the noise from the existing road in 2024

with no motorway was 68 dB while the noise with the motorway in place in 2024 and

with the bunding to screen the motorway was 58dB so this was a 10dB reduction. Mr.

Park suggested the bunding was further on and Mr. Summers said they had predicted the

noise levels from the view of the house where the road went into the cutting and said that

he would have a further look at that property to check the noise levels on the other

elevations but said he was confident the noise levels were given correctly in the EIS for

Mr. Park then referred to Receptors 50, 51 & 52 all having varying positive impacts with

no motorway near any of these houses at present and asked how there could be reductions

in noise of 63 to 56, 63 to 59 & 63 to 59 for these when the motorway would be less than

100 metres from them. Mr. Summers said he thought there might be an error in these

figures and Mr. Park replied that he thought so too but asked how they could accept the

statement in the Summary Matrix in the EIS which gave a major positive influence for

Route Blue 2 when they considered the influence must be negative and said that this gave

an erroneous and inaccurate assessment. Mr. Park asked if he was now going to re-look at

the figures and Mr. Summers said he would re-examine them but said that, in general, he

would still expect there to be a positive impact overall. When Mr. Park said he could not

understand that, Mr. Summers said it was because their assessment took account of the

properties that would benefit from noise reductions compared to the number of properties

The Inspector intervened and said that he did not think Mr. Summers was addressing the

point being raised and referred to receptor 47 as an example and pointed out that in both

2004 and 2024 he was saying the impact was moderate negative and as he understood

what Mr. Park was asking to be explained was what these significance comments meant

when the perception was of a motorway creating noise. When Mr. Summers said there

appeared to be something wrong with the figures, the Inspector said that irrespective of

whether or not there were errors there were a series of comments in the Table and what

he understood Mr. Park to be seeking was how these were arrived at and he suggested he

use receptor 47. Mr. Summers said that the calculated noise for 2024 with no scheme in

place was 54 and it was 60 with the scheme in place, giving an increase of 6 dB which

was rated as a moderate negative impact. He said he expected that receptors 50 to 53

should be shown as a negative and not a positive impact and said that what he was trying

to explain was that while you looked at the effects on individual properties, you also

looked at the scheme in total to reach overall conclusions about the balance between

positive and negative impascts and that he considered the overall to be positive for noise

Mr. Park said that if he bought a house on the N3 he would expect to have to put up with

noise from that road but he had made a conscious decision to live in a nice quiet area and

now he was being told there would be a positive impact for noise when there would be a

motorway 100 metres away from him and he said he did not find this a credible piece of

information. He said he did not find it credible that the summary matrix at Table 4.2 said

this was the best route to use as there would be a moderate positive noise and vibration

influence on houses where most of the houses were in the Bellinter, Cannistown and

Ardsallagh areas, which were where the residences predominantly were, and they would

have a motorway coming very close to them. When Mr. Summers said that the summary

took account of the noise reductions along the existing road, Mr. Park repeated that he

did not choose to live on the main road but chose to live in a quiet road and should not

have to accept what someone else was benefiting from, and said it was not realistic to

balance one off against the other like that. He concluded by referring to the Plate opposite

page 76 in Vol.4A, which showed a table of common sounds, and criticised the use of a

lorry at 40 kms.per hour, or 24 mph, and a car at 60 kms.per hour, or 36 mph, as the basis

for typical sound levels. He said the normal speeds would be much greater, questioning if

lorries would ever be seen to be travelling at 24 mph on a motorway, and said that the

figures given as examples for road traffic were disingenuous and misleading. Mr.

Mr.Hamill said he had been walking with his wife in Dalgan Park on 8 November 2000

and saw noise measurements being made and had made a note at the time of these being

done and that it was "very windy" and asked for his comments. Mr. Summers replied that

the wind speeds were within the maximum allowable and Mr. Hamill said he heard the

noise of the wind and could feel it blowing against him and saw branches being moved

rather rapidly and asked if that was reasonable conditions to be measuring noise. Mr.

Summers said the instrument was fitted with a windshield over the microphone which

minimised any direct noise of wind but it would pick up the noise of wind from the trees.

Mr. Hamill said he heard substantial noise as otherwise he would not have made a note of

it and Mr. Summers said that might well have been the case at the Dowdstown House

location but said that in relation to the other two locations, which were close to roads,

these would have been little affected by the noise overall in measuring the L10 level.

The Inspector said he noted Mr. Hamill's comment of it being very windy and Mr. Park

suggested that the windspeed records from Dublin Airport for that day be got to se what

they said about the windspeed on the day in question and the Inspector suggested that the

The Inspector asked Mr. Summers if it were possible to have a map of noise contours

produced for the area from the Blundellstown Interchange as far as the Bellinter Bridge

area to show noise contours with no mitigation measures in place and a separate map

showing the noise contours with the mitigation measures in place based on the 68dB

(Note -- The details of the windspeed from Dublin Airport and Clones Met. Stations were

handed in by Alan Guthrie on Day 21and are listed in appendix 4 of this Report. These

resepctively, from the northwest. These convert to 7.7 metres per second and 6.7 metres

per second which are less than the 10 metres per second maximum allowable and above

the figure of 5 metres per second given by Mr. Summers for Dalgan Park. Mr. Guthrie

pointed out that the building and trees in Dalgan Park would have acted as a shelter belt

for wind from the northwest to northeast direction and would have reduced windspeed in

the vicinity of the noise instrument and also that the windspeed locations at Met. Stations

are exposed which would suggest those readings would be higher than in more sheltered

areas like Dalgan Park. Maps showing the Noise Contours as requested were included in

the file of documents handed in by the Council on Day 28 and are listed in Appendix 4 of

this Report. See also Mr. Hamill's disagreement with the Council's responses in Section

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had carried out any noise measurements in Tara Stud lands for

the motorway but Mr. Dilworth said he had not been involved in the design details of

section 2 and could only answer generic questions. Mr. O'Donnell then said that if the

figure of 68dB was accepted for the purpose of his question, how far out from the

motorway would it be before the noise levels were back to that of a quiet rural area. Mr.

Dilworth replied that in general terms the degree of attenuation depended on the nature of

ground cover as well as the geometry between receiver and noise source and said that it

would be best to rely in this case on the requirements of the DMRB which were to assess

impact out to 300 metres as beyond that distance one would expect the noise level to have

fallen to a point where it would be insignificant on a scheme like the M3. Mr. O'Donnell

asked what was the term for an "iso-noise" and when told it was an "iso-compter" asked

if he drew a line 300 metres from the road would that approximate to what would be the

unreasonable to say that. When Mr. O'Donnell said he had no further questions, Mr.

Keane asked if it could be taken that the noise level decreased as one travelled out from

the motorway through this 300 metres and Mr. Dilworth confirmed that was so and said

Mr. Prendiville said he had 20 years experience as an Engineer in the public and private

sectors, was a Partner in JB Barrys, Consulkting Engineers and a Director of Halcrow

Barry. He said the Socio-economic element of the EIS had been prepared by Judith

Houdley who had 12 years experience in the Environmental Assessment field but she was

Mr. Prendiville said the socio-economic aspects of the Scheme were dealt with at

Regional, Sub-regional and Local levels with particular attention being given to

community facilities, beneficial effects of the development on local roads and to

commuters outside the study area, with the scope of the impact appraisal confined to

socio-economic matters arising from the location of the motorway, and that other relevant

concerns such as traffic noise, air quality and agricultural severance were dealt with

elsewhere. He said the methodology used was broadly in accordance with the guidelines

given in the UK Department of Transport DMRB 1994 relating to community impact and

the EPA Advice Notes on preparing EISs 1995 and the EPA Guidelines on Information in

He said that existing community facilities were identified and mapped, demographic

characteristics of the area were obtained from CSO Occupations data, windshield surveys

provided information on existing business activities along the route corridor and existing

land use patterns along the route were deduced from aerial photography and on-theground

Meath publications. He said the existing N3 between Dunshaughlin and Navan passed

through a rural countryside with a dispersed settlement pattern and significant rilbbontype

economic sector in Co. Meath, with the Hill of Tara being a renowned attraction for this.

He said that traffic congestion between Dunshaughlin and Navan had an adverse impact

on the quality of life for commuters, interfered with pedestrians and vehivcle users,

increased stress, noise and air pollution and contributed to a decrease in social

functioning and that the future increases in traffic would increase the erosion of quality of

Mr. Prendiville listed the population increases for the Dunshaughlin District as 9.9% and

for the Navan District as 5.7% over the period 1991 to 1996 and referred to the variety of

recreational facilities and tourist attractions in the sub-regional area with the Navan

Racecourse, Hill of Tara, Trim Castle and walks in Dalgan Park being among those he

mentioned. He said there were 8 national schools and 4 post-primary schools in the

corridor area with local recreational facilities including Bective, Dunsany and Skreen

GAA Clubs and the Royal Tara Golf Club also adjacent to the Scheme. He said public

transport facilities were provided for local communities in Cannistown, Kilmessan and

Dunsany and he listed businesses identified such as Service Stations, Post Offices,

He said that at a Regional level the M3 Scheme would benefit communities along the N3

corridor from Dublin to Cavan and further on by providing a safer and more efficient

road network, facilitating movement of people and goods and increase accessibility of

Dublin Airport and Port which would aid in expanding markets for industry and in

developing tourism and thus contribute to economic development in the region. He said

that improved access to the north and south of the study area would enhance accessibility

of recreational facilities, tourist attractions and employment and might increase

employment investment and economic growth and that the removal of large volumes of

traffic passing through the communities of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells will improve

Mr. Prendiville said the impacts at local level were more discernible and he listed these :-

Loss of agricultural, community used and private lands with some property demolition;

Tolling might only divert through traffic leaving local traffic on the existing network;

Separation of users from schools, churches, shops, services and sport or receational

facilities --- However no School grounds would be encroached upon and the M3 would

improve safety for pedestrian/ cyclist trips to Schools along or off the existing N3. There

would be no direct impact on Churches and no impact on public transport routes. Some

commercial premises on N3 will have their passing trade reduced but local trade should

not be affected as existing roads crossed by the M3 will be provided with over or under

He said the construction impacts could be severe by disrupting activity paterns and this

inconvenience from works vehicles for other users of the roads with nuisances fr cyclists

Mr. Prendiville then referred to the use of mitigation measures in supporting the

commercial attractiveness of by-passed settlements and to maintain community acces to

local services and he said that over bridges were being provided to minimise long term

necessary and footpaths would be provided, where appropriate, on the overbridges. He

Interchange and that lighting there would be restricted to minimise light pollution. He

then listed measures which would significantly reduce the adverse impacts associated

Access points to the construction site for construction vehicles to be restricted to where

M3 crossed the existing N3 at Roestown/Cooksland and at Blundellstown and to the

Phasing of the construction program to limit disruption to road users as far as possible by

(1) providing temporary diversions around bridge sites; (2) limiting the number and

duration of temporary road closures; (3) providing reasonable and safe facilities for

pedestrians and cyclists; (4) advance warning and consultation with business and traders

in construction corridor; (5) advance signage, subject to planning permission, giving

notice of route diversions; (6) maintenance of local access at all times and (7) precautions

Mr. Prendiville said that the extensive public consultation and remediation measures had

diminished the likely adverse impacts of the proposed Scheme and it was his opinion that

the M3 Scheme would have no significant adverse impact on social or economic matters.

He said no roads would be completely severed which limited disruption to local travel

patterns; footpaths and lighting were being provided at the Interchange ensuring safety

for users; that it was likely tolling would retain local traffic on the existing local network

thus sustaining local businesses. He said that if the suggested ameliorative measures were

provided, the advantages of the Scheme would outweigh considerably the disadvantages

and that the sub-regional and local communities as a whole would benefit from the

Scheme, and that with a much reduced local and commuter traffic conflict, the Scheme

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had prepared this section of the EIS and Mr. Prendiville said

that, as he had explained when giving his direct evidence, the socio-economoic section

was prepared by Judith Houldey who had an ONC in Civil Engineering, a certificate in

Biological Science and an ERA approved course in Environmental Auditing but she was

no longer with their Company and he would deal with that section. Mr. O'Donnell asked

if he had qualifications or expertise in sociology and when Mr. Prendiville replied that he

had no formal education in sociology, he was asked if he had economic qualifications and

Mr. Prendiville said he had none. Mr. O'Donnell then asked if he had any informal

qualification, Mr. O'Donnell suggested that Ms Houldey did not appear to have any

environmental qualification. Mr. O'Donnell suggested her qualification did not seem to

give any expertise in either sociology or economics and that Mr. Prendiville had none

either. Mr. Prendiville did not agree with this and Mr. O'Donnell said he had no formal

Mr. O'Donnell then asked the Inspector how he could proceed when the witness had no

expertise in either area and the Inspector said this was the witness that was being put

forward and that his Brief of Evidence had been circulated earlier in August ( On Day 4,

Gowan already where another archaeologist had done the scheme but she could deal with

the technical aspects, whereas neither Mr. Prendiville nor Ms Houldey had any expertise

and he said he had never come across a situation like this where the Council were relying

on people who did not appear to have the expertise in what were critical issues. He said

there was no expert and asked to be directed as to how he should proceed. The Inspector

said he had no intention of directing Mr. O' Donnell in how he did his cross-examination

and that the Council had offered a witness for cross-examination by him. Mr. O'Donnell

asked if he accepted there was a particular difficulty arising with this witness and the

Inspector commented that Mr. O'Donnell had made the point of the witness not having a

degree in either social or economic matters and Mr. Prendivillie had confirmed that he

did not have these degrees as such and he had noted all that, but it was not a function of

Mr. Butler intervened to say that he thought Mr. O' Donnell knew the way to deal with

this matter and that was by putting up any contradictory evidence that he had to Mr.

Prendiville's evidence and let An Bord make a decision on it. Mr. O'Donnell said it was

more serious since he thought there was no evidence on socio-economic impacts, Mr.

Sweetman said that it was not their job to produce evidence to An Bord as it was for the

developer to submit an EIS that contained all the likely significant effects and the

mitigation measures proposed. Mr. O'Donnell said he was in difficulties as to how to

proceed and said he could deal with a situation where one expert prepared the case and

another with similar expertise presented it as he could tease matters out, but this would be

like him examining Mr. Butler on civil engineering matters with answers that would be of

no relevance. The Inspector replied that this was an Oral Hearing that was intended to be

informal, the witness was made available and his evidence had been circulated for a few

weeks, that he had made his point of the witness not having the expertise he expected and

Ms Begley then intervened and asked the Inspector for clarification saying she as an

affected resident would also have some questions on the socio-economic areas in the EIS

to which she had referred to her earlier cross-examination and asked who would be able

to give her answers when her turn came to cross-examine later on. The Inspector replied

that his function was to hear the case put forward by the Council, the submissions and

cross-examinations and evidence by the other sides and to make a report to An Bord and

who the Council choose to present their evidence was a matter entirely for the Council.

When Ms Begley said it seemed the person being put forward did not have the necessary

qualifications to deal with this, the Inspector commented that all he would say was that,

as Inspector, he had listened on a few occasions to people giving evidence on behalf of

both objectors and Local Authorities whose expertise in the field of the evidence might

best be described as coming from being gained by experience rather than by having

degrees after their name. Mr. O'Donnell then asked for a short adjournment to consult

with his Clients and on resuming he said that there were no questions that he could put to

the witness in view of what Mr. Prendiville had very fairly indicated in terms of his

conclusions that the N3 Dunshaughlin to Navan Scmeme would not have a significant

adverse effect on social or economic matters. Mr. Prendiville said that the EIS was

guidelines. Mr. Sweetman said that was not the answer to his question and repeated it and

Mr. Prendiville repeated that Chapter 11 in the DMRB environmental assessment was

used. Mr. Sweetman asked if he knew what a social methodology model was and could

he explain what it was and when Mr. Prendiville said he did not know, Mr. Sweetman

Mr. Park asked if he had visited Dalgan Park and seen its walkways before preparing the

EIS. Mr. Prendiville explained that the EIS had been prepared by Judith Houldey who

was no longer with their Company but he confirmed that both he and Ms Houldey had

visited Dalgan Park. Mr. Park asked why there was no reference to Dalgan Park or

Dowdstown in the section on community facilities in the EIS and he referred to pages 22

and 23 in Vol. 4A of the EIS. Mr. Prendiville said that as Dalgan Park was a 550 acre

farm, which in size put it in the top 5% of farms in Ireland, it was assessed as a

commercial entity and as a farm and he conceded there could be a case for including it in

Section 2 but it had been included in the Agricultural section. Mr. Park asked if he would

consider it had considerable community presence and a significant recreational presence

and should have been assessed for those values. Mr. Prendiville replied that there was no

doubt it was of considerable recreational purpose and he pointed out that, under the

socio-economic or community severance section, with the removal of traffic from the N3

that would be a positive factor was it would remove the existing severance. He said that

the present traffic volume on the N3 was about 15000 and this would grow to about

20000 in 2004 and that when the M3 was in place this would drop to about 3/4000 which

would make access in and out of Dalgan much safer. Mr. Park said they felt this was an

Mr. Park asked what precautions would be taken to control construction noise and the

spread of mud and dust during construction and Mr. Prendiville replied that there would

be contractual arrangements in place to control nuisance during construction and he

outlined the limiting of working hours and imposition of maximum levels to control

noise, wheel wash facilities to control dust and that the resident engineering staff would

developed and Mr. Prendiville said there would be a liaison person appointed by the

Council who would be their first point of contact and he or she would take this up with

the Resident Engineering staff. Mr. Park asked him to define the location of access points

in the area between Blundellstown and Cannistown and Mr. Prendiville said that at

present it was intended to restrict access to using the N3 and, in the section he had raised,

this would be at Blundellstown. When Mr. Park asked if this meant there would be no use

of the L-2201, Mr. Prendiville said he would not like to gve an assurance on that and the

Inspector intervened to say that in earlier cross-examination Mr. Guthrie had said the

Oakes intervened to say this was their concern about the location of borrow pits as there

could be large volumes of earth to be transported in to the site but the Inspector said this

Mr. Park referred to Table 4.2 in Vol.2 of the EIS where the impact on minor roads was

described as having a minor positive influence and asked if he could convince them of

this. Mr. Prendiville replied that the basis for the minor positive impact was that none of

the existing road network was severed by the proposal with overbridges, each with

footpath, being provided at all crossings and that the M3 Scheme would marginally

reduce traffic on some of the sideroads and said these reductions in traffic were

considered to be a minor positive impact. Mr. Park said traffic was not projected to be

reduced on the Ardsallagh to Bellinter and Cannistown to Bellinter Roads but Mr.

Prendiville said that they considered the network as a whole and not only one leg of it.

Ms Begley said she was concerned about the omission of a number of the community

facilities in Skreen parish and said they had the unenviable position of five out of six

possible routes going through their rural parish so they were in no-win situation. She said

she had concerns about the impact from the use of Ross Cross as a construction traffic

access point and asked how was that information gathered in a rural area. Mr. Prendiville

explained that the information was gathered by a windscreen survey and by talking to the

Council and when Ms Begley questioned how a windscreen survey could establish what

was actually happening in a rural area, he said that in approaching a socio-economic

evaluation one kept in mind the overall impact of the scheme and said that in the case of

the M3 all of the existing road network in the Section was being kept intact which, he

said, was unusual in a length of some 15.5 kms. He said that as there was no severance of

the local road network the impact would be small and he considered this was a positive

impact. Ms Begley asked, if severance was the overriding factor in the socio-economic

study, what else was taken into account and he replied that the main elements in the EIS

as it affected human beings were noise, vibration and air quality and these were dealt

Ms Begley asked how the impact on facilities that were not listed in the EIS could be

assessed if the person doing the study did not know they existed and Mr. Prendiville said

that if the Collierstown Road was to be severed then a more detailed study would have

been done but the facilities were not being cut-off from their users. Ms Begley asked if

the Collierstown Road had been an access road to an Interchange would that have needed

a more detailed study and Mr. Prendiville said that it would, if the traffic patterns were

going to be changed significantly. When Ms Begley asked if a more detailed study was

done around Blundellstown since the Interchange was located there, Mr. Prendiville said

it was related to traffic figures and since the route being selected ran close to the existing

N3 it became a collector route for the motorway and he said that if it had been the Pink

route that was selected, then more traffic would use the side roads like the Collierstown

Road to access it and that would have generated a negative impact. Ms Begley said she

had earlier listed the community facilities that were omitted and the one of most

significance for both construction and operation phases was the Tara Athletic Track

where noise and air quality could affect this and she asked that this be taken into account

when they were deciding on construction traffic access points. She said the Skreen

National School had moved across the road while a new school was being built and as the

school had lost a lot of its playing area with the portocabins on it, the track could be used

The Inspector asked which side of the motorway was the Tara Athletic Track and Ms

realignment of the Collierstown road ended and almost at the corner from Ross Cross.

Mr. Nairn said he had a degree in Natural Sciences, was the Managing Director of

experience in preparing EISs for infrastructural projects including roads and that his

Company had been engaged by Halcrow Barry to undertake the assessment of the flora,

October/November 2000 and classified using the Heritage Council's "Guide to Habitats in

Ireland" with the dominant species recorded and hedgerows evaluated on a 3 point scale

of high, medium or low ecological value. He said that an inventory of all trees along the

line of the route was made in February 2001 and said it was unlikely the existing

environment had changed since then. He said mammals and birds were assessed during

the habitat surveys using a combination of direct sightings and observations of signs with

some additional field visits in June 2001 to locate badger setts and areas of high badger

Mr. Nairn said the fisheries value of watercourses crossed by the M3 was determined by

consultation with the ERFB, with information on protected aquatic species derived from

the ERFB, Duchas, other noted experts and literature. He listed the protected species

from Annex 11 of the EU Habitats Directive considered as the three Lamprey species, the

Fresh water Pearl Mussel ( Margaritifera margaritifera), and the white-clawed Crayfish

( Austropotamobius pallipes). He said that all major crossing points of watercourses were

visited in February 2001and described in terms of their acquatic and riparian habitats,

with biological assessment of water quality carried out in December 2000 on four of the

rivers crossed but conditions were unsuitable for sampling on the other watercourses. He

Mr. Nairn then described the route and said there were no designated areas within 5 kms.

of the route and that proposed NHAs within 10kms. included Boyne and Balrath Woods

neither site being affected by the M3. ( Note -- This was corrected later, see page 428 and

also Section 110, in the light of the letter from Duchas of 22 April 2002 to An Bord.) He

said the habitat survey showed improved agricultural grassland and arable crops as the

dominant habitat along the route, these being intensively managed and with low species

diversity were of low ecological value. He said areas of semi-natural grassland scattered

along the route were predominantly of low ecological value from their low species

diversity and heavy grazing pressure but three fields of wet grassland, two with acid

peaty flushes, contained a higher diversity of species and were of moderate local

ecological value. He said an area of deep peat, probably a drained fen, occurred at 50

metres north of the route at chn. 24700/25000 and this supported a mixture of wetland

habitats that had become degraded by drainage and was of moderatee local ecological

He said the main semi-natural habitats of ecological significance were the areas of

broadleaved woodland at Ardsallagh, Bellinter Bridge and Lismullin Park and that while

woodland cover, the presence of mature trees and the lack of grazing and trampling by

domestic animals meant these habitats were of high local ecological value. He said

hedgerows were the predominant field boundary type along the route and while most

were of low to moderate local ecological value, there were a small number of high local

ecological value. He said all trees of greater than 30 cm. diameter at breast height along

the route were recorded as part of a tree inventory and that 365 trees would be felled with

Mr. Nairn said that the most important species of fauna recorded was the Otter, on the

Ardsallagh and Red Deer in the woodland at Ardsallagh. He said bird species recorded

were all common and typical of lowland farmland and woodland with a pair of Buzzard

recorded in the woodland in Lismullin and a Kingfisher nest located on the Lismullin

He said a Bat survey was carried out on three properties where house demolition was

proposed as part of the scheme and that at one of these, the Old Lodge in Ardsallagh

Cannistown was used by the brown Long-eared bat and that other habitats along the route

He said the main watercourses crossed by the proposed route were assessed for their

fisheries value and that the River Boyne, a designated Salmonid River under the EU

Freshwater Fish Directive, was one of the premier brown trout fisheries in Ireland. He

said the Lismullin and Skane rivers were of national importance for salmonids and two

watercourses were sampled for their aquatic fauna, in addition to the data already

available from the EPA, and most rivers had a "Q" value of 3 indicating moderate

pollution with the main channel of the Boyne having a "Q" value of 3-4 indicating slight

Mr.Nairn said the impacts of the proposed route on improved grassland and arable land,

both of low ecological value, would not be significant and that on areas of semi-natural

grassland and wet flushes would be minor negative and only of local significance. He

said there would be a major negative impact, of local significance, on the woodland area

significant reduction in its area and that there would be a moderate negative impact on

broadleaved woodland at chn. 25300 to 25400 and on strip of mixed woodland at chn.

24700. He said the loss of hedgerows would constitute an overall moderate negative

impact. He said the impacts on Fauna would included the severance of a number of

badger territories especially at Lismullin and Ardsallagh, loss of deer habitat at

Ardsallagh and loss of bat roosts in at least two houses along the route and that impacts

on birds might included disturbance to a pair of breeding buzzard near chn. 28700. He

said the route would impact on watercourses in the River Boyne system at 15 locations,

which constituted a minor negative impact for all crossings, except for the Boyne

Mr. Nairn then referred to the mitigation measures proposed and said there would be no

hedgerow removal during the months of March to June inclusive to avoid impacts on

breeding birds, and that trees and hedgerows being retained would be fenced at the

canopy line prior to construction. He said buildings with bat roosts would not be

demolished or disturbed during the months of June to August, the breeding season, or

November to March, the hibernation season. He said that all watercourses occurring in

areas of land used for accommodation works would be fenced off at a distance of at least

10 metres to avoid direct impact and that bunds, siltation ponds and hydrocarbon and grit

interceptors would also be put in place, where required, to control pollution and run-off.

He said the bridge design over the River Boyne would have a 50 metre main span, which

removed the need for piers in the river channel, and that no works would be conducted on

the river bed. He said that at other major crossings on the Skane and Lisnmullin rivers

bottomless culverts would be used which, when placed over the existing river bed, would

preserve the existing substrate and river characteristics. He said that no works would be

conducted in rivers or streams containing certain stocks of salmonids during the peak

spawning season between November and March inclusive. Mr. Nairn said that no works

would be conducted in bankside vegetation during the March to June period if suitable

habitat for breeding birds existed there and that transplanting of bankside vegetation

would be conducted during the dormant season, except where salmonid restrictions were

in force when transplanting would be in the period August to November. He said that

bankside vegetation would be left intact where possible and that adequate fencing would

be provided by fencing it off prior to construction, with the fences set at a minimum

distance of 5 metres from the bank of the watercourse or the edge of the woodland

canopy whichever was greater. He said that where natural bankside vegetation had to be

removed it would be pulled back from the river edge by machinery operating from the

bank. He said that where temporary diversion of a watercourse was required that should

be done prior to remonving bankside vegetation and where permanent diversion was

rerquired, the existing vegetation would be removed in sods to be re-planted on the new

He said that impacts on woodlands, plantations, hedgerows and tree lines intersected by

the new road would be reduced by minimising the working area around these habitats

with the working area defined by before siteworks by the erection of a fence to define the

limits of the siteworks. He said that any trees and hedgerows being retained within the

site works would be fenced at the outset, with the fence line set at the outer canopy line

of the trees and that ground levels would not be altered in any way within that fenced off

area. Mr. Nairn said that where the removal of hedgerows, treelines and mature trees

hedgerows and treelines along new or modified field boundaries adjacent to the road,

Mr. Nairn said that areas of severed land adjacent to the proposed road between chns.

23200 to 23600, 25300 to 25600, 26850 to 27050, 28700 to 28800 and 29700 to 30000

along the mainline and on both sides of the link road at chn. 32600 would be planted with

native broad-leaved trees, or would be set aside to allow for the natural re-generation and

expansion of woodland. He said the block of severed land between chns. 32900 to 33300

would be planted with native broad-leaved trees to compensate for the loss of woodland

and habitat fragmentation at Ardsallagh and that those areas would be designed towards

ensuring ecological connections or wildlife corridors were maintained between existing

He said that where buildings containing bat roosts were to be demolished, bats must be

excluded prior to demolition and this can only take place under a licence from Duchas

and in the presence of a bat specialist and should not be done between the months of June

Mr. Nairn said all culverts would be designed in consultation with the ERFB and should

permit fish passage in all but extreme flow conditions, with the culvert design ensuring

the existing flow regime and channel dimensions were maintained for each watercourse.

He said where bottomless culverts were not being used, box culverts with a stepped

bottom profile would be used to facilitate maintenance of a minimum depth of water and

to provide a suitable ledge for passage of mammals. He said that where new channels

were being provided the design and construction of the channel should replicate a natural

river system, which would involve grading the river banks to a natural slope of not more

than 1 in 2 and constructing a sinuous channel with the incorporation of suitable

He said that where suitable spawning gravels occurred within a watercourse at a crossing

point these would be removed and stored for reinstatement on completion of the works

and that this process would be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the

ERFB. He said that temporary stream diversions would be made on geotextile surfaces

with a surface layer of coarse gravel holding it in place and that permanent diversions

sinuous and meandering, rather than straight, as the constant erosion and deposition in a

sinuous channel resulted in riffle, glide and pool conditions forming with the degree of

sinuosity depending on the space available and the channel should be designed according

to prevailing conditions. He said that riffle, glide and pool conditions could be developed

in a straight channel cutting by the use of stone deflectors, v-notch weirs and other

Mr. Nairn said that siltation of water bodies would be minimised by the appropriate use

of setlement ponds, silt traps and bunds and by avoiding operating within water bodies

where feasible. He said that where pumping was to be carried out, filters would be used at

intake points and that discharge would be through a sediment trap. He said storm run-off

from the proposed road would be fed through hydrocarbon interceptors designed with

adequate storage capacity and in a manner to facilitate maintenance and cleaning and

with adequate protection measures put in place to ensure all hydrocarbons used during

the construction phase were appropriately handled, stored and disposed of in accordance

with recognised standards. Mr. Nairn concluded by saying that concrete, including waste

and wash-down water, would be contained and managed properly to prevent pollution of

watercourses and that foul drainage from all site offices and construction facilities would

be contained and disposed of off-site in an appropriate manner to prevent pollution

57. 2. Richard Nairn cross-examined by Paul Brady of Paul Brady & Co. Solicitors,

Mr. Brady said one of the concerns of the Residents he represented was that a large part

of the wooded area on the other side of the Ardsallgh Road to their houses would be

removed and that he had referred to the importance of the area in his Brief of Evidence as

a semi-natural habitat of broad-leaved woodland, to red deer being present in this wood

and to the loss of the habitat for red deer and badgers. He asked what would be the

ecological impact of this loss and what effect would it have on their houses by vermin.

Mr. Nairn said he presumed that by vermin he meant rats and said generally speaking

while woodland could hold rats there was no evidence of it holding any higher population

of rats than in any other part of the countryside. He said rats tended to concentrate where

there was an abundant source of food as in farmyards, refuse tips and the like which

wodland did not provide. He said that small rodents like field mice, pygmy shrews and

squirrels that lived in woods were unlikely to cause any harm to neighbouring houses.

Mr. Brady said he was trying to put across the concerns of the residents and Mr. Narin

said he accepted people might think there would be hordes of rats running for cover when

the trees were removed but what actually happened was that, as smaller mammals were

exposed by their loss of cover, they were picked of by predators like foxes who would

have a feast for a few days but there would not be a wholesale evacuation by vermin. Mr.

Brady asked what would be possible if there was an increase in the rat population around

houses that had not seen a rat for years and Mr. Nairn said that unless additional sources

of food were provided rats would not be attracted and if they did show up, then poisoning

easily controlled them. Asked by Mr. Brady if the Contractor of Council's liaison person

would be the contact point for the residents in that case, Mr. Nairn said he would have to

ask the Project Engineer as he only dealt with the ecology aspect. The Inspector

intervened to say the Council presumably had a Rodent Control Contractor and if there

was a local infestation the Council could be contacted and Mr Butler said he would take

Mr. Brady asked about the proposals to landscape the raw areas left in the woods after the

road was put through them but Mr. Nairn said that was something the Landscape expert,

Mr. Burns, would deal with. Mr. Butler advised that Mr. Burns could not be present that

day due to an accident to one of his family. The Inspector told Mr. Brady that Mr. Burns

had given evidence previously of an extensive tree planting program and this area was

probably included in that and referred to Table 5.1.4. in Vol.4A of the EIS . Mr. Butler

drew attention to Mr. Guthrie's earlier reply to Mr. Brady of an extensive landscaping

within the landtake area being acquired and that Mr. Burns would also be giving evidence

Ms Martin said her concerns were similar to those expressed by Mr. Brady about where

the rats would go when they moved and felt precautions should be put in place before this

happened and if there could be liaison with the Health Board. Mr. Nairn said he did not

know of any evidence of large scale movement of rats across the countryside from a road

scheme. Ms Martin suggested that the removal of the ditches used by the rats to nest

would cause them to search for another home. Mr. Nairn repeated that any exposed

vermin were picked off by predators and that the rats would not be moving into another

area already occupied by other rats as the area would not support a large increase in

crossing the road at this time of year. Mr. Nairn replied that this was because grain trucks

when turning corners on the road spilled grain which attracted rats in large numbers and

that at this time of year there were large numbers of young rats around from being bred

all summer and it was mainly these one saw feeding on grain on the road. He said if noone

in the area created a new source of food, then there was no reason for rats to move

into the area which could only support so many. Ms Martin said she was not re-assured

and said they had had cases of a rat in the attic and in the septic tank. She said this was a

normal part of living in the Country but felt precautions should be put in place rather than

having to be ringing up the Council and telling them there was a problem. The Inspector

said he presumed the Council had noted her concern that this was something to be looked

at and Mr. Butler said the Council would give a commitment to deal with any complaint

Mr.Doyle said while a bat survey had been carried out at 3 houses being demolished he

saw no reference to mitigation measures for bat habitats in the EIS and Mr. Nairn said

these were given in paragraph 34 of his Brief of Evidence and that he also gave details of

the seasons to be avoided. Mr. Martin said no details of hibernation sites were given and

Mr. Nairn replied they usually hibernate under ground or in cellars but there were no

tunnels, caves or other underground strcutures being disturbed so this did not arise. Mr.

Doyle said there was a culvert being removed on the Trevet Road and this appeared to be

an ideal hiberantion site that was not listed in the EIS. When he confirmed it was a stone

culvert, Mr. Nairn said it might be a possible site and there was provision for the recreation

said it was the aim to mimic the original site as much as possible, so that if it was stone

Mr. Doyle asked who policed the construction of this new site and Mr. Nairn said that

Duchas were responsible for implementing the Wildlife Act and he knew of one case on

the N11 where a detailed survey had been carried out before the area was cleared and

detailed guidelines were being followed there at present. Mr. Doyle said his fear was that

other culverts had gone unnoticed in the EIS when the Trevet road one was missed.

Asked by the Inspector what size was the culvert he said it was about1.5 metres wide and

crossed the road and was covered by vegetation for most of the year. Mr. Nairn explained

how there survey was undertaken and said for a long scheme like the M3 a full field

survey was done, which meant every field and hedgerow was examined and all details

like potential bat roost sites were noted. He said that bat specialists would then examine

any particular areras identified in the field survey and this was done for the M3 but they

had not noted any culvert as potential bat roosts. He said his understanding would have

been that this culvert was not suitable for bats since it had not been noted in the field

survey as a potential roost, but if Mr. Doyle was saying there were bats there and he had

Mr. Magee refered to the Route Selection Report for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section

and to Table RSR / 6.4.1 where the "B" categories were listed as 11 for each of B1, B2

and B3 while the "P" categories were 8 for P1 and 6 for P2. He then referred to Table

RSR/ 6.4.2 and said B1 scored 32, B2 scored 33 and B3 scored 33 with P1 scoring 26 and

P2 scoring 18. He asked if Mr. Nairn would agree the B routes had the higher number of

sites affected while the P routes had a lessor number and Mr. Nairn agreed that was so.

Mr. Magee then quoted from page 58 of the Route Selection Report which said that P1

was the preferred route after mitigation as it did not impact on any of the ecological sites

identified in the Constraints Study and suggested Mr. Nairn's evidence was biased since

he made no mention of another route being more viable from an ecological aspect than

the preferred route. Mr. Nairn replied that the same comments were made about Ms

Gowan's archaeology evidence previously and he endorsed Ms Gowan's response, which

was that it was not biased. When Mr. Magee said he was not discussing archaeology now,

Mr. Nairn said he hoped he would accept the route selection process which resulted in the

preferred route option was a combined decision based on a wide range of different

impacts being assessed and that the route was not selected only on either ecology or

archaeology. Mr. Magee accepted that but said the Route Selection Report showed the B

Routes to have a higher number of sites affected than the P Routes and asked if his

statement of the P route being the preferred option still stood. Mr. Nairn replied that they

would certainly preferred the P Route but he and every other consultant accepted the

preferred route was a compromise between all of the various impacts and was not simply

based on one specialist's recommendations. Mr. Magee said the MRAG objection was

Fr. Raleigh said he was confused since he ended by stating the P Route was his preferred

route and Mr. Nairn said this was what the Route selection Report said under Ecology.

Fr. Raleigh said that the same was said about archaeology and saying while this might be

outside his brief, he asked what determined the route when archaeology and ecology were

important. Mr. Nairn said he would have to follow that up with the Project Engineers

since his involvement was only with ecology and he did not know what route was being

selected, or the other issues, until the report was published. Fr. Raleigh said he was

determine which route was selected as it seemed these would have been very important

factors in that. Mr. Nairn said the answer to his question was that everything was taken

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he was aware of the area where the Rivers Boyne and Skane, both

important ecological areas, met and if the the Skane was even more important than the

Boyne. Mr. Nairn said he was familiar with that area but disagreed that the Skane was the

more important and said that from a fishery viewpoint the Boyne was an internationally

important. He agreed both had salmon spawning grounds and that this was stated in the

EIS. Mr. O'Donnell said he could correct the Structures expert and Mr. Keane who both

expressed a doubt about there being spawning grounds in the Skane, but Mr. Keane

intervened to say it was the suggestion that the culvert could affect these grounds that he

confluence of the Boyne and Skane and Mr. Nairn replied they did not investigate that

area since the road would not affect that area. Mr. O'Donnell suggested they were

required to present certan information in the EIS and that he could not tell him if there

were spawning grounds in the Skane at that point since they had not investigated it and

Mr. Nairn replied he had asked about the confluence, which was not affected by the road,

but they had investigated the Skane at the road crossing which was in a completely

Mr. O'Donnell said he was talking about the back entrance to Dalgan Park where the

flyover was near the gate lodge and Mr. Nairn said he investigated that area but the river

was in spate at the time and was not deemed suitable for spawning. Asked if he knew if

there were spawning grounds there, Mr.Nairn said he would not rule it out but could not

say definitely if there were and exchanges between them followed with Mr. Nairn saying

he could not answer if Mr. O'Donnell kept on interrupting. Mr. O'Donnell then asked a

series of questions about the proposed overbridge and adjacent spawning grounds and

Mr. Nairn confirmed being aware of the location being adjacent to a river that could have

spawning grounds and of having discussed this with Mr. Guthrie but not with Mr. Sheehy

and that he had prepared the mitigation measures without being certain whether or not

there were spawning grounds in the location. Mr. O'Donnell asked if it was appropriate to

that it was since the mitigation measures were designed to protect the bed of the river,

Mr. O'Donnell asked what would be the impact from silt deposition and run-off on the

river bed, Mr. Nairn replied that would damage the spawning grounds and Mr. O'Donnell

suggested there was a significant risk of that occurring when the construction site was so

close to the river. Mr. Nairn said that was why the mitigation measures were put in place

to prevent such an eventuality from occurring, Mr. O'Donnell, suggested it would be

better to avoid such areas and Mr. Nairn replied that if avoidance was not possible then

Mr. O'Donnell asked if there were spawning grounds in the Boyne, and was told there

were. Asked was the construction site there equally close to the river, Mr. Nairn replied

there was a bridge crossing the Boyne. Mr. O'Donnell asked if it was the ERFB that had

told him about the Lamprey species in the Boyne, Mr. Nairn replied he had located them

himself, Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had investigated the Skane for Lamprey and when

told he did not, asked why not and Mr. Nairn said there was a bottomless culvert

proposed for the Skane crossing and this would not affect the existing riverbed in the

Skane. Mr. O'Donnell suggested he had decided not to investigate for a protected

acquatic species, one of three, when it was likely they were in the Skane. Mr. Nairn

agreed it was possible they were present and that he had not discussed this with the

populations of Lamprey being in the Skane to his attention but Mr. Nairn said he had no

recollection of this but would accept what Mr. O'Donnell said and that the ERFB had

presently engaged in a major survey of the area for Lamprey, he said he was not.

Mr. O'Donnell then asked if the White Clawed Crayfish occurred in the Boyne and Mr.

Nairn said it was likely that this species were in some of the watercourses crossed by the

proposed road but that he had not specifically investigated to determine if they did.

Asked about the Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Mr. Nairn said it was extremely unlikely this

occurred since it preferred waters that flowed over non limestone areas and the Boyne

and its catchment was a limestone area so it would not be a suitable habitat. Asked if he

had surveyed for this species, Mr. Nairn replied that there were no records of this species

in any of the 10 km. squares either crossed by or adjacent to the route and he regarded

that as sufficient evidence to confirm the unsuitability of the catchment. Mr. O'Donnell

Licence application ( Note -- This took place in 2001 on an application by the Council

for abstraction from the Boyne in the vicinity of Belllinter Bridge, see also Section 70 in

the BRA submissions) and in this the Board said all three species were in evidence in the

river systems and asked if he had read this submission. Mr. Nairn replied that he had

probably read it but could not recall the content and said their suggestion of the three

species being present was a surprise to him. He said that at the time of the EIS they had

consulted with the ERFB and the conclusion was that the Pearl Mussel did not occur in

the Boyne system and that the leading expert on that species in Ireland, Dr. Evelyn

Morcans had reported no records from the Boyne system. Mr. O'Donnell said there were

at least two protected species probably there but he could not be definite and asked why

accepted the presence of Lamprey and Crayfish and had implemented the protection

measures he had described to avoid impact on the channels and that was sufficient to

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had discussed the sites of the Boyne and Skane with Duchas

and Mr. Nairn replied he had some correspondence with Duchas, Mr. O'Donnell asked

what classification did they indicate for the area and Mr. Nairn read from the Duchas

letter of 22 April 2002 to An Bord. This letter indicated no objection to the proposals

from a nature conservation perspective but noted that the road would cross both Boyne

rivers and said construction was to be carried out in consultation with the ERFB. Mr.

O'Donnell then asked how he could explain what he had said in his Brief of Evidence of

there being no designated areas within 5 kms. of the route (See page 420 in this Section ).

Mr. Nairn said that at the time of writing the EIS the candidate areas had not been

proposed. Mr. O'Donnell said his Brief was dated August 2002 and Mr. Nairn replied that

he was not aware of the April 2002 letter when he wrote his Brief of Evidence. Following

some exchanges about his lack of knowledge of the Duchas letter, Mr. Nairn said he

accepted there had been a change in status for both Rivers and said this was not a

difficulty for him. Mr. O'Donnell asked when he became aware of the Duchas letter and

if he had discussed it with them. Mr. Nairn said it was mid August when he saw this letter

and discussed it then. Asked why he had not changed his evidence which was on the

record of the Hearing, Mr. Nairn said that technically it was still correct since the rivers

were not yet designated, they were proposed but had not yet gone to Brussels and the

correspondence from Duchas, he asked for a copy and suggested Mr. Nairn had been

corresponding with Duchas about this designated site and had not indicated this to the

Hearing when giving his evidence. Mr. Nairn replied he understood the letter had already

been read into the record, and when Mr. O'Donnell reminded him that it was he that had

read it, Mr. Nairn said there were no designated sites crossed by the road as it stood, that

they were proposed for designation and that was the difference. Mr. O'Donnell said

Duchas considered it sufficiently important to bring it to An Bord and yet he had chosen

not to tell the Hearing of this when he gave his evidence and asked why was that. Mr.

Nairn replied that the Brief of Evidence reflected what was in the EIS and he did not feel

it appropriate to change the contents of the EIS at this stage and asked the Inspector if the

Duchas letter had been raised previously as he understood it had been. The Inspector

replied that there had been another letter from Duchas read to the Hearing on the

Architectural Heritage ( See Section 37. 3.) but this particular letter had not been read out

and that it was the Duchas submission to An Bord and, as such, copies were available to

the Council and objectors. Mr. O'Donnell concluded by suggesting he had chosen to stay

quiet about this letter when giving his evidence even though he was in correspondence

with Duchas about it then. Mr. Nairn said he would look at the exact dates for him.

Mr. Sweetman asked if he was aware that once a site was proposed by Duchas it was

afforded the full protection of the Habitats Directive and Mr. Nairn, having first said it

was when proposed to the Commission, then accepted what Mr. Sweetman said. Asked

by whom was he informed of the Duchas letter, Mr. Nairn said it was one of the Project

Sweetman asked him to consult and find out, the Inspector said that for the purpose of the

Hearing it was adequate that he was told by Halcrow Barry but Mr. Sweetman said it was

relevant for another matter that arose from comments made by Mr. Butler and he asked if

Mr. Butler would have been aware of the letter. Mr. Nairn replied he had no idea and,

was the status of the Lamprey. When Mr. Nairn replied it was listed in Annex 2 of the

Habitats Directive for protection, he asked the same question for the White Clawed

Crayfish and got the same answer and then asked if they were priority species and if there

suggested he did not know the difference between a priority and a non-priority spoecies.

Mr. Nairn said it was sufficient that they were listed in the Annex and when Mr.

Sweetman repeated his question, he replied that he could say what the difference was

between a priority and non-priority habitat which was that there was a higher level of

protection for a priority habitat that only allowed for public health and human safety

Mr. Sweetman said that Mr. Nairn had come to the Hearing and set out to deliberately

deceive the Hearing in his evidence given there. Mr. Nairn replied that he disagreed with

protested at the allegations being made again by Mr. Sweetman about the witness. Mr.

knowing this had the same protection as a candidate SAC and deliberately withheld that

from the Hearing. Mr. Nairn replied that was not correct as he had understood the Duchas

letter was on the planning file and therefore available to the Hearing and thus not

necessary for him to do so. Mr. Sweetman asked if he had informed the Hearing of the

information before he was examined by Mr. O'Donnell, Mr.Nairn said he had not and Mr.

Sweetman said this meant he had not informed the Hearing and that he had no further

Mr. O'Donnell said he had not raised the status of the Duchas letter with Mr. Nairn as it

raised certain legal consequences which would not be in Mr. Nairn's expertise to answer

so he thought it was a matter for a legal submission. Mr. Nairn asked if he could draw the

Inspector's attention to the comment in the Duchas letter where they said they had no

objections to the proposed development notwithstanding the proposed designation and

he said that was an important point. The Inspector then asked Mr. Nairn to read out all of

the letter from Duchas to An Bord of April 2002. Mr. Sweetman objected to this course

of action and said that if it were to be read this should be by either Duchas or the

Inspector. The Inspector told Mr. Sweetman that he had facilitated him earlier that day by

giving him the particular letter, as well as the other submissions from the Statutory

Bodies that Mr. Sweetman had requested, and that Mr. Sweetman had this letter in front

of him. The Inspector said that while this letter was on the public file, for the purposes of

general information he considered it should be read in full and Mr. Nairn then read the

section headed "Nature Conservation", (which is in the Duchas submission of April 2002

to an Bord). When he had finished reading, Mr. O'Donnell commented that that the

words "in principle" and "however" were the operative words and that it could not be said

written the Air Quality reports on the Dunshaughlin to Navan section in the EIS for the

He said motor vehicles produced a variety of pollutants, the main ones being Carbon

Particulate Matter (PM10) and that road projects were often perceived as having a

detrimental effect on local air quality whereas a new road could often benefit some areas.

He said there could be localised improvements or reductions in air quality along all or

part of a road project and the existing road or there could be changes in the overall

emissions from traffic on the network, as motor vehicles operated more efficiently in a

free flow situation. He said motor manufactures were expected to produce more efficient

vehicles to meet the increasingly more stringent standards in air quality standards so that

a reduced emission pollution load could be expected and this had to be taken into account

calculated and compared to the Local Air Quality objectives set out in the UK National

recently been adopted into Irish law by SI 33/1999. He said that as volumes of traffic

increased over time and this had an effect on local air quality the impacts were assessed

by comparing the concentrations of pollutants where the scheme had been built (dosomething)

the year of opening and 2024 as the design year. He said three representative sensitive

locations were selected, where an average of the concentrations was estimated using the

projected increase in traffic for both do-something and do-nothing scenarios, at the

nearest properties at both ends of the Section and at Blundellstown interchange. He said

the results of their estimation of local concentrations of pollutants showed that no further

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration) which ensured air quality remained good while

manitaining a margin for future growth. He said the criteria and pollutant levels

quantifying the potential impact on receptors by the scheme were set out in Tables 3.1

He said baseline monitoring to assess the existing pollution levels near the Scheme

covered the compounds expected to be derived from traffic related emissions, with short

term and extended period surveys carried out in accordance with Directive 1999/30/EC,

Annex IV, and that the method used to estimate local impacts was that set out in the UK

Department of Transport DMRB, Vol. 11, Section 3 Part 1-- Air Quality, Annex 1 of

May 2000. He said this involved estimating air quality levels on both the existing N3 and

proposed M3 routes. He said their worst case scenario was based on a receptor some 20

metres from the centreline of the road, close to the boundary fenceline, at the three

sensitive locations of both ends of the section and Blundellstown. He said background

concentrations had been incorporated into the worst case scenarios using the procedure in

Mr. Crawford said that ambient air quality monitoring was normally carried out using the

pollution from non-road traffic sources but that baseline monitoring over a short period

was carried out as a "back check" for comparison purposes. He said there would always

be some variation between measured short term results and the predicted values due to

weather, variable traffic conditions and receptor locations and the results they had

obtained did not show particularly close comparison in the predicted and measured

values, but he said, they were in the same "order of magnitude". He said this variation

came primarily from the short term of the monitoring, variable weather conditions and

from the prediction methodology adopting a conservative approach. He said all of the

He said that the pollution levels estimated from the model for 2004 for the M3 tolled

scheme were similar to the N3 in the do-nothing scenario with all results remaining

within acceptable limits and a slight overall improvement in air quality for the majority of

pollutants. He said that for the 2024 predictions pollution levels on the proposed M3 were

within acceptable limits with the same for the existing N3. He said that if average traffic

speeds reduced to 85kph (level of service C) as compared to the modeled free-flow speed

of 100kph, then pollution levels could be expected to be some 9% lower than in a freeflow

situation. He also drew attention to the fact that there were no properties within 20

metres from the centreline as the nearest properties were at least 50 metres away and said

a comparison for those at 50 metres distance could show up to 40 % lower pollution

Mr. Crawford said that in the untolled scenario the results from the model were similar to

those for the tolled scenario with slightly higher pollution levels on the proposed M3 due

to increased vehicle usage in an untolled scenario and there wasa slight decrease in the

He said that no specific mitigation measures were required and the continuation of free

flowing traffic conditions within the legal speed limit would contribute to maintaining air

quality in the vicinity of the proposed scheme. He said that the Contractors would be

required to maintain their equipment in good working order so emisssions from their

plant would have no significant impact on air quality but the construction activities had

Mr. Crawford said the potential for dust to be produced depended on environmental

factors like rainfall, wind speed and direction as well as the type of construction activity

itself and that the majority of dust produced would be deposited close to the source. He

said that a series of measures would be implemented to ensure no dust nuisance occurred

including the regular cleaning and maintenance of side roads, hard surface roads swept to

remove mud and aggregate materials and traffic on unsurfaced roads would be restricted

to essential site traffic only. He said that any road which had a potential to give rise to

He concluded by saying that the predicted pollution concentrations were below the

limiting values for both tolled and untolled scenarios, air quality in Dunshaughlin and

Navan would be significantly improved by the removal of traffic but there would be a

slight elevation in pollution levels in areas where there was no road at present and that

pollution levels would be slightly higher on the proposed M3 in the untolled scenario due

to greater traffic use and this would be off-set by a lower level on the N3 in the untolled

Mr. Brady referred to the likelihood of dust being generated when the Ardsallagh bridge

was being constructed and asked if he accepted that would be severe and if any air quality

monitoring had been carried out there. Mr. Crawford accepted there would be dust but

felt he could not give a degree of its severity and said the nearest monitor location was

about 1 km. away where the pollutants monitored were NO2 and Benzene. Asked why no

monitoring was done Ardsallagh where there would be a large construction site and

serious pollution from that, Mr. Crawford said that monitoring had been done as a back

check on the air quality model and that assessment could only be done by predictions

from the model since the new road was not yet in place and they had to look at future

traffic growth and future changes in traffic. He said it was not necessary to monitor every

location along the route and they had picked places that were representative to get a

Mr. Brady referred to his comments on mitigation measures in his Brief of Evidence

relating to dust generation and said there were 3 houses in a triangle between the M3 cut

and the Ardsallagh Bridge and suggested these would suffer a severe impact from dust

during construction. Mr. Crawford said a lot would depend on how the contractor chose

to do the work and while he accepted it would not be minor, he could not say if it would

be moderate or severe since there were mitigation measures specified in the EIS which

minimise dust nuisance and the motorway being in a cutting would also help to prevent

windblown dust from being blown towards the houses. When Mr. Brady said the M3 was

at ground level, Mr. Crawford said his understanding was that it was only at ground level

to the west of the houses in question. Mr. Brady said that was his point as it was those 3

houses, which were north of the motorway were stuck in a triangle where they had to be

severely impacted by dust and he asked was Mr. Crawford not going to concede that. Mr.

Crawford replied that dust was generated by a series of conditions such as a combination

of prolonged dry periods, windy conditions and wind direction but the mitigation

measures of watering would reduce the tendency for dust to rise and to be deposited

Mr. Brady then asked what would be watered and when Mr.Crawford said earthworks on

a routine basis would be watered, asked how would "routine" be defined. Mr. Crawford

said this might be daily and if dust was still being produced it could be more frequent,

Asked what other mitigations could be done Mr. Crawford said that side roads would be

swept regularly, speed restrictions to 20kms. per hour as were specified in the Clonee to

Dunshaughlin Section would be applied, loads would be covered and wheel washing for

vehicles prior to leaving the site would all combine to minimise the dust effect. Mr,

Brady expressed doubt if these could be monitored but Mr. Crawford said there would be

on-site staff employed by the Council to monitor such matters and that he had been

involved in other road schemes where these sort of mitigation measures were regularly

sanctioned for exceeding these type of speed limits, Mr. Crawford said he was not

Mr. Brady said he had no further questions for Council witnesses at that stage but would

reserve his position in case something arose from other cross-examinations. He told the

Inspector that he would be making an application for his Clients' costs, but said he

Mr. Farrelly asked if his section had addressed the fog problem at Soldiers Hill

members of the public had told them there were areas that tended to be shrouded in fog

and that this had been referred to in the Council's responses. He said there would be a

safety audit conducted on the final design and for both pre- and post-construction and if

there were any significant safety issues highlighted about the fog, then measures to

safeguard against accidents would be put in place. Mr. Farrelly asked if the proposed road

from Drogheda to Naas was going under or over the link at Blundellstown, and when Mr.

Crawford said he did not understand the relevance of that question, Mr. Butler intervened

and said that Mr. Killeen had given evidence at the beginning of the Hearing that this

road was in the DTO document " Platform for Change" but this was only an aspiration for

the future and there was neither a requirement or a proposal for that road which could be

Mr. Farrelly said this was symptomatic of the M3 being designed without any regard for

what else was being planned and the NRA or the Council did not consider anything

outside of Meath as being an issue. He said the Government had this framework of the

"Platform for Change" which had all of these orbital roads in it and yet when the public

came to this Hearing and tried to find out what was going on, they were told the NRA

knew nothing about it either. He said it was typical of the Hearing for the past three or

four weeks that the Council could not answer anything they were asked but they wanted

to go ahead with the motorway regardless of anything else. He said he would be very

concerned if there was a fog problem at Blundellstown where a number of roundabouts

would be created and surely they should know if there were going to be link roads at that

particular area. The Inspector said Mr. Farrelly had expanded, somewhat, on the fog issue

and asked Mr. Crawford if he wished to add something further to what he had said

already. Mr. Crawford said they were aware of the problems that could exist and the

safety audit process would address the fog problem as it arose and said the road would

not be opened unless all safety issues had been addressed. Mr. Farrelly suggested it

would be a bit late when the M3 was built from Clonee to Kells if a month after it was

opened there were major accidents with all of these link roads coming from Drogheda,

Swords, Navan and everywhere else. Mr. Crawford replied that with sufficient mitigation

in place there would not be the high risk of accidents he was suggesting and mentioned

anti-skid surfacing, warning lights and signs as some of the measures that could be

The Inspector said that Mr. Crawford had referred to a safety audit before construction

started which implied that the measures would be identified then and asked Mr. Farrelly

what other point he wished to make about the fog. Mr. Farrelly said he was concerned

that a different route might have been selected if they had known about the fog at the.

start of the process. The Inspector said Mr. Crawford had confirmed they were now

aware of it and he had outlined measures they proposed to deal with the issue and he

(Mr. Farrelly) had outlined his concerns. Mr. Farrelly complained they were not getting

answers from the Council to any of their questions. Mr. Crawford then said that for the

roundabouts and side roads there was a further mitigation as the speeds on these would be

lower as drivers would slow down approaching the roundabouts and that if there was fog,

they would slow even further. Mr. Farrelly said that was not his point, his concern was

for the actual motorway where speeds would be 70, 80, 90 mph with drivers suddenly

hitting fog and Mr. Crawford said there would be mitigation with signs, advance warning,

possibly lights. Mr. Farrelly said there was nothing about these in the EIS and Mr.

Crawford agreed but he said if the safety audit highlighted a safety issue then those

measures would be implemented. The Inspector told Mr. Farrelly that all of the evidence

he had heard in relation to the Drogheda to Navan Road so far did not indicate a definite

route had been identified but he had noted that the DTO document referred to this road.

Mr. Magee referred to the Route Selection Report and to Table RSR/6.9.1, 6.9.2 & 6.9.3

on pages 82 & 83 and read an extract which said that the tables suggested both pink

alternatives had the lowest pollution levels and asked was that a true statement. When

Mr. Crawford said it was Mr. Magee said that the P Route was the most viable in terms of

air and Mr. Crawford agreed that was so in terms of Air Quality. The Inspector asked Mr.

Magee to repeat what he had read out and he did so as follows " Inspection of the above

tables suggests that both pink alternatives have the lowest pollution levels. These levels

are very close in value as the predicted traffic volumes for both alternatives are less than

for the other alternatives". The Inspector then commented that the point he had taken was

that the predicted traffic volumes for both routes were less than in the others. Mr. Magee

said he assumed this meant both pink routes and Mr. Crawford said he could provide

some clarification. He said the report went on to say " both routes to the west of Tara and

east of Skryne are more remote and therefore there is a great likelihood more traffic will

stay on the existing N3 giving a higher daily flow which may result in an increase in local

pollution levels affecting greater number of properties". He said if the pink routes were

looked at in isolation and compared to other routes then it might seem the pink routes

were the best, but the effects of the new road on the existing N3 had also to be considered

and this was the point being made there. The Inspector said he had wanted to get

clarification of what had been read out and they should hand in a copy of this Route

selection report later on, since a number of references to it had been made in the crossexaminations.

Mr. Doyle asked if he was an expert on air quality and Mr. Crawford replied that he was

not a specialist consultant in the sense of the other specialist consultants employed on the

scheme and that he was a Highways Engineer with sufficient knowledge of air quality to

be able to supervise the work done for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section as the Air

screening method and was considered to be a conservative approach and that if any

problems had been identified then a air quality specialist would have been employed to

Collierstown as being bowl shaped and said there were two main micro-climates there,

one being from the prevailing wind which was westerly hitting the houses on the Trevet

Road and the other being that it was prone to mist or fog, so they either had wind or fog.

He said with the new road going through this bowl, noxious gases would be generated

and the wind would blow these gases towards the houses, or if there was no wind, the

gases would stagnate in the bowl and affect the air quality of the houses around thearea.

He said he suffered from asthma and this would affect his condition. Mr. Crawford said

that the only road traffic pollutant mentioned in the DMRB that exacerbated asthma was

sulphur content in fuels in 1996, with a further reduction planned. He said that currently

the SO2 content in air quality attributable to road traffic was about 6% and because this

was regarded as not being significant it was not assessed in the DMBR method now, and

he did not expect that pollution from the road traffic would exacerbate his asthma

Mr. Crawford said that high wind tended to disperse air pollution more rapidly and that,

as Mr. Doyle had said, when wind speed was low the air pollution would linger in the

vicinity of the road. He said that their assessment had been made on the basis of a

receptor at 20 metres from the centreline of the new road and they found no location

where the predicted levels were likely to exceed EU limits. He said there were no

properties as close as 20 metres from the mainline as this was along the fenceline and that

pollution levels tended to reduce as one moved further from the motorway so that, at 200

metres from the motorway, the pollution was virtually at background levels. He said they

were satisfied from the assessment there would be no significant impact on air quality

Mr. Doyle then asked about dust during construction, which he suggested would affect

sufferers from asthma and other lung diseases. Mr. Crawford agreed this could have an

effect and referred to his previous replies to Mr. Brady on the same issue when he

outlined the mitigation measures that would be applied in the Contract. He outlined these

as including earthworks being watered regularly during dry periods, side road being

swept to remove debris, unsurfaced in-site roads being restricted in traffic use, speed

limit of 20kph for site traffic, covering of loads and wheelwash facilities at site exits. Mr.

Doyle said he had never seen these mitigations in force on road schemes he had seen and

gave as an instance the dust and dirt that could be seen daily on the M1 being constructed

outside Drogheda. Mr. Crawford said he had experience of these being complied with in

appointed as part of the Contract who could be contacted by people locally who had

The Inspector reminded Mr. Butler of the discussions about dust with Mr. Scott in the

Clonee to Dunshaughlin section and the undertaking given to use a Bergenhoff Jar as a

dust monitor at his location and suggested that, in the context of Mr. Brady's three houses

at Ardsallagh and the Trevet Road situation, these were other similar locations where this

Jar could be considered for installation as a means of providing a measurable mehod of

dust quantities being deposited. Mr. Butler said he would take instructions and come back

with something definite on this and the Inspector suggested the Council should take a

scheme-wide view on this matter but that this was not to be taken as suggesting there

would be a Jar provided at every house along the Scheme. He said that by locating these

Jars in a selective number of locations would impose a discipline on the Contractors and

Fr. Raleigh said he was surprised to hear that Mr. Crawford was not an air quality expert

and asked how he could make a report in that case. Mr. Crawford replied that he had said

he was not an air quality specialist but had not said he was not an expert witness. Asked

what was the difference, Mr. Crawford replied he had a background knowledge of air

quality but not as detailed as a specialist might have. Fr. Raleigh said that in such a large

undertaking as a motorway one would have expected they would have used specialists for

every aspect and Mr. Crawford replied they used the DMRB framework to assess the air

quality and this concluded there was no likely air quality problems on this Section of the

route and this meant no further need for a more detailed assessment. He said that if

problems had been identified they would then have brought in an air quality consultant to

construction impacts and when told there were no specific figures given in the EIS and

that air pollution was covered in the general sense for the construction impacts, he

assessment of air pollution in that case. Mr. Crawford replied they accepted dust

nuisance would arise occasionally when conditions were favourable for dust generation

and he said this was usually in windy conditions during a prolonged dry spell and if the

wind direction was from a particular direction. Asked would this occur all along the road,

Mr. Crawford said it would where there were ongoing earthworks and where properties

were closer than 300 metres from the road but that if there were no earthworks the

opportunity for dust generation would be less. Mr. O'Donnell asked if blasting, extraction

of rock and material be classed as earthworks and when Mr. Crawford said they would

be, he asked if the route had been examined to assess where rock blasting would take

place. Mr. Crawford said they had not looked for those locations and Mr. O'Donnell

suggested there would be significant levels of dust from blasting and they had not sought

to identify these locations. Mr. Crawford replied they had made a general assessment and

if there was no wind then dust created would not become a dust nuisance at nearby

properties, but they had put in a series of mitigation measures to minimise the effects on

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had identified the parts of the road where material would be

extracted and when told that this was not done specifically, said it could not be known

what properties would be exposed to dust nuisance from earthworks. Mr. Crawford said

there would be earthworks all along the site and that they accepted there would be

occasions when conditions would favour dust generation and the mitigation measures

would cover those circumstances. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there were areas where the

road was at grade where properties would be more severely affected by the works and

Mr. Crawford accepted these could have more of a potential for dust nuisance and he

agreed he had not identified these either. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested all of these were

issues which the EIS should have addressed and Mr. Crawford said there were addressed

in it by the mitigation measures provided and he listed regular watering, regular cleaning

of hard surfaces and the limited access as being some of these measures. Mr. O'Donnell

said the EIS did not identify who were most at risk and Mr. Crawford agreed that was so.

Mr. O'Donnell referred to the Gate Lodge at the River Skane / Dowdstown road area and,

after asking a series of questions about the likely construction activities in developing the

embankments for the overbridge and the cutting for the M3, asked if details of the

properties likely to be affected by these activities and the impacts were in the EIS. Mr.

Crawford replied that it was impossible to give a quantitive assessment since the weather

Mr. O'Donnell suggested he could have indicated over a series of types of conditions the

likely impact in terms of wind condition and said there were only about three types of

climatic conditions that could occur there. Mr. Crawford said the EIS stated the

conditions when dust nuisance would occur, Mr. O'Donnell said three properties near the

Dowdstown Overbridge were not identified in the EIS as being at risk, Mr. Crawford said

there was general information in the EIS and Mr. O'Donnell said no attempt had been

made to quantify or qualify the impacts of those very general terms. Mr. Crawford said it

was impossible to quantify them and Mr. O'Donnell said it was not impossible and he

suggested a scenario where the likely spread over distances of 200/300 metres for

specified wind directions at certain quantities could be predicted but Mr. Crawford said it

was not possible to do this at the detailed level he was suggesting. Mr. O'Donnell said

that sort of assessment was done on a regular basis in terms of impacts of developments

in the planning system but Mr. Crawford replied he would say it was not routinely done

on schemes like the M3 and they had given mitigation measures for the impacts that

A lengthy discussion followed when Mr. O'Donnell outlined the scenarios he suggested

were possible to use to predict the quantities and extent of emissions caused by the

construction activities and suggested he should have been able to come up with a scheme

of how the works would be carried out by the contractor and predicting either a worst

case or best case scenario for the construction impacts. Mr. Crawford maintained they

had followed the standard approach for air quality that was typical of all road schemes

and accepted there was a potential for dust nuisance to occur on occasions and had

contractor. He said where there was unpredictability both for the weather conditions and

the contractors work program it was not practical to attempt the sort of exercise Mr.

O'Donnell was suggesting and that those scenarios were not normally included in air

Mr. O'Donnell then asked if it would have been possible to take a particular climatic

condition and a particular work schedule and then to predict the likely impact and extent

of emissions from the construction activities, Mr. Crawford said there was still the future

weather prediction to contend with which was difficult, Mr. O'Donnell said if it were

subject to that condition and Mr. Crawford accepted a hypothetical exercise could be

undertaken. Mr. O'Donnell asked if the model used for traffic emissions and likely

pollution levels into the future was essentially using the same sort of approach to this

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had set up the monitoring devices for the data in his report and

what methodology he used and Mr. Crawford said this was carried out by RPS Ireland for

them, that they would have used the standard methodology and that he had not discussed

with RPS how they collected the data. Mr. O'Donnell expressed surprise at that and when

Mr. Crawford said it was only the results that mattered, Mr. O'Donnell suggested it was

critical that he could not say how the results were collected and asked if the methodology

was set out in the EIS. Mr. Crawford said it was not specifically detailed as they did not

consider that was necessary and that it was the results which were important. Mr.

O'Donnell suggested that if the methodology was incorrect, the modeling and analysis

they did would be undermined. Mr. Crawford said the monitoring results were used as a

back check on the results from the model so that even if there were some problems with

the monitoring results, this would not necessarily affect the model outputs. Mr. O'Donnell

Crawford disagreed with him, saying that in the EIS they had referred to the limitations

of the monitoring exercise due to its short-term nature and the effects of variable climatic

conditions. Mr. O'Donnell said he was contradicting his previous evidence about the use

of the figures to see if the model was correct, and that he could not say if the check was

correct when he could not say if the methodology was correct. Mr. Crawford replied the

monitoring was done by a reputable firm of air quality specialists and they took it the

Mr. O'Donnell asked what level of PM10s would he expect in a rural and unpolluted area

and when Mr. Crawford replied he would expect it to be less than the threshold, he asked

for a precise level. Mr. Crawford said this would depend on a number of factors and after

some further similar queries to him, he said that without carrying out monitoring he could

not give a precise figure. Mr. O'Donnell asked what were the threshold levels based on

and Mr. Crawford replied the PM10s were based on the EU Air Quality Framework and

the UK National Air Quality Strategy and the EU standard was being adopted into Irish

Standards using SI 33/1999. When Mr. Crawford again responded to a question on the

background level for PM10s by saying he would have to do a monitoring exercise since

each location had its own circumstances, Mr. O'Donnell said their evidence would be that

the figures he had identified were much lower that would be expected in this area and

asked would he agree or disagree with what their air expert would say. Mr. Crawford

replied that he could not comment as it was subject to variability unless carried out over a

Mr. O'Donnell then referred to the statement on page 34 of Vol.4A ( in Section 3.4.1) of

the figures being of the "same order of magnitude" and asked if he stood over that

comment, as there would be evidence that they were not. Mr. Crawford said he stood

over the statement and Mr. O'Donnell then took him through some of the figures for

PM10 in Table 3.5 on page 39 of 0.33 and 3.96 for M1 and 0.88 and 6.88 for M2 ( these

being the lowest and highest results measured at each location, the figures being in

micrograms per cubic metre) and then through the predicted levels of PM10 for both

locations as shown in Table 3.7 on page 40 of 20.65 for M1 and 20.72 for M2. Asked if if

the figures of between 0.33 to 3.9 and 20.65 were of the same order of magnitude, Mr.

Crawford said he would consider them to be of the same order as they were both well

under the threshold limit and he commented that the DMRB approach was conservative.

Mr. O'Donnell asked him how much more was 20.65 over 0.33 and he replied that was an

extreme example but it was about 60 times more and when it was put to him that 60 times

could not be of the same order of magnitude, Mr. Crawford replied that in terms of their

values under the limit they were of the same order of magnitude. A discussion followed

Crawford said that to get a robust monitored result a period of about a year's monitoring

should have been done and Mr. Crawford replied that if it was expected there would be

air quality problems then that length might have been appropriate but in this case there

was not a significant impact. Mr. O'Donnell then said he had decided there was no

significant problem before getting any results and did the tests on that basis but Mr.

Crawford explained that on the basis of their calculations at route selection stage it was

considered at an early stage there was unlikely to be any significant impacts to air quality

and the shortterm monitoring assessment was then carried out as being adequate in those

Mr. O'Donnell then asked for the background level of NO2 and Mr. Crawford replied that

he wuld say the same as for PM10 and without doing a longterm monitoring exercise, it

was not possible to say as there were many factors that could contribute. A similar

discussion as had taken place for the PM10 data then followed with Mr. O'Donnell saying

their air pollution expert would say the figures for NO2 were unbelieveable and Mr.

conditions but it was accepted as being a conservative approach, and a first step

assessment, which was sufficient if no air quality issues were identified. Mr. O'Donnell

said he had raised a number of questions but was not being given any answers only

speculation and no details of the methodologies used to support the DMRB results that

were being relied on. Mr. Crawford said they had taken the approach typically carried out

on road schemes and the results showed there were no air quality issues in that section of

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he would accept pollution levels were an important factor in

considering routes and when Mr. Crawford agreed, he suggested you should choose the

route which had the least impact in pollution terms and Mr. Crawford agreed if you were

looking at strictly air quality. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested the Blue Route was not the

best route in that regard as stated in the EIS and Mr. Crawford agreed the Pink Route

scored better in air quality. Mr. O'Donnell then asked would it have been correct to select

the Pink Route on air pollution grounds and Mr. Crawford replied that if looked at only in

air quality terms that view could be taken but there were other factors and he said there

were far more properties adjacent to the Pink Route than to the Blue Route and that

would have an overall effect. Mr. O'Donnell asked if this was an area he had an input

other than in air pollution but Mr. Crawford said that was just a simple count of

properties and when Mr. O'Donnell suggested he was going back on his conclusions in

the EIS of the Pink route being the best route, Mr. Crawford said the EIS did not say that.

Asked if that was in the Route Selection Report, Mr. Crawford said it was and, after some

exchanges between Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Keane, Mr. Crawford then read an extract

from the Route Selection Report on page 83 at point RSR 6.9.3 ( already read by Mr.

Magee, see Section 58.4 above). This extract indicated that the Pink routes had the lowest

projected pollution levels but that these routes, and those west of Tara, were more remote

and there was a greater likelihood of local traffic staying on the N3 which could result in

pollution affecting a greater number of properties and that the blue options were more

favourable of the central routes, with Blue 2 having the lower pollution level. Mr.

O'Donnell concluded by asking if those extracts changed the statement of the Pink route

being the best in air pollution impacts and Mr. Crawford replied that it did not but that

Mr. Sweetman asked why the statement about the pink route was left out of the EIS and

when Mr. Crawford said that was because the EIS assessed the Blue 2 Route and not the

other options, he asked did he look at the alternatives in the EIS. Mr.Crawford replied the

alternatives were not considered since the Project team considered all of the routes had a

very similar air quality impact. Mr. Sweetman asked if he did not agree with this and

when Mr. Crawford replied that he did, said he had just said the Project team considered

the air pollution was equal on all routes, and had told Mr. O'Donnell it was much less on

the pink route, so which was it. Mr. Crawford said that was based purely on the figures

but all of the figures were of the same order of magnitude. Mr. Sweetman suggested he

had said the figures were meaningless and Mr. Crawford replied he had not said that,

there was very little difference and therefore it was not a significant difference a in terms

of route options. Mr. Sweetman then said it was the monitoring figures he had said were

meaningless and the Inspector said Mr. Crawford had said they required extension.

Mr. Sweetman referred to his reply to Mr. O'Donnell of a year being required for a proper

monitoring of levels and asked the dates the monitoring was carried out. Mr. Crawford

said April 2001 and was asked for the weather conditions at the time and when he replied

he had not that detail to hand, Mr. Sweetman suggested the figures were meaningless as

he had said everything was reliant on weather as regards air pollution and if weater was

right there would be no pollution and if wrong, there would be pollution. Mr. Crawford

said that it also related to vehicle numbers and the HGV content and Mr. Sweetman said

suggested he was only guessing that the levels monitored were reliable when he did not

know what the weather conditions were like in April 2001 as it might have been a heat

wave or it might have been raining. Mr. Crawford said that it was only possible to get a

good indication of ambient pollution levels from monitoring carried out over a year since

that could be assumed to have covered all weather cycles. Mr. Sweetman said the figures

could not be interpreted without knowing the weather conditions, Mr. Crawford said you

relied on weather conditions but Mr. Sweetman said he was asking if you could rely on

figures for PM10s taken on a day for which there was no knowledge of the weather

Mr. Sweetman then said to the Inspector that he thought the time had come to call a halt

to this "farce", he said that the EIS "shall contain all the likely significant impacts" and

that they had been through two witnesses who knew absolutely nothing. He said they

could not answer a direct question with a direct answer and that everything was based on

assessment of the project since the information required by the legislation was not, and

Mr. Keane referred back to Tables 3.5 and 3.7 on pages 39 & 40 of Vol. 4A and the limit

values Mr. Crawford had set out there from the Air Quality Framework Directive and EU

average of the figures which ranged from 0.33 to 3.96 for location M1 and similarly for

the range from 0.88 to 6.88 for location M2. Mr. Crawford replied that the average for

location M1 was 1.65 and for location M2 it was 2.68. Mr. Keane then asked if these

"averages" were then compared to the relevant figures in table 3.7 would the "order" be

approximately 13 in the case of location M1 and 8 in the case of location M2 and Mr.

Crawford said they were. Mr. Keane then asked Mr. Crawford if these " averages" were

significantly below the limit values for PM10s, which he said was 50 at present and

projected to drop to 40 when the Directive was fully in place and Mr. Crawford said they

Mr. Park asked if the baseline monitoring shown in his Brief of Evidence established the

levels prior to construction of the motorway and Mr. Crawford said they were used as a

backcheck on the DRMB model with the conclusions of the air assessment being drawn

from the model. Asked which was the closest location to the houses along the Bellinter

Road, Mr. Crawford said that D4 near Cannistown Church was the closest to Bellinter

and when Mr. Park said they were concerned with so many houses at the Bellinter end

why no location was used near them, Mr. Crawford said he understood their concern but

said the model covered the whole route and that three worst case locations had been used.

He said that their location at Bellinter or at Ardsallagh would not be worse than

Cannistown. Asked about the impact on Dalgan Park, Mr. Crawford said that most of

unaffected by the route since air quality tended to improve the further one was from the

rosad and said that at 200 metres, generally speaking, the air pollution levels had returned

to background levels even with the influence of wind conditions Mr. Park asked if he was

aware of fog tendencies in the area and Mr. Crawford said he was aware that fog could

develope around the Blundellstown area and said the road design would cater for that

condition but said he did not see that as a problem, and he referred to there being a safety

Mr. Park asked if monitoring would be carried out in their area and Mr. Crawford said

suggested that as Dalgan Park was used extensively for walking they should consider

some post-construction monitoring there but Mr. Crawford said there was no requirement

to do this since the assessment results indicated there was no significant impact. He said

increase in air pollution on those within 200 metres from the road, that level was still far

below that which might be a potential health hazard and people would have to be exposed

to that for a lengthy period, which would not be the case for the walkers he mentioned.

Mr. Park asked about the mitigation measures mentioned for construction works about

which they had concerns and asked what was meant by "vicinity". Mr. Crawford said that

referred to the area of the site within the CPO but that the measures also applied to roads

being used by site traffic outside the site as well. Mr. Park asked if dust control measures

were only being applied to the roads within the site and Mr. Crawford said that was the

main source for dust nuisance but that around the access points there would also be

controls. Mr. Park asked who would residents complain to if problems with dust arose

and Mr. Crawford said they should contact the designated Liaison person who would

raise this with the contractors to revise his working arrangements and he said this Liaison

person would be available to be contacted and that details of how he could be contacted

would be made known to locals and said this would be done before work commenced.

Mr.Sweetman asked where he had experience of a "liaison" officer on a contract and

when Mr. Crawford replied that was the case in Scotland and in the UK, Mr. Sweetman

referred to problems he had in locating anyone to speak to on the Kildare By-pass scheme

and was told by the Inspector that the Hearing was not about the Kildare By-pass. Mr.

Sweetman then asked where were the results of the diurnal variations referred to in his

Brief of Evidence where he had said the baseline monitoring was designed to identify the

variation of critical pollutants. Mr. Crawford said the conclusions were drawn from the

results from that model. Mr. Sweetman then suggested they had ignored the baseline

modelling but Mr. Crawford said they included it as a backcheck and did not ignore it.

Asked where the results were, Mr. Crawford said they were in Table 3.5 and Mr. Keane

commented those were the results that Mr. Healy had been referring to ( See Section

69.1.). Mr. Sweetman asked if he had found a daily variation but Mr. Crawford said he

Mr. Daly said he had a Degree in Civil Engineering from UCD, he was the Drainage

Team Leader for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and had broad experience in road

and drainage design. He said that 15 outfall locations for surface water discharges to

watercourses had been identified and his Brief of Evidence would discus the effects of

He said the proposed route was dominated by the River Boyne and its tributaries, the

Boyne having a lowland catchment of some 2694 sq. kms. covering most of Meath, a

large area of Westmeath and parts of Kildare, Louth, Cavan and Offaly with its main

channel some 113 kms. in length and the proposed M3 crossing the River Boyne just

north of Bellinter Bridge. He said most of the proposed route lay to the south of the

Boyne and was drained by its tributaries, the Skane river which rose near Dunshaughlin

and flowed northwards through Kilmessan to join the Boyne downstream of Bellinter

Bridge at Dowdstown, and the Lismullin river, which flowed close to the proposed route

for much of its length and crossed it at several locations before joining the Skane at

He said that potential impacts would arise from the proposed road where it was in a

cutting by acting as a drain which would lower the watertable in the vicinity of the cut

and when the run-off would be collected and channelled to natural watercourses. In that

case, the surface run-off in storms from the impermeable road surface would be faster

than if the green field situation remained. He said spillages and contaminants on the road

surface would be collected in the drainage system and could discharge to steams. be

Mr. Daly said while there would be a small increase in flow at each of the outfall

locations, the road catchment area was negligible by comparison to the total catchment

area and they did not anticipate there wuld be an increase in the peak flows in the

receiving watercourses downstream of these outfalls. He said that adverse effects on

water quality could be avoided by ensuring the drainage system was designed to a high

specification and properly constructed using french drains with silt trap manholes and

petrol/oil interceptors at each outfall location. He said that planting along road verges and

side slopes would reduce soil erosion and suspended matter in run-off. He said culverts

would be designed for a 100 year flood and this would ensure the proposed route would

He said that accidental spillages could cause serious pollution to both surface and ground

water and it was diffficult to provide any realistic protection measures against these due

to the random nature of such spillages. He said an emergency response plan to react to

accidental spillages would be developed for the operational phase of the scheme. Mr.

Daly said that closed drain systems would be incorporated in areas where acquifer

vulnerability was classed as high and that such areas would be more precisely delineated

He said that all drains and streams crossed by the proposed road would be piped or

culverted to ensure continuity of flow and minimise loss of water to dependant wetlands.

He said that cuttings would be kept as shallow as possible, and above the watertable

where feasible to do so, to minimise the impact on de-watering of shallow wells and

where ground waters were adversely affected by the cutting, deepening of the wells or the

provision of a public water supply would be considered. He said that an ongoing water

level monitoring program of wells in the vicinity of cuttings would be undertaken to

hydrogeological impacts along the proposed Scheme, that the potential impacts had been

identified and mitigation measures suggested to counteract these effects. He said that if

those measures were taken any residual impacts as a result of surface water run-off

Mr. Brady said that originally his Clients thought the road on the western side of the

Overbridge was in a cutting but from the evidence given and his earlier questions they

now knew it was at grade and rising to 1.5 metres above ground level. He suggested the

raising of the levels had to do with drainage problems and asked Mr. Daly if that was the

case. Mr. Daly said that there were no streams in the vicinity and there could be water

lodging on the motorway if it could not be drained and they needed a fall to do this to

carry the water to an outfall. Mr. Brady said the natural fall was from the houses towards

the Boyne Valey and with the M3 a metre above ground level that was going to block the

natural flow of water away from the houses and he asked how was this going to be dealt

with. Mr. Daly said there would be cut-off drains built that will intercept this natural runoff

Mr. Brady said that for the houses on the southern side of the Ardsallagh Overbridge the

opposite would be the case since they had a deep cutting nearby which would dry out the

ground and asked if he was familiar with the concept of uneven drying. When Mr. Daly

said he was, Mr. Brady suggested this could disturb pipes leading to septic tanks or

percolation areas could be damaged and Mr. Daly said there were measures that could be

installed like grout curtains to keep the watertable from being lowered by the cutting and

explained this was like a retaining wall constructed of grout. Mr. Brady asked him to

explain what "french drains" were and he said these were a pipe drainage system with a

stone backfilling to collect surface water from the road surface and take it to the nearest

outfall. Asked about the capacity of the system to cope with the torrential storms like

those of the Summer 2002, Mr. Daly said the drainage system was designed for a two

Mr. Doyle suggested the water coming off the road would contain pollutants and asked

how these would affect the watertable. Mr. Daly said research had shown these filter

drains removed up to 80% of pollutants so there would not be any adverse effects on

water quality in the area. he said they would also be providing petrol and oil interceptors

Mr. Farrelly asked where the watercoming down off the Hill of Skryne would go when it

interceptor drains along the motorway and taken to the nearest outfall. Asked what he

meant by "having an effect on wells" in his Brief of Evidence, Mr. Daly explained that a

cutting might lead to the de-watering of some wells from the lowering of the watertable

in the vicinity of the cutting and said, if that happened, the contractor would either

deepen the well, install a grout curtain or connect to a mains supply. When Mr. Farrelly

asked if the residents along the route could have all of this in writing, the Inspector said

Mr. Farrelly asked how a mains supply could now be offered since they had been waiting

for this for "the last hundred years", and when Mr. Daly said he could not speak for the

Council but it was one of the options available, Mr. Butler said he would take instructions

about Mr. Farrelly's property and come back to him and Mr. Farrelly said it was all of the

Ms Martin said she had referred to the possible effects of borrow pits previously and was

told by Mr. Guthrie that Mr. Daly might be able to answer her query and she asked was

he familiar with the soil type in their area but he replied that he was not. Ms Martin then

asked about a worst case scenario where the well ran dry on a Friday evening on a Bank

Holiday week-end and asked how long would they be waiting for the contractor to fix

this. Mr. Daly said the wells would be monitored so they could be deepened immediately

if at any time it looked as if they were going to be affected. Asked what wells were being

tested on the Trevet Road at present, he said he would check the list and give the details

Mr. Magee referred to his Brief of Evidence where the possible adverse effects of

accidental spillages were dealt with and asked if he had details of the "emergency

response plan" he had mentioned. Mr. Daly said that would be prepared by the PPP

Contractor and incorporated into the conditions of contract when the maintenance

he was not aware of it being one as this was not his area of expertise since he dealt with

the drainage of the scheme involving the surface run-off . Mr. Sweetman said drainage

was about draining a road into a river that the witness did not know was a proposed SAC

and when Mr. Daly said he could answer questions that related to the quality and quantity

of run-off, Mr. Sweetman said he could not since he did not know the parameters in

interaction of the flora and fauna with the drainage with Mr. Nairn and when Mr. Daly

replied that he had seen his reports, Mr. Sweetman asked who did the interaction and

asked if Mr. Nairn had seen his reports. Mr. Daly said he presumed so and was asked if

he knew anything about the ecology of the area and if he understood a proposed SAC was

an European site. Mr. Daly said he did not know about the ecology but he was aware of

what an SAC was. Mr. Sweetman then said the road was a development by an animation

of the State and directly bound by European Law and asked if he knew it was totally

against the law to allow anything to be emitted into an SAC without being assessed. Mr.

Daly replied they were providing a number of measures relating to water quality and had

been talking to the OPW and the ERFB regarding the quality of run-off from the road.

Mr. Sweetman said that talking to these bodies was of little relevance since none of them

had bothered to turn up to attend the Hearing and give their expertise. He said the witness

did not know it was an SAC, he had not spoken to Duchas and did not know what the

principles of law were and, after a query by the Inspector about the intent of his

Mr. O'Donnell said his Clients were concerned about flooding from the River Skane and

asked what measures had he proposed to deal with this and when Mr. Daly said there

were no specific measures intended he suggested they were building a road through areas

that regularly flooded and expressed surprise at this. Mr. Daly said they had done

calculations which showed the peak run-off from the road would not co-incide with the

peak run-off in the river catchment and said that the road run-off would peak after some

20 to 30 minutes while the river would take from 6 to 7 hours and the road run-off would

have dissipated before the peak flow in the river had reached this point. He said the

upstream catchment of the Skane was around 66 sq. kms. while that of the road was about

0.016 sq. kms so the effect would be negligible. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there would be

an increased run-off from the road and the absorbtive nature of the land would be altered

where the road was located so there must be an increased flow into the Skane and Boyne

rivers which should be mitigated against, as there was an existing flooding problem there.

Mr. Daly repeated that any increase in flow would be minimal and that peak flows from

Mr. O'Donnell again referred to flooding in the area and Mr. Daly accepted the river

overflowed its banks in times of heavy rainfall but he would not agree that the extreme

flood conditions of 10 or 20 year storms would be exacerbated and said it wpould be

negligible. Asked what quantities of water he expected from the road would flow into the

Skane and Boyne, Mr. Daly said the peak flow would be about 200 litres per second and

he confirmed that all of this would be channeled to the Skane by a single discharge point.

Mr. O'Donnell suggested this would be contaminated with petrol and oil but Mr. Daly

said it would not since there would be a system of french drains, silt trap manholes and

petrol and oil interceptors at the outfall locations, all of which would prevent any adverse

effects on water quality. Asked if there was no possibility of contaminants entering the

contaminants in the Skane, Mr. O'Donnell asked if fish would be harmed, Mr. Daly

replied they had discussed this with the ERFB who were happy with their proposals, Mr.

O'Donnell asked if the ERFB had said there was no limit on contaminants that could be

Mr. O'Donnell suggested the contaminants would be harmful to fish and that an Act of

God was always possible which would cause a catastrophe to occur. When Mr. Daly said

that would not necessarily follow, Mr. O'Donnell referred to an incident in Dublin

involving the Liffey with the water system being contaminated and Mr. Daly said they

had planned the french drains so any accidental spillages would be contained in these for

a certain period. He said the contract would call for a plan to be developed to deal with

accidental spillages in the operational phase of the Scheme. Mr. O'Donnell asked if this

had been discussed with Duchas and when Mr. Daly replied they had discussed it with

Sweetman that he had not known it was a proposed SAC and asked if he knew what its

significance was. Mr. Daly said he understood it was important in ecological and

environmental terms and when asked if he knew what precise obligations that designation

gave rise to, Mr. Daly replied that he did not. Mr. O'Donnell concluded by saying that it

would have been an important matter in terms of looking at this scheme, Mr. Daly said

they had shown there would not be any adverse effect on water quality, Mr. O'Donnell

said that was not the test of an SAC and Mr. Daly replied that he was not aware of the

The Inspector referred to his calculations on the catchment flows in the River Skane and

asked if he had a map showing the catchment that had been considered. Mr. Daly said he

could provide one and the Inspector said he should also provide a copy of the map and

the calculations to Mr. O'Donnell. ( Note - This map was handed in to the Hearing on

Mr. Park asked if he was aware of the location of the Dunshaughlin Sewerage Treatment

Plant Outfall Pipe and when Mr. Daly said he was, asked would they have considered

using that pipe if it was available to them. Mr. Daly said they had considered the quantity

and quality of the road drainage run-off and were satisfied there would not be any

adverse effect on the quality of the receiving waters. Mr. Park said the Skane was a small

river and Mr. Daly explained that the roadway had a catchment of 0.016 sq. kms. in a

drainage systen with silt trap manholes and petrol /oil interceptors and were satisfied

there would not be any adverse impact if these were constructed properly. Mr. Park said

the Council were planning to put a Sewerage Treatment Plant with tertiary treatment at

Castletown, which was close to the motorway, and as the Skane was not suitable for the

discharge of treated effluent they were planning to lay a pipe to the Boyne. He suggested

that as the Skane was a small sensitive river and a primary salmon spawning river they

should consider putting the road drainage into that outfall pipe rather than into the river

with the risk of contamination. Mr. Daly explained that, with the filter drainage system

and the silt trap manholes, the bypass interceptors they would be using would stop any

flushing out of contaminants from the system. Mr. Park asked if they would consider

putting it in to the outfall if it were available and Mr.Daly said they would look at the

Mr.Park referred to his previous comment about a restriction in the flow of the Skane as

being a cause of flooding and asked where that was. Mr. Daly said it was at Dowdstown

bridge which was downstream of the motorway. Asked if there was a restriction at

Ambrose bridge, Mr. Daly said that was upstream and would not be affected by road runoff.

Asked how many culverts were being put across the Skane, Mr. Daly said two, at the

L-2201 crossing of the Skane and where the motorway crossed it and Mr. Park said there

was a third, where the the farm access road croessed it and asked if he was happy the

Skane would not be damaged by these three culverts in close proximity to each other.Mr.

consulting with the ERFB so there should not be any interference with the bed of the

Skane. Asked how these would be constructed to avaiod damaging thebed, Mr.Daly said

that he should ask Mr. Sheehy about that but said they were designed for a 1 in 100 year

The Inspector asked that information relating to the status of the Dunshaughlin Sewerage

Treatment Plant, including a location map for it and the outfall pipe to the Boyne River,

should be provided by the Council. ( Note -- This was handed in on Day 28 and is listed

60. Evidence of Harold O'Sullivan, Historical Researcher, on behalf of the Council :

Note -- Before Mr. O'Sullivan gave his evidence on the Built Heritage for this Section,

Mr. Keane referred to the Inspector's comments regarding the letter from Duchas to An

Bord and the concerns they expressed in it about the manner in which the Architectural

Heritage sections of the EIS had been dealt with, Section 37. 3. of this Report refers, and

he handed in the County Council's response to the review requested by the Inspector of

1. Duchas said that in Vol. 3A over a distance of 14 kms. seven items were identified as

the sole items of architectural heritage in the vicinity of the scheme and all were country

houses. The Council responded that the approach had been to identify all buildings of

architectural, historic, artistic, social or cultural interest, directly or indirectly affected

and buildings not generally affected were not included in the Report in the EIS, for

2. Duchas asserted that the items considered were mainly country houses and some

bridges with no reference or documentation to show other structures were taken into

consideration such as vernacular structures, village complexes, industrial heritage such as

cornmills, bench marks, farm structures, demesne grounds and structures of the late 19th

century and all of the 20th century. The Council responded that, in addition to country

In the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section, Vol. 3C, there were three 20th century houses (

In the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section, Vol. 4C, there were two houses of the late 19th

century ( Gerrardstown and Dowdstown; one 20th century house ( Lismullin); industrial

( Philpottstown); Farm structures including stud farms ( Gerrardstown, Clowanstown and

Baronstown) and Demesne Grounds (Ardsallagh, Dowdstown, Ballinter and Lismullin.

In the Navan By-pass Section, Vol. 5C, there were two houses that appeared to be of 19th

century origin relating to the Protestant Bishops Estate at Ardbraccan and four bridges

In the Navan to Kells Section Report, Vol. 6C, there were Desmesnes at Ballybeg and a

In the Kells to North of Kells Section Report, Vol. 7C, there were 19th century structures

(Balgree and Derver); late 19th century houses (Calliaghstown and Castlekeeran); a

architecture or industrial archaeology included in the Archaeology Sections such as the

disused railway line and earthen banks, old stone bridges and derelict vernacular

3. Duchas acknowledged that the proposed road might not impact in any significant

manner on the architectural heritage but said that could not be stated from the absence of

information that that heritage had been taken into account. The Council responded that

the Sections of the EIS referred to by Duchas were those in Volumes 3A, 4A and 5A, and

that those summarised the actual Reports which were in the Appendices to the EIS to

submission on the summary reports rather than on the full reports. The Council said that

having reviewed the EIS as requested by Duchas in their letter of 25 April 2002, and by

the Inspector at the Hearing, they were not aware of the proposed road scheme impacting

Mr. Keane also handed in a written response from Margaret Gowan & Co. who wrote the

Architectural Heritage Reports in Volumes 6C and 7C in the EIS with the Sections on

this in Volumes 6A and 7A being summaries. Ms Gowan's response said that buildings

and structures of architectural, artistic, cultural or historical interest were located during

fieldwork which was carried out in tandem with the archaelogical study for both Sections

She said that the proposed Navan to Kells and N52 Kells By-pass, assessed in Vol. 6C,

traveled through an area with a high number of existing and former demesne properties

and that a walk over of the route found it impacted only on demesnes and no vernacular

structures, smaller houses or farmyards were encountered along the path of the route. She

said the omittance of these type of structure from the EIS was due to their absence and

She said the landscape through the proposed Kells to North of Kells M3 travelled

contained fewer demesnes and that none were identified along the path of the road, but

there were a wider range of structures found in the vicinity of the proposed road than

those found along the proposed Navan to Kells and N52 Kells By-pass, and these were

detailed in Vol.7C. She said these structures were smaller in scale and were mostly

typical of the type of rural dwelings found in various states of repair throughout the

Ms Gowan said that there had been consultation with Duchas and the National Inventory

of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) relating to cultural heritage issues for both Sections.

She said that the proposed separation of the northern gate lodge at Rockfield demesne

from the remainder of the demesne was discussed with Duchas in mid-August 2000; that

issues relating to Woodpole schoolhouse was discussed with Duchas on 26 July 2001 and

that any Duchas recommendations made were incorporated into the EIS. She said that a

representative of NIAH was consulted on 31 July 2001 about the architectural inventory

Note -- Mr. O' Sulllivan had also prepared his own response to the letter from Duchas

which he handed in together with a copy of his " Preliminary Cultural Heritage Analysis"

which he had prepared in May 1999 when the road proposal was in its early stages.

These and both the Council's and Margaret Gowan's responses are listed at Day 11 in

Mr. O'Sullivan suggested, as he had done in his previous Evidence on the Clonee to

Dunshaughlin Section, ( See sections 37.1. and 37.3. of this Report) that Duchas might

not have read the Reports he had prepared that were in the appendices to the EIS (Vol.

Cs) and he gave an example by referring to the Duchas comments about the 7 items in the

14 kms. distance of in Vol. 3A. He said that only Gunnock's House of the seven he had

listed was included in Bence-Jones "Guide to Irish Country Houses" which, he said, was

a standard reference authority on this subject. He said that of the seven, two were listed as

"country houses" in the Meath CDP ( Gunnock's and Roestown) while three were 20th

century (Piercetown, Rathbeggan and Readsland) and two were farmhouses ( Rathbeggan

Farm and Johnstown), the latter being vernacular in design. Mr. O'Sullivan said he

submitted two Reports on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section, the first in May 1999, the

"Preliminary C.H. Analysis" as an aid to the route selection and the second in November

2000 which formed the final EIS Report. He said the first Report, a copy of which is

listed in Appendix 4, gave a summary history of the area in the baronies of Dunboyne

and Ratoath affected by the proposed route and also referred to the importance of Tara.

He went on to refer to his Report on the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section as containing a

similar historical note on the area and a survey of all structures and buildings and their

In a reference to the Navan By-pass Section he pointed out that he had classified the 6

houses listed as between their architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest while

defining what that meant. Mr. O'Sullivan said he had been requested by Ms Jacqueline

Donnelly of Duchas' Heritage Unit for an assessment of the "two bridges" in a the

"Navan By-pass Bridges" which he responded to in his Report on the four bridges on the

Navan By-pass Section in Vol. 5C. He concluded his written submission by saying that

he had reviewed the EIS and confirmed that the proposed road scheme would not impact

Mr. O' Sullivan then gave his direct evidence to the Hearing and as the first three sections

of this is identical to his evidence as set out in the first seven paragraphs in Section 37.1.

Mr. O'Sullivan said he had consulted manuscripts, maps and other records relating to the

area, ranging from the 17th to the 19th centuries, particularly relating to land ownership

and habitation sites and he had also visited and photographed the following 7 houses :-

(Note -- The photographs and notes on each house appear in Vols, 4A & 4C of the EIS

Ms Ryan said that Lismullin House, one of the houses he had reported on, was near to

their farm and the route, when it was published as the Blue Route or the EPR, had been

changed and was moved in a northeasterly direction and asked if he had an input into this

move due to the curtilage. Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he was not involved in the route

selection and Ms Ryan asked if Lismullin house was a listed building. Mr. O'Sullivan

said Lismullin was a rebuild from an earlier house burned down in the 1921/22 period

and he believed the present house did not have the same historical impact as the previous

building and did not think the house and premises beside it represented any special

architectural feature. Ms Ryan asked if it would be important to maintain the curtilage of

the house and he replied that it would be important and that the curtilage was the

boundary or that of 100 years ago would be the curtilage, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he

Mr. O'Donnell asked if from what he had just said to Ms Ryan he was taking the current

curtilage for the purposes of the legislation as being the land within the ownership of the

house. Mr. O'Sullivan replied that as far as he was aware, the curtilage of Lismullin

House had not yet been determined by the Planning legislation, and said it could be the

curtilage or the attendant grounds as neither had been determined. Mr. O'Donnell asked if

a protected structure under the Planning Acts included everything manmade within the

curtilage as well as the protected structure itself. Mr. O'Sullivan agreed but said the

current Development Plan did not contain any reference to either the curtilage or to the

attendant grounds. Mr. O'Donnell then said that the law as it stood stated the house was a

listed or protected structure and that everything within the curtilage had the same status

and were protected, even if not referred to in the Development Plan. Mr. O'Sullivan

accepted that was the case but said that the Lismullin curtilage had not yet been

determined. Asked by Mr. O'Donnell who would define the curtilage, Mr. O'Sullivan

replied that it was a matter for the Planning Authority. Mr. O'Donnell asked if there was

time limit for this and when Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he was not aware of one, Mr.

O'Donnell said the Council should have done this before now, that listed buildings

automatically became protected structures each with their own curtilage, that everything

within that being at present a protected structure and that, if the Council had not carried

out an assessment, that curtilage still existed and everything within it was protected.

Mr. O'Donnell asked how he had approached his survey of the built environment and if

he had considered each of the structures within the curtilage. Mr. O'Sullivan said he

looked at both protected structures and those not protected but did not necessarily

determine the curtilage of each, since he was concerned with the setting of the house and

the setting could extend beyond the curtilage in some cases. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he

had determined what the curtilage was for each of the protected structurs and Mr.

O'Sullivan replied that he did not necessarily do this as in some cases he went beyond the

curtilage to include attendant grounds. Asked if he had surveyed the buildings within the

Lismulin curtilage and the other listed properties, Mr.O'Sulivan replied that he walked

around the place and took photographs of both Lismullin House and the other bigger

structures behind it. Asked if he had notes which identified those other structures within

the curtilages of those dwellings, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he had reported on the

Lismullin House some time ago and Mr. O'Donnell said the notes he was seeking were

those of his surveys at each of the listed houses in which he identified their curtilages

and the structures within those curtilages. Mr. O'Sullivan said that he had not formally

stated the curtilages of any of the houses in his report as he did not see that as his duty,

since his duty was to define the settings of the houses, and he said the legislation was not

in force at the time he did his survey in early 2001. When Mr. O'Donnell said the

legislation was in place since 1999, Mr. O'Sullivan replied the old Development Plan was

still in place but Mr. O'Donnell said the legislation automatically gave all of the listed

structures protected status and repeated his previous remarks about the other structures

within the curtilage. When Mr. O'Sullivan said he did not feel called upon to define the

extent of the curtilage, Mr. O'Donnell said this gave rise to a serious difficulty since he

had not identified the extent of these houses and so he could not have identified the

structures within the curtilage for an assessment of the impact of the road on these

protected structures. When Mr. O'Sullivan said he did not see the point he was making,

Mr. O'Donnell said that every structure within the curtilage of a protected structure had,

by law, the same status as the house itself and he would have had to address the impact of

the road on every single structure within the curtilage, and not just on the buildings which

Mr. O'Sullivan said he had described Lismullin House and the other larger building,

which was a Conference Centre of some kind and when Mr. O'Donnell asked if the gates

would be protected structures, Mr. O'Sullivan said he expected they would be. Asked if

the road would be close to the gates of Lismullin House and how he could assess the

impact of the road on the protected structures, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that the road was

not very close to the access points to Lismullin House, that he had been on the site and

took note of how the new road would be sufficiently distant from the house so as not to

have an impact on the house or on its setting. Mr. O'Donnell asked why he had not

identified all of the buildings within the curtilage and indicated the impact on each of

them and when Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he did not feel it necessary to do so, he

suggested this was saying it was not necessary to identify the impact on certain protected

structures but Mr. O'Sullivan said that did not follow as he had not defined the curtilage

in his report and had described the house and other buildings and had taken photographs

of them. Mr. O'Donnell suggested he did not fully understand the very broad way the

legislation was framed and asked if he had photographs of the gateway to Lismullin and

when Mr. O'Sullivan said he had not taken any of the gate, Mr. O'Donnell suggested he

Mr. O'Donnell then asked how he surveyed within the curtilage of Boyne Hill House and

Mr. O'Sullivan described how he met the proprietor and walked around the house which

he found to be remote from the motorway and that he did not regard it as in any way

affected by the proposed motorway. Asked if he defined the curtilage of Boyne Hill

House, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he did not and Mr. O'Donnell suggested he did not

analyse the buildings located within the curtilage and Mr. O'Sullivan said he saw no need

to do so since the house was not being affected by the motorway. Mr. O'Donnell asked

similar questions about Clowanstown House (Tara Stud) and Mr. O'Sullivan gave similar

replies but said he did not think Clowanstown House was a protected structure and Mr.

O'Donnell accepted that it was not a listed building. Asked if he had surveyed Ardsallagh

House and if he had considered the outbuildings in his survey, Mr. O'Sullivan said he had

not surveyed the outbuildings as he did not believe the settings of the house was affected

by the motorway. Asked if he had photographed the Gate Lodge, Mr. O'Sullivan said he

had not as they were both unoccupied at the time of his visit. Mr. O'Donnell said he was

wrong as both were occupied and one of them, for whom he acted, was occupied for over

12 years. Asked if he had surveyed the grounds of Ardsallagh to see what other buildings

were there, Mr. O'Sullivan said he had walked the grounds with the proprietor and that

other than the Gate House there was another in the plantation which he did not visit and

suggested he should have referred to the fact of all of these being protected structures in

his report but Mr. O'Sullivan replied he was asked to report on the effect the motorway

would have on the house itself or on its settings and that was as far as he went in it.

Mr. O'Donnell suggested it was a major defect in his Brief to be only asked to look at the

settings of houses rather than on the protected structures and when Mr. O'Sullivan replied

the legislation was only coming through at the time of his surveys, he said the legislation

was in force for about 18 months at that time and when Mr. O'Sullivan said it was a

matter for the Planning Authority and the appropriate Government Department to put that

into force, Mr. O'Donnell said that was not so, that the law defined the buildings that

were protected structures and there appeared to have been no systematic analysis of the

buildings which were protected structures. Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he would have

reported on any building within the curtilage, if it was going to be affected. Mr.

O'Donnell said he did not report on the Gate Lodges, one of which was listed in the old

CDP and Mr. O'Sullivan said that one was outside the scope of the motorway environs

and would not be affected. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested the estate walls were protected

structures as well and that there had been no recognition of the extent of the protected

structures or any consideration of the impact of the road on them and he was simply told

to look at houses. Mr. O' Sullivan said he was asked to survey anything that might be

affected by the road and that if the main house was not going to be affected, it was

unlikely the out-offices and other premises surrounding the house would be affected.

Castletown House but Mr. O'Sullivan said he had not been there for over 15 years. Asked

if he would agree the housing estates built next to Castletown had destroyed the setting of

that house, Mr. O'Sullivan said he would not disagree with that and Mr. O'Donnell asked

if a motorway with the noise and traffic close to a protected structure would have an

adverse effect on such a structure. Mr. O 'Sullivan replied that he had reported on such a

possibility when he came across it and gave an example of where he had reported that

Lismullin House required some type of peace and tranquility for the activities carried on

there. Asked again if he accepted a motorway built close to a protected structure would

have an adverse impact on it, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that it might or it might not as it

depended on how close it was. Asked if each protected structure would have had to be

assessed, Mr. O'Sullivan said that where he thought there was a possibility of an impact

he had reported that, but that he did not do a survey to define the curtilage in every case

as he did not feel obliged to do so. Following further queries on the extent of what was

regarded as protected structures within the curtilage and responses along the lines of

previous replies, Mr. O'Sullivan said it was a question of the Planning Authority

determining the curtilage and the attendant grounds and Mr. O'Donnell asked was he

saying that no building in Co. Meath had any legal status since the Council had not

defined the curtilage of a single by building some 2 years after the legislation determined

Mr. O'Donnell then asked if he had looked at the built environment in the other routes

and when Mr. O'Sullivan said he had not, he asked if he had been involved in the Pink

route at all and Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he did not see any map indicating pink, blue or

whatever coloured roads, that he was only concerned with the road he was given. Mr.

O'Donnell concluded by asking if his perspective would have been historical since he had

no architectural qualifications and Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he had not claimed to have

any architectural expertise and as a local historian he had regard to everything that was

Mr. Sweetman asked if he had heard correctly that Meath County Council had not yet

defined the meaning of " curtilage" in the list Protected structures and Mr. O'Sullivan

implementation of the legislation would come from the Architectural Inventory which

Duchas were preparing and would circulate to Local Authorities. Mr. Sweetman said he

disagreed with that understanding of the implementation and asked when he last looked

at the list of protected structures for Co. Meath. When Mr. O'Sullivan replied he had

looked at the list in the Development Plan about 4 months previously, Mr. Sweetman said

those were only protected buildings. Mr. O'Sullivan said there were a lot of buildings in

the list and some bridges, castles and vernacular structures and so on. Mr. Sweetman then

asked which of the three protected structures of Boyne Hill, Ardsallagh and Dowdstown

were the closest to the Motorway and when Mr. O'Sullivan replied that Ardsallagh was

probably the closest, he asked how it was approached. Mr. O'Sullivan described how

there were two ways, a western way and the main entry at Bellinter Bridge where there

was a ruined gate lodge with no doors, windows and with slates missing. Asked if a ruin

could be a protected structure, Mr. O'Sullivan thought it could if this was determined by

the Planning Authority. Mr. Sweetman asked if Ardsallagh House had a wall around it

and Mr. O'Sullivan said it was an old demesne from about the 18th century which was

divided by the Land Commission in the 1930s. Asked if there were trees and an avenue,

Mr. O'Sullivan said the western entry looked like an old avenue and there were some

Mr. Sweetman, having referred to Castletown House, asked if he would regard a planted

avenue structure of trees from the time of building a house to be relevant to the protected

environment of the house in either the curtilage or attendant grounds as something to be

protected. Mr. Sweetman then referred to trees near Bellinter Bridge which were to be

felled and suggested these were protected structures and when Mr. O'Sullivan said that

would only be if they were included as such in the Council's Development Plan, he

disagreed with that statement and said they were inside the Ardsallagh curtilage, they

were planted at the same time as the building some 200 years ago so they must be part of

the general environs of Ardsallagh. Mr. O'Sullivan said they might be but as he had not

determined the curtilage he could not be more definite. He said the procedure for

determining this was a matter for the Planning Authority but Mr. Sweetman disagreed

and said no-one had assessed what was the curtilage of the protected structures relevant

to the road. Mr. O'Sullivan replied that if he was expected to determine the curtilage he

would have done it and when Mr. Sweetman asked if anyone assessed this, the Inspector