MS2004

everything else links off the Homepage

PART 3B

Ms Gowan said the archaeological ssection in the EIS had been written by Dr. Anaba

Kilfeather who had worked with Duchas before joining their company and as she was

herself. She said she had over 20 years experience in fieldwork, excavation project

management, development-related and conservation-focused archaeological assessment

and EIA and her company had a dedicated department of specifically EIA qualified

Ms Gowan said the focus of their study on the Dunshaughlin to Navan section was to

identify all archaeological sites along the route and to evaluate the archaeological

significance of the route being considered and that there was a full report on their

findings in Appendix E in Vol. 4C. She said the report was based on a detailed desk study

and a full field inspection of the proposed route as well as looking at a variety of sources.

She listed these sources as including the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) and the

Sites and Monument Record (SMR) at Duchas; the Topographical Files of the National

Museum; published and publically available studies of the area; a review of townland

She said a comprehensive field inspection was undertaken to assess the position of the

route and to confirm the distances of known sites and possible associated material from

the chosen route alignment, with the current and previous land use, physical environment

and archaeological potential of the route also examined during the field inspections. She

said particular attention, and individual assessment, was given to all stream and river

crossings as required by Duchas, and that consultation was held with Duchas at an early

stage of the archaeological assessment and they also spoke to other archaeologists who

had worked in the area. She said that because of the special archaeological significance

of Tara and the density of monuments in the overall catchment of the Hill, a geophysical

examination was made of the section of the route near Tara and the findings were

Ms Gowan said the proposed road passed between the Hill of Tara and Skreen on the

eastern side of the valley floor, between the two hills, and sought to avoid the important

core zone around Tara as it was approximately 1.5 kms. east of the limit of the designated

area and was also east of the existing N3. She said the route had succeeded in avoiding all

standing archaeological sites and had sought to avoid all known sites and had also sought

to minimise the physical and visual impacts on the archaeological landscape around Tara.

She said the geophysical survey sought to identify any additional information which

would have a bearing on the impact assessment of the route. Ms Gowan referred to Conor

Newman's seminal 1997 publication for the Discovery Program in which he suggested

the earthwork site of Rath Lugh (ME 32:025) was an inland promontory fort while the

SMR only described this as a ringfort. She said that Newman suggested Rath Lugh had a

defensive function that was linked to both Tara and two other large defensive earthwork

Ms Gowan said that, having visited the Rath Lugh site which was on a well defined

promontory overlooking the valley from the Skreen side, she agreed with Newman's

interpretation of it being an inland promontory fort rather than a ringfort. She said it was

not possible to bring the M3 route to the east of this site and the route now skirted the

base of the elevated promontory about 100 metres from the location of the earthworks

which define Rath Lugh, and said that the low-lying route alignment below Rath Lugh

She said the route would impact on two recorded below-ground sites that were identified

from the Cambridge University Collection of aerial photographs in the late 1950s which

revealed an Enclosure at Ross (ME 038:001) and an adjacent Field System site (ME

038:002) at Clowanstown. She said the RMP files and Inventory said these sites were not

marked on the first edition OS maps and were not visible on the ground when visited by

Duchas staff in the 1980s. She said they were not visible on the aerial photographs taken

for the study or when visited in their fieldwork and that a geophysical survey was not

possible at either site as there was deep ploughing of the ground. She said there was a

distinct possibility of the sites having been significantly eroded by cultivation and both

sites would require extensive pre-construction investigation by conventional means,

She said the proposed road alignment traversed Lismullin Demesne which featured in the

monuments within this Demesne including the site of the Priory of the Holy Trinity, a

Tumulus, a Souterrain and a Barrow, all to the southwest of the new road and all to be

avoided. She said that to the northeast there was a Tumulus, a Barrow, a Souterrain, a

Church and the Earthwork site at Rath Lugh and that the route was modified in this area

to avoid all of these recorded monuments, while still picking a sensitive alignment in the

Ms Gowan said the study of the townland names served to enrich the understanding of

the context in which the archaeological sites were located and it found that the place

namesalong the route reflected both the Anglo-Norman and native heritage of the County

with the majority of the townland names being the English forms and many incorporated

personal names. She said the Irish townlands generally refered to topographical features

such as wooded areas, hills, poor land and copses and she gave examples like Tara or

Teamhair meaning hill or high point and Skreen being an anglicisation of scrin or shrine.

She said aim of the geophysical survey was to provide further definition on the possible

nature and extent of underground archaeological sites in the sensitive part of the M3 close

archaeological origin were shown on Figures 13.1.1 to 13.1.3 in Vol. 4A of the EIS. She

said that 7 areas identified were very definitely of archaeological significance, these

being Areas 4, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28 & 29, all detailed in the EIS and ranging in date from

the prehistoric to the medieval period. She said Areas 18 and 24 appeared to possess ringbarrows

-- small circular prehistoric burial monuments like those at Skreen (ME 032:038)

and Lismullin (ME 032:053). She said the route avoided the enclosure in Area 18 and

She said that pit-like anomalies showed up in several of the geophysical scans and these

were difficult to interpret but might be a consequence of Bronze Age burial activity and

said all that could be said, at this stage, was that some of the pit-like anomalies they

found along the route appeared to be of archaeological origin and otheres might be

naturally derived. She said that many weak linear trends, if archaeological in origin,

might be from much later activity while others revealed by the geophysical scan might be

derived from old field boundaries, cultivation and ploughing. She said the low-lying

ground of the valley was typical landscape for burnt mounds or fulachta fiadh with only

one fulachta fiadh (ME 044:010) recorded by the SMR some distance from the route at

Dnshaughlin but the geophysical survey noted several areas of burnt material which

might represent the remains of fulachta fiadh or smelting, smithying or corn drying

Ms Gowan said 5 Areas identified by their geophysical survey would be directly affected

Area 4 -- this appeared to be a circular ringfort-type enclosure with a large rectangular

annexe and traces of an associated field system and could be linked to a previous

Area 19 -- this was a circular enclosure on a slightly elevated hillock with a possibly

associated pair of larger outer oval enclosures, one quite well defined, lying within a

curvilinear field boundary that might itself be archaeological in origin. These features and

Area 26 -- this appeared to be a moated site or other enclosed settlement which like

Areas 28 & 29 had an extensive range of annexes and fields. This site had been largely

Areas 28 & 29 -- these were almost certainly part of the same settlement divided by the

existing N3 and appeared to be an enclosed settlement, possibly a ringfort, with several

Ms Gowan said that, in spite of the high level of definition achieved in the geophysical

survey, it could not be suggested other sections of the route were completely devoid of

archaeological potential but said there was now a greatly reduced risk of unexpected

negative impact on unknown archaeological sites. She said the discovery of a stray Iron

Age horse bit and harness found in the 19th century suggested that there might have been

prehistoric activity on the valley floor, despite the lack of prehistoric monuments there.

She said the entire route was inspected in detail in the field, the full report was in

Appendix E in Vol.4C, and no new archaeological features or sites were revealed but

proposed. She said that most of the sites near the route seemed to be later in date to the

prehistoric complex on Tara and that no site related to the Tara complex would be

physically impacted with the route being 1.5 kms. from the eastern limit of the protected

zone around Tara. She said the route would traverse a zone identified by Conor Newman

by passing beneath the promontory on which Rath Lugh was located and that this site had

been identified by Conor Newman as being linked to two other defensive sites to the

north and west of Tara. She said the route alignment had been carefully designed in that

She said the road would cross the two recorded leveled archaeological features identified

in the 1950s, the enclosure site at Ross (ME 038:001) and the adjacent field system at

investigation, followed by full excavation and recording of their remains. She said there

was no obvious trace of any features remaining there at present but that below-ground

She said that 4 significant areas identified by geophysical survey cannot be avoided by

the road and that all of these would be thoroughly investigated and would require full

excavation and recording well in advance of any site preparation or construction work.

archaeologists prior to construction, if necessary, and if features were revealed the

locations would be surveyed, investigated and recorded in accordance with Duchas'

Ms Gowan said that during the construction phase all identified archaeological sites and

their environs, including areas identified through geophysics, would be fully excavated

and recorded prior to actual construction work. She said that where sites or parts of sites

were close to the land take these would be protected by ensuring the following constraints

were applied to the Contractor by the Conditions of Contract --- known sites and

sensitive areas would be fenced off and would not be crossed by traffic; would not be

used as construction compounds; would not be used as access points for the construction

She said that in areas where the realignment had successfully avoided all but the outlying

elements of the areas identified through geophysics, those sites would be fenced off and

archaeological features were revealed during soil stripping, these would be protected by

temporary fencing until they could be fully excavated and recorded in advance of further

She said the Project Archaeologist had been appointed to ensure proper significance was

given to archaeological standards as defined in the Code of Practice and that all EIA and

mitigation recommendations were in keeping with best practice and policies determined

by Duchas. Ms.Gowan said the route had the approval of Duchas at this juncture and that

all archaeological requirements would be met to the satisfaction of all Government

agencies involved. She said the archaeological findings would be made available to the

Public and the NRA would fund the archaeological research and presentation to the

standard required by Duchas and the Government. Ms Gowan concluded by saying she

was confident the team had adhered to the spirit and letter of the Code of Practice in all of

Ms Begley said she had no specialist knowledge on archaeology but they had been living

in the Skryne / Tara area for 28 years and asked was Annaba Kilfeather who wrote the

report the Project Archaeologist who was referred to in her Evidence and Ms Gowan said

the Project Archaeologist was Mary Deevy, who was employed by the Council/NRA. Ms

Begley asked when the aerial photographs referred to were taken and Ms Gowan said she

would have to check that for her as she did not have it to hand. Ms Begley then asked her

to describe how and when the stream and river crossings were examined and Ms Gowan

outlined the procedures used in the field surveys to note and record all relevant details.

She said they tended to think of rivers and streams as part of the integrated landscape but

the underwater unit in Duchas tended to seek a separation of these from the others aspects

of archaeology. Ms Begley then referred to the recent Newspaper article on the queries/

concerns raised by Duchas (See also Sections 37.3 and 59.1 of this Report) and asked

preconstruction and construction stages would not touch the watercourses and Ms Gowan

disturbance focussed on waters, then the recommendations of Duchas on river beds and

Ms Begley referred to the core zone of Tara as lying to the east of the N3 and said she did

not understand statements that the route was trying to avoid the area lying east of the N3

as that was where the route was. Ms Gowan replied the route had been chosen not to lie

between Tara and the N3 and was to the east of the eastern limit of this core zone. Asked

where exactly was Rath Lugh, Ms Gowan said it was shown in the EIS as ME 032:025 in

Lismullin townland ( The location was then displayed on the screen at the Hearing). Ms

Begley said Conor Newman referred to this having a defensive function linked to Tara

and asked was it wise to be intruding into part of Tara's defensive complex. Ms Gowan

replied that there were topographical reasons why the engineering design had to chose the

alignment it had, but their role as archaeologists was to ensure the chosen line had a

minimal impact on existing or known sites or those with a significant potential and she

was satisfied the impact would be minimal. Ms Begley referred to the sites at Ross and

Clowanstown and asked what the timescale for preconstruction testing would be. Ms

Gowan replied that this would normally be a phased process and it would take some

adequate time available for the testing which, she said, can now be done fairly rapidly by

Ms Begley asked about the sites at Skryne ME 032:038 and site 19 and MsGowan said

the Skryne site was outside the route and that site 19 was one of those which would be

investigated at a very early stage as it was a complex of features they found during the

physical survey and there could be a large area under the ground. Asked what happened

if significant finds were made, Ms Gowan said the NRA had now a policy of ensuring the

results of these type of excavations were made public in a timely fashion. Ms Begley

asked if enough time would be made available and Ms Gowan said the fact of these sites

now being known was part of the reason why she felt there would be sufficient time

given for investigating the sites. Ms Begley asked where were the four sites referred to as

not being possible to avoid and Ms Gowan said these were areas 19, 4, 26, and 28 and 29

which they regarded as part of the same complex. Ms Begley repeating her query on the

timescale and asked if she was confident that time would be made available for whatever

previously envisaged. Ms Gowan said that she was because they knew where the site

were and they had a high level of confidence in the goephysics results in this area so they

Ms Begley referred to her statement in her Brief of Evoidence of the route having the

approval of Duchas and asked if Duchas had included any conditions. Ms Gowan then

read parts of the submission made by Duchas on Archeaeology, both terrestrial and

underwater archaeological, to An Bord in April 2002 and said these indicated Duchas

was satisfied with the mitigation arrangements outlined in the EIS. Ms Begley concluded

by asking if some unexpected discoveries turned up was she confident that the extra time

needed would be given tohar to fully investigate them. Ms Gowan replied the high level

of definition they had on the route made unexpected issues unlikely and if what they

described as " archaeological ephemera" occurred they could deal with this rapidly, and

she said the opportunity was afforded and the route would be subject to a very intensive

investigation, even outside the areas where the geophysical survey had already been

The Inspector told Ms Begley that he had earlier asked the Council to make a general

comment about how pre-excavation was going to be dealt with, in the context of the

recent " Carrickmines" controversy, which had to an extent anticipated the basis of her

Mr. Magee asked if, as an archaeologist, she was happy that a motorway was proposed

for this particular location and Ms Gowan replied that, without meaning to be facetious,

as archaeologists they would prefer if no motorways were built anywhere but these were

a fact of modern life and archaeologists had a role to try and ensure a balance was struck

between conservation and road alignments. Asked if it was the best location MsGowan

replied that she thought the process of constraints through to route selection through to

EIS ensured that was the case. Mr. Magee then referred to a report prepared by her firm

Archaeology" and to the references to Route O ( orange route) on page 25 in Section 6,

quoting from this as saying "At first glance there are relatively few known archaeological

monuments along this route. However the route does pass through an area of enormously

high archaeological potential ". He asked what was the basis for saying "enormously high

archaeological potential" and Ms Gowan said that anything close to the Hill of Tara and

close to the Boyne catchment had enormous potential. Mr. Magee said he was referring

specifically to route "O" and Ms Gowan said she had not conducted that study herself but

would say it was related to the nature, distribution and context of the monuments around

the route, the inter-relationship between monuments and the potential that the rest of the

landscape held for producing unknown archaeology. Mr.Magee asked if she accepted the

was an enormous archaeological potential for all routes running between the Hills of Tara

and Skryne and when Ms Gowan accepted this, asked why that comment was only made

for the "O" route. Ms Gowan repeated her comment about the distribution, nature and

route "O" was. Ms Gowan checked her documents and said it was Route "A" on the route

options brochure and Mr. Magee again asked why the comment for that route and no

similar comments on the blue, green or pink routes. Ms Gowan said she would have to

check the text of the document before she could answer that as she was familiar with the

EIS and the objections but would have to brief herself on the query he raised. She said

west of Tara and archaeologists felt the area to the west of Tara was more sensitive and

Mr. Magee asked if she was aware of Route "P" which was route "F" and later changed to

the Pink route and when Ms Gowan said she was aware of this route, he read a number of

extracts form the August 2000 Report. These were point 682 on page 29; point 684 on

mitigation; point 71 on summary, part of paragraph; point 72 & point 73 and point 74

which stated "for these reasons the only unreservedly recommended route in discussion is

comments he had read out ( all of which indicated route P was the most viable and

required least mitigation). Ms Gowan replied that that particular report was put into the

pot with every other constraint and the EPR was chosen in the full knowledge of what the

implications would be. Mr. Magee asked if she stood over her comment of Route P being

the only unreservedly recommended route and Ms Gowan said it had the least impact.

Mr. Magee then asked if she would accept her evidence could be construed as biased

since it made no mention of another route being more viable than what was in the EIS.

Ms Gowan said she did not accept it was biased at all. She said the EIS was conducted on

the EPR and the impact assessment was on that. When Mr. Magee said she had produced

a report which said another route was archaeologicaly more viable, Ms Gowan said that

once a route had been selected their task was to assess the impact of that route. Mr.

Magee said maybe he should have said ""biased"" but Ms Gowan said she would hold the

Mr. Magee said the EIS only dealt with one route and did not give the information he

believed should be available for people to make a proper decision on it. He said the

MRAG's objection to the M3 was that the wrong route was chosen and he suggested he

had proved this with regard to archaeology and proved that in the route options there was

Mr. Magee said he had asked for a copy of a document by V.J. Keeley "Archaeological

Assessment -- Preliminary Area of Interest -- Dunshaughlin North, Navan South and

Navan West" whch, he said, this was part of the Navan By-pass Constraints Study. Mr.

Butler said he had understood he wished to cross-examine Mr. Breen since there was a

reference to Tara in his Brief of Evidence, and asked if he still wished to cross-examine

him. Mr. Magee said the Constraints Report for the Navan By-pass covered the Tara area

intervened and said she could clarify that matter as that report had been written by Dr.

Niall Brady who now worked for the Discovery Program and he might not be available

for cross-examination. Mr. Magee said the document formed part of the Navan By-pass

Constraints Study. The Inspector said that while the Briefs of Evidence for the Navan Bypass

difficulty in hearing a specific cross-examination in advance, in this case where there was

going to be cross-examination on a document that had not been circulated he had some

difficulties in just listening to it "on the blind". Mr. Magee said they had felt the

archaeological aspects of the Navan to Dunshaughlin Section Constraints Report was

weak with little detail and when they got sight of the Navan By-pass Constraints study

they were amazed to find a 76 page report which basically dealt with the Tara area. He

said they had asked both the Council and the NRA why this was in the Navan Constraints

report and had not got a satisfactory answer. The Inspector said that, if it was as lengthy

as he now said, he would prefer to have a copy of it in front of him while crossexamination

Mr. Butler for the Council asked if he had heard Mr. Magee's questions previously about

the 1999 reports done by his Company and would he outline the basis for them. Mr.

Breen said the first report was made in June 1999 and was a Constraint Study relating to

the archaeology of the area between Dunshaughlin, north to Navan and south and west of

Navan but did not include all of what was known as the Navan By-pass area. He said

their second report was in February 2000 and this dealt with what could be called the

preliminary corridor for the Navan By-pass and was also a Constraints Study. Asked

what had been identified he replied that a number of monuments were identified from a

paper survey and gave a list of monuments within and adjacent to the corridor area that

would have to be taken into consideration when routes were being considered later on.

Mr. Butler asked him to confirm that these studies did not deal with any particular route

and Mr. Breen replied they did not and said that when the prefered route emerged, his

Company dealt with the Navan By-pass section and Ms Gowan's Company dealt with and

prepared the EIS for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section. ( Note -- a copy of the Report

of June 1999 was handed in to the Hearing during this cross-examination and is listed at

Mr. Magee read from the summary of the June 1999 Report which stated there were 140

referring to Tara which said there were in excess of 75 sites within the core area of less

than 2.8 by 1.2 kms representing one of the highest concentrations in the country and he

then quoted Points 41, 42 & 43 from the recommendations on page 71. Mr. Magee said

that most peoples concerns about archaeology had been concentrated on the Tara and

Skryne areas, but Mr. Breen had given evidence on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section

that 17 previously unrecorded sites had been identified by a field inspection and 15 of

these would be destroyed by the road construction. He said the Navan By-pass field

inspection uncovered 11 unrecorded sites and all of these would be destroyed by the road.

Mr. Magee said the cream of the Country's archaeological heritage was going to be

destroyed by this proposed road and that no-one would dream of building a motorway

between the burial tombs of Newgrange and Knowth even though they were a mile apart.

He said the NRA and the Council were proposing to build a motorway between the Hills

of Tara and Skryne and doing this in the full knowledge of the Carrickmines Castle

experience. He said the Carrickmines controversy was based on the original surveys not

having uncovered the extent of the site since revealed and it was now too late to realign

the motorway there. He said there was a lesson to be learned as it was known there were

The Inspector asked was that a statement or had he a question arising from it and Mr.

Magee said he had no questions for Mr. Breen, or for Ms Gowan, Mr. Breen commented

that, for the two sections his firm had dealt with, a field survey was carried out after the

preliminary constraints study and that Ms Gowan's firm had done a similar survey for the

document of August 2000 had established that Route P was the most viable route, and

Ms Ryan said she was interested in the findings in the Lismullin area and asked if these

could be pointed out. Ms Gowan then identified the ringfort and the three sites to the east

and the abbey site to the north on the Map on display on screen at the Hearing. Ms Ryan

asked if it was on her recommendation that the route was moved northerly from the

original blue route and Ms Gowan said she would have to check this with their EIS

manager as she was not sure if there was dialogue about a variation in the route there. Ms

Ryan asked her to check how far north was the movement in her recommendation, if that

was made and Ms Gowan said she would come back to Ms Ryan with the details she was

Ms Clancy asked if, as a professional archaeologist, she felt the motorway should go

through that particular section between Tara and Skryne bearing in mind the huge wealth

of invisible archaeology there and if she had been given an opportunity to give a

judgement on whether that should happen or be allowed. Ms Gowan replied that, without

meaning to give an evasive answer, the process initially involved a constraints study

which identified the issues, then there was a further route selection study and during that

period each individual sub-consultant could articulate their opinion without any prejudice

or constraint and she said that they had done this. Ms Gowan said the process then moved

on and all factors were taken on board and the preferred route is identified and that their

professional obligation, at that stage, was to assess the route under consideration. She

said that was the process of the EIS and how they found themselves dealing with the

Fr. Raleigh said that while she had given a rationale for the process in her response Ms

Clancy's question he was not happy with that answer. He said he had read that she had

stated the preferred route was not the first choice and that it should have gone east of

Skryne, taking into account the whole archaeological findings. He said that while he was

not suggesting she was being dishonest, he still would have liked to hear her answer as an

dishonest in giving answers to a Hearing of this nature but she also felt that the process

was one that they worked with and that process brought them to where they were now.

She said it was not for her to answer his question, as it was more related to the design

rationale for the chosen route which took other factors into account as well. Fr. Raleigh

said he took her point but as an archaeologist knowing the richness of the area and in the

Ms Gowan replied that her opinion went back to the work they had done and that the

achievement. She said the route would go through two areas identified in the 1950s but

which cannot now be seen in aerial photography but it was likely traces still existed

underground and they had added to their definition of the assessment by advising a

geophysical survey should be done of a very comprehensive nature. She said they took

the route and engaged in a very rigoruos process and was confident the outcome met with

requirements but he found it difficult, as a non-archaeologist, and almost incredible that a

motorway would go through one of the most sacred and archaeological sites in the

country. He said that the Council might have gone through the process with all of their

expertise but he, as a lay person, found it incredible from a cultural, social and historical

viewpoint that a road would destroy a heritage which, once destroyed, could never be

restored. Ms Gowan replied that she thought the word " destruction" was not warranted in

this instance. She said the route had sought to avoid the core area of Tara to a significant

degree and had taken Conor Newman's work into account in avoiding his identified core

area as well and that there was only one instance where the landscape dictated the road

alignment must run in a lowlying area as opposed to cutting through a major ridge. Ms

Gowan said that if the defined core area of Tara and Conor Newman's research core area

of Tara were examined in relation to the selected alignment, it would be seen the route

had been very carefully, and sensitively, selected in this location. Fr. Raleigh said he

Hearing at a later date and that he had used the word "destruction" not in a personal sense

but rationally since he believed it was a destruction of creation of land, archaeology and

Mr. O'Donnell asked if she had been involved at some stage with Carrickmines Castle but

Ms Gowan said her Company had never been involved at any stage and Mr. O'Donnell

then asked if she was familiar with what was happening there and Ms Gowan replied that

archaeological featrure of very great significance in the Tara complex but Ms Gowan said

the only direct impact of material archaeological remains was in Clowanstown townland.

Mr. O'Donnell asked if she would agree with Conor Newman who said Tara was one of

the most important and famous complexes in the world and Ms Gowan said she would.

After some discussion about Ms Gowan's involvement in the archaelogy of Wood Quay,

Mr. O'Donnell asked if her view of Tara and Skreen was of a site that in archaeological

terms should be viewed and if possible preserved as a unitary landscape but Ms Gowan

replied there was no proven link between Tara and Skreen and that it was not central to

their understanding of the archaeological activity on the Hill of Tara, but that Skreen was

part of the outer zone in Conor Newman's study area. Mr. O'Donnell suggested Conor

Newman would be Ireland's leading expert as far as Tara was concerned and Ms Gowan

agreed and said he had had so much experience of working on the Hill. Mr. O'Donnell

asked if she was familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of McGarry -

v- Sligo County Council and the decision there that not only was the monument itself to

be preserved but also the fallow area around it was as important. Ms Gowan said she was

familiar with the case and Mr. O'Donnell suggsted that if Conor Newman's view of

Skreen forming a secondary zone was correct, then that would form part of the fallow

area of Tara but Ms Gowan replied it could be described as an area of interest but that to

sterilise development there in a large area would be unrealistic. Mr. O'Donnell said it was

trying to determine the archaeological impact rather than sterilising development that

they were talking about and Ms Gowan replied they had taken that into consideration in

Mr. O'Donnell said she had been very fair in her assessment of the route asked if she had

been involved in the route selection stage and Ms Gowan replied that her firm was

involved in the Constraints and Route Selection and EIS stages but that the EIS had been

conducted by Dr. Annaba Kilfeather who had since moved to the Discovery Program.

Mr. O'Donnell acknowledged she had made this clear in her Brief of Evidence and then

referred to her report on the Blue Route and quoted --" that the effect of this route on the

Hill of Tara and its outlying monuments is profound and would have severe implications

from an archaeological perspective". Ms Gowan said that she had also stated in previous

evidence at the Hearing that in the route selection stage there was the facility to express

one's opinion without prejudice and that then everything went into the melting pot of

considerations that give rise to the final route option. Mr. O'Donnell said that her

archaeological conclusions remained unchanged and suggested they were now left with a

situation where the development would have a most profound effect on one of the most

famous archaeological complexes in the world. Ms Gowan disagreed with this and said it

would not have a profound effect on the complex of the Hill of Tara itself since the

chosen route alignment was 1.5 kms. from the outer edge of the designated zone of Tara

as a complex of monuments, not just one monument. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that Conor

Newman's perspective was of the zone moving outwards and that the tests done for the

EIS supported this and Ms Gowan replied that Tara remained the core area of interest and

the designated area referred to in the record of Monuments and Places as Sites 31 and 33

and that there were upwards of 30 sites within this designated area which remained as the

core area of interest. She said there was activity that extended beyond the Hill that might

or might not be directly related to the Hill and that there were a series of halos around the

perspection techniques as well as Tara itself and Ms Gowan agreed his success on Tara

had influenced their decision to use geophysical perspection methods on the route with a

high level of success following from this. Mr. O'Donnell said her studies revealed what

Conor Newman had written in submission to An Bord that the valley between Tara and

Skreen was "chock-a-block with archaeological monuments and interesting and complex

ones at that" but Ms Gowan replied there was only one site that suggested it might be a

complex, and that it might be a multi-period prehistoric site, and that that was an

interesting and important discovery. She said the other remains in the valley floor were

not well defined and they were not sure what these geophysical anomalies were, and that

it must be understood these geophysical anomalies were not necessarily archaeolgical in

origin but could be ephemeral archaeological activity. She said the sites might not be of

a monumental nature and the sites and their locations were in the EIS and she could refer

to the detail if he wished. Mr. O'Donnell suggested it was a matter of expertise to

determine the likely significance of these sites and when Ms Gowan said she thought

their interpretation of the geophysical date and their assessment of it had been accurate,

he suggested she would accept that someone who had a particular expertise in the area

might indicate a greater degree of importance than she would, but Ms Gowan replied that

she could make the point of her Consultancy having used geophysics to a greater extent

than had been used on the Hill. Mr. O'Donnell suggested she would accept that Conor

Newman had pioneered the use of geophysics insofar as Tara concerned and Ms Gowan

agreed but said that she had been referring to it in terms of its application and they had

Mr. O'Donnell asked if she would describe Tara as being of national or international

importance and when Ms Gowan said it was of national importance at least, he suggested

there was a link now being discovered between Tara and Skreen in archaeological terms.

designation of the sites, nor in some of the published thinking on the sites. She said it was

not the view of Duchas and she referred to a meeting they had with Duchas where the

route options were discussed with them and that the route option did not give rise to any

suggestion of a link between the two complexes. When Mr. O'Donnell asked if Duchas

had carried out any specific research on Tara, Ms Gowan said Duchas' function was to

designate the area but he repeated his question and Ms Gowan said they had only done

research to the extent that would allow them to get an accurate designation of the

O'Donnell asked if that would have pre- or post-dated Conor Newman's research and Ms

importance with Skreen being within the zone of some importance of Tara and that,

following from the Supreme Court decision, archaeological practice should hold that the

road was development within the fallow area of Tara but Ms Gowan said that area had

not been defined as such in the RMP and that the designated zone had a buffer zone

around the standing monuments on the Hill of Tara at present. Mr. O'Donnell said she

had come to the conclusion that the road would have a severe implication from an

archaeological perspective and asked if that was what was recorded in her written

analysis. Ms Gowan replied that was her view at the time the route selection process was

underway and that the EIS process was a different stage, Mr. O'Donnell suggested that

did not change the conclusions on the impact but Ms Gowan said they were talking about

route options and that once the route was chosen it then was the function of the EIS to

assess the impact of that route on material archaeological remains. Mr. O'Donnell then

asked if she was resigning from her statement of the route having severe implications on

Mr. O'Donnell then asked for her opinion on the location of the interchange in the valley

floor immediatly in the view from Tara and on its characteristics and if an analysis of the

design details had been made. Ms Gowan replied that the characteristics could be

described by saying the summit of Tara, which was quite flat, was at 460 feet O.D. with

the interchange in a narrow dip below the 200 foot contour so it was 250 feet below the

summit of the Hill and more than a kilometre from the designated zone. Mr. O'Donnell

asked would she be concerned as an archaeologist about such an obtrusive feature being

located so close to a site of world importance and when Ms Gowan said she would be

guided by the judgement of their landscape architect and her own experience from being

on the Hill and undestanding the way that vegetation screened the existing N3 and a lot of

the properties that lay to the east and north of Tara. Mr. O'Donnell asked if she had

discussed this with Mr. Burns and when she replied "not particularly", he asked how she

could be guided by his judgement if she had never discussed it with him. Ms Gowan said

they had discussed landscaping issues with him and had conversations about the visual

impact of the route in the catchment of Tara on its eastern, northeastern and northern

sides. Mr. O'Donnell said this was one of the major interchanges on the road within 1000

metres of Tara, and asked how far was Skreen from the zone of influence of Tara and Ms

Gowan said she did not know but could scale it for him. When Mr. O'Donnell suggested

it could be similar to the interchange distance, Ms Gowan said she knew the route of the

road was 1.5 kms. east of the limit of the RMP zone on Tara and Skreen was further east

so it could be about 2kms. or so from Tara to Skreen. Mr. O'Donnell said it was clear

from Mr. Burns evidence that there was no discussion about the interchange and now she

was saying there was no discussion either and he asked what material did she rely on

produced by Mr. Burns and if a memo or some detailed document produced indicating

the visual impact the interchange would have on Tara. When Ms Gowan said there was

no document he asked what she relied on and when Ms Gowan said that, in the first

instance, she relied on her own judgement, Mr. O'Donnell interrupted and said that she

had said she relied on Mr. Burns to deal with the impact the interchange had on Tara and

Ms Gowan replied that Mr. Burns was the expert in terms of envisaging what the visual

impact would be and their expertise was in understanding what the physical impact

would be. Mr. O'Donnell again asked what did she rely on from Mr. Burns to advise her

on the impact of the interchange and when Ms Gowan replied that the interchange did not

enter their text in the EIS, he again asked what document was sused. Ms Gowan said

question and being similarly answered, Ms Gowan then said she would say she had not

relied on Mr. Burns and that she would say that it was in the EIS. She said Mr. Burns had

assessed the visual impact and they had calculated the position of the Blundelstown

Interchange relative to the Hill based on th e topography. Mr. O'Donnell then accused her

of resisting his questions for 10 or 15 minutes before saying something else and, after

some exchanges between them, he said he was trying to elicit how she could not be

concerned about the impact of a major interchange so close to the outer pereimeter of a

major world site. He then said he presumed she was concerned about the location of such

a development within that area. Ms Gowan agreed she had concerns but said the route

had been selected by the process of the route selection and their job now in the context of

Mr. O'Donnell said the route had not been selected since it was still to be determined by

An Bord Pleanala and there was no decision made at the Hearing. Mr. Butler intervened

to say that a Scheme had been submitted to An Bord and was being discussed at the

approval or otherwise. When Mr. O'Donnell said he presumed Mr. Butler was agreeing

with him that no route had been selected, the Inspector said both of them were making

the same point of the scheme having to be assessed by An Bord and that he also took Ms

Mr.O'Donnell then suggested to Ms Gowan that, from an archaeological point of view,

her evidence to An Bord should be that they would have particular regard to what she had

said about this route having a severe implications on the archaeological perspective and

Ms Gowan replied that she would expect an Brord to take that into consideration since it

formed part of the documentation before them. Mr. O'Donnell suggested she would be

urging that this route be not chosen from an archaeological perspective due to the

significant implications as opposed to other routes identified within the EIS and Ms

Gowan said that went without saying, but as part of the assessment of the route that was

under consideration before the Hearing, where the assessment was on the impact of that

particular route. Mr. O'Donnell said she had been involved in a large number of EISs and

alternatives and that the assessment was carried out by an Bord Pleanala. Ms Gowan

replied that An Bord would make the decision ultimately and Mr. O'Donnell then referred

to the making of an EIS for assessment by An Bord as the competent Authority and the

process carried out by An Bord. When Ms Gowan said she was not sure what point he

was making, Mr. O'Donnell said that if she had prepared her statement on the basis that it

was all finished and concluded, he was putting it to her that she was operating under a

fundamental misapprehension as to what the law was, and he said that was the Council

prepared an EIS and submitted this to An Bord who could confirm the CPO and certify

Mr. O'Donnell asked if she agreed An Bord must consider alternatives and Ms Gowan

agreed with him. Mr. O'Donnell then asked if her evidence would be that An Bord, in

considering alternatives, should opt for the Pink route insofar as archaeology was

concerned and Ms Gowan agreed, saying they had made that statement unequivocally in

their report. Mr. O'Donnell then asked if the status of Tara as a world site co-terminus

with a national site should be a very significant factor in An Bord's consideration of

whether to approve of the road having a profound impact on this site and Ms Gowan said

it was one of the parameters that An Bord were going to adjudicate on but that it was just

one of them. Mr. O'Donnell suggested some archaeological sites were more important

than others and that Tara was at the top of the list and Ms Gowan agreed but said the road

did not go through the site. Mr. O'Donnell asked if she accepted the road would have a

profound effect on the site but Ms Gowan replied that it lay 1.5 kms. from the limit of the

designated zone. Mr. O'Donnell said she must answer his question and repeated it to her

and Ms Gowan replied that was what was stated in the route selection report. Mr.

O'Donnell then suggested An Bord should have regard to her conclusions of the Pink

route east of Skreen having the least intrusive archaeological impact and what she had

discovered from the geophysical perspective of a very significant number of monuments

identified in the valley area. Ms Gowan again agreed but pointed out that if the same kind

of geophysical prospetion technique was exercised on the Pink route that the same

number and range of monuments or sites or features might well turn up as was found in

the work on the M1. When Mr. O'Donnell said they would not be within the zone of

influence of a world site, Ms Gowan replied that the findings might give rise to the

conclusion that they were related to Tara even at that distance and Mr. O'Donnell said

they need not go so far and suggested there were many monuments identified from her

Ms Gowan referred to her Brief of Evidence and said that the geophysical survey had

been carried out over the entire route alignment and not only in the valley between Tara

and Skreen and that only two sites were found in the valley, areas 18 and 19, and that

there were some other smaller features, the details of which she could display in the

geophysical data if he wanted to see them. Mr. O'Donnell sugggested she had earlier

referred to one of these sites as being a complex and of appearing to be an important site

and Ms Gowan replied she would not use the word "important" but that it appeared to be

a complex, Mr. O'Donnell suggested there might be link between this complex and Tara

and when Ms Gowan agreed that was possible, Mr. O'Donnell suggested the evidence

suported the view of it being a site of huge importance since it was within the zone of

influence of Tara and Ms.Gowan said its investigation would add to the understanding

ofTara's catchment. When Mr. O'Donnell suggested that site would considerably extend

the boundaries of Tara, Ms Gowan said it would not extend the boundaries ofTara per se

as it was a stand-alone site and when Mr. O'Donnell challenged her on this, Ms Gowan

said the site had boundaries and she was confident of her interpretation of the images

they had got. Asked how she could be confident since she had said all geophysical

surveys represented possiblities, Ms Gowan replied that it was because they were in lands

that were similar to those on Tara where there were very high levels of definition being

achieved on geophysics there. She said when geophysical anomolies form shapes that

were derived from archaeological activity, forming circles and very coherent shapes,

O'Donnell suggested that a situation like that at Carrickmines Castle would not be wanted

subsequently and Ms Gowan replied that the correct approach was to highlight the

existence of the site and to move to having it investigated and assessed at the earliest

Mr. O'Donnell then asked why a more detailed investigation of this site, which they

identified when the EIS was being prepared, had not been carried out and when Ms

Gowan replied that the sequence of investigation generally followed after the EIS was

approved and then it would be done as quickly as possible, he said this could be a

complex and probably an important site and asked the date it was identified. Ms Gowan

said it was presented in the EIS but she did not have the date of its location to hand but it

the survey was conducted between 9 October and 1 December 2000 and that it was not

the normal practice to invasively test archaeological sites for the purpose of an EIS. Mr.

O'Donnell suggested this was a unique situation where they were dealing with a site of

world importance and when Ms Gowan said that assessment had been recommended, he

suggested she was agreeing with him that it was appropriate to have this site further

investigated and Ms Gowan said that was in the text of the EIS and it also referred to all

Mr. O'Donnell said the Local Authority had extensive statutory powers under the Roads

Act to enter on lands for the purposes of carrying out whatever tests they wished to do

there and this was something that could have been done and it was her evidence that it

should have been done insofar as this site was concerned. He suggested this was a site

invesstigated and it was located in what was probably one of the most sensitive sites in

archaeological terms. Ms Gowan said that on balance it might turn out not to be a site of

great importance and Mr. O'Donnell said the EIS required certain levels of detail to be

geophysical survey and Mr. O'Donnell said he presumed that was why she recommended

that there be a thorough examination of this site. Ms Gowan replied that included the

other sites revealed and when Mr. O' Donnell asked if this site was the most important

that should be examined, Ms Gowan said that was her personal view. Mr. O'Donnell

referred to the site Conor Newman discovered at Rath Lugh and asked if she agreed with

Conor Newman's opinion of it being linked to Tara. Ms Gowan said she thought there

was a strong possibility that it was connected and she agreed with his suggestion of it still

being described as a ringfort in the RMP files. Mr. O'Donnell said Rath Lugh now

appeared to be a defensive promontory fort and he suggested the boundaries of Tara in

the RMP would be extended to include Rath Lugh. Ms Gowan said that Conor Newman's

text described a zone of interest around Tara, with Tara being the complex on the hill.

Mr. o'Donnell concluded by suggesting the road was to be located only 100 metres from

Rath Lugh and Ms Gowan agreed but said the road was at an elevation which was below

Mr. Sweetman asked if her firm had worked for Bord Gais in the Carrickmines area and

Ms Gowan agreed they had and Mr. Sweetman, having referred to Bord Gais as having a

good policy about archaelogy, then asked about their involvement in archaeological

Carrickmines was not before the Hearing and he did not see the relevance of his question

to the witness, Mr Sweetman said Ms Gowan had spoken about "normal practice" in her

evidence to Mr. O'Donnell and he wanted to ask her about her definition of this. The

Inspector said he still did not see this as relevant and Mr. Sweetman said he would move

Mr. Sweetman refered to her Brief of Evidence and her comment that "In accordance

with the requirements of Duchas particular attention was given to all streams and river

crossings. These were all examined and assessed individually" and he asked what Duchas

had said about this in their submission to An Bord. Ms Gowan replied that they had

concerns about underwater archaeology but that all of their detailed requirements for

diving or wading in Section 4 were precisely those on page 178 of the EIS (Vol.4A),

which were also her recommendations. Mr. Sweetman asked when these would be carried

out and when Ms Gowan replied that this would be at the earliest opportunity after a

decision was made to proceed with the road and Mr. Sweetman said it would be his, and

Mr. O'Donnell's, contention that they should be coming to the Hearing with these

investigations already carried out and he said there were powers under the Roads Act to

allow this to be done, rather than to be saying " we'll wait until we get permission and

then we will go ahead regardless". Ms Gowan replied that each of the stream crossings

and the Boyne River crossing were inspected during fieldwork and the assessment of

impact was based on what would happen at each crossing. She said there was only one

river crossing and the piers and abutments would not be going into the bed of the Boyne.

Mr. Sweetman then asked why did Duchas ask for a diving survey in that case and when

Ms Gowan replied that they might not have understood what the construction impact

would be in this instance and that Duchas normally adopted that approach, Mr.Sweetman

asked if she thought that was a form of "standard letter" from Duchas and Ms Gowan

agreed it might have been. Mr. Sweetman suggested Duchas might not have really looked

at the situation and asked if she found it strange that Duchas issued a standard letter for a

road going through the most important archaeological site in Ireland. Ms Gowan replied

that the letter outlined Duchas' requirements, which coincided with their own as listed on

page 178 in Vol. 4A of the EIS, and these would be undertaken in due course and in the

proper manner. When Mr. Sweetman asked if she found it strange, as an archaeologist,

that Duchas was not present at the Hearing and wrote a standard letter the Inspector

intervened and said that he did not consider that was a question that witness need answer

and when Mr. Sweetman said he was asking an expert witness, the Inspector told him he

could make a submission on that if he wished, but that he did not expect a witness to

Ms Gowan said that it might be useful if she clarifed what watercourses were crossed by

the route and she then said that at Cookstown and Garristown it crossed small streams; at

Clowanstown, Ross and Baronstown it crossed streams that had been formed into drains;

at Skreen it crossed a small stream; at Lismullin there was a drain going through a sort of

stream valley and it crossed this several times and this was what Duchas referred to as

Lismullin River; at Blundellstown it crossed a stream in a fairly steep shrubby valley; at

Castletown Tara it was in a low-lying area where there were streams and wet ground in a

complex of watercourses; at Dowdstown it crossed the Skane River as a small stream in

reedy land and at Ardsallagh it crossed the Boyne and that was the only point where a

river of any consequence was crossed and the structure did not actually enter into the bed

Mr. Sweetman asked her to elaborate on what she meant by "recorded" in her comments

in her Brief of Evidence at "all identified archaeological sites --- will be fully excavated

and recorded prior to construction", and when Ms Gowan replied that this meant the

replied the Project Archaeologist as was provided for in the Code of Practice devised

National Museum had an input and Ms Gowan replied they had an input as one of the

parties to the licencing. He then asked who would be the enforcer of any archaeological

conditions laid down by An Bord Pleanala in an approval subject to archaeological

conditions and when Ms Gowan replied that she expected Duchas would be because of

the National Monuments acts and the licencing system attached to it, Mr. Sweetman said

that one of the fundamental principles of EIA was that the public shall be consulted and

asked when and how was he or his Clients An Taisce going to be consulted as to when

she had achieved this full excavation and recording. Ms Gowan said she would refer him

to the terms of licencing under the National Monuments Act but he said that An Bord

Public" was going to be consulted at a further stage on this matter. Ms Gowan said this

was probably a matter to be referred to the Project Archaeologist, Ms Deevy and the

Mr. Sweetman asked what consultation had she with the Project Archaeologist and Ms

Gowan replied there had been active consultation at all stages of the process. Asked if she

had consulted with the Project Engineers, Ms Gowan said they had been briefed by them

during the preparation of the EIS and when Mr. Sweetman queried the reason for briefing

Ms Gowan said it was an interactive process in preparing an EIS. Mr. Sweetman then

referred to a document listed in the references in her Brief of Evidence as " Grogan E,

document did not apear to be available from the Trinity Library. Ms Gowan said it had

not yet been completed which was why her reference was to "forthcoming" and said Dr.

Kilfeather had been allowed to consult it. Mr. Sweetman said he would like to consult it

provide it to him, he said the data on which evidence was based had to be provided in the

EIS. The Inspector told him he could make a submission about this but Mr. Sweetman

Mr. Park asked if the Valerie Keeley report on the constraints had been incorporated in

her assessment of the Dunshaughlin to Navan section and Ms Gowan said they had used

a copy of that report in the preparation of their own material but said the Keeley report

was a general report that applied to the whole route and that there was broad agreement

with what they considered was significant. Asked if she agreed with Ms. Keeley's

commentary " that it was not possible to suggest a preferred route from an archaeological

persective in the Dunshaughlin to Navan section", Ms Gowan replied that they found it

difficult, when they commenced, to demonstrate what specific constraints existed in the

corridor under review. Asked if she was concerned that Ms. Keeley, Conor Newman and

now herself all felt the choice of this route was not the best from an archaeological

perspective, Ms Gowan said she would go back to the way in which these reports were

presented and explained that there was a context in the preparatory planning stage where

you could make your case unequivocaly and without prejudice and she said they did that.

She said that once the route was chosen and at the EIS stage, great efforts were made to

avoid Tara and its environs and that minimising that impact on Tara formed the focus of

engineering design which, she thought, was a point that had been lost in the face of all of

the cross-examination. Mr. Park said he understood her point but said their concern was

that all of the archaeological advice was that Route P would be a better route. Ms Gowan

replied that it also had to be stressed that it was difficult to try and weight different route

options the closer one got to the Tara catchment, but that once the route was chosen, then

Mr. Park referred to her comment of consulting with Duchas in her Brief of Evidence and

referring to the Duchas letter of 22 April 2002 to An Bord in which they said they agreed

with the recommendations for mitigation of impacts on archaeology as set out in the EIS.

She said that at a meeting on 11 April 2000 in Duchas' offices, where Ms Kilfeather met

Mr. Brian Duffy a senior archaeologist in Duchas, the route options were tabled and Mr.

archaeology than to the east of Skreen. She said that the notion of placing the route

between Tara and Skreen did not come up then as a singular issue for Duchas. Mr. Park

then referred to correspondence the BRA had with various Government Departments and

finally with the Ombudsman and to his reply of 28 May 2001 which he said paraphrased

the views of Duchas on the Dunshaughlin to Navan section. He quoted from this reply,

part of which read " ---- the report also points out that while the proposed route, Route P,

is not without potential to produce archaeological features, it is the most archaeologically

viable" and he said they took this to mean that Duchas understood that Route P was the

chosen route. He said this impression was reinforced by a further leter of 5 september

2001 from the Ombudsman which said " The archaeological consultant recommends ----

route P" and he asked if she could comment on this but Ms Gowan said that she could not

since that did not form part of their correspondence with Duchas. ( Note -- A copy of the

Ombudsman letter was handed in by Bellinter Residents Association and is listed at Day

Mr. Park referred to her comment of four significant areas identified by geophysical

survey that could not be avoided and would be fully excavated and recorded and asked if

she would accept those areas would be avoided if route P were adopted. Ms Gowan said

that, without meaning to be facetious, they could be avoided if no road were to be built

and that in the Meath landscape there was archaeology wherever you took an alignment,

refferring to the M1 as an example of this. She said the task in route selection and in later

guiding the EIS was to minimise that impact and that due process would take place and

she said she wanted to assure the Hearing that due process had been followed in this

instance. When Mr.Park said that their concern was when Route P as the recommended

facetious, if the same sort of geophysical scan had been made on route east of Skreen,

there was a high probability that a similar number and range of monuments might have

been discovered as that was the nature of the landscape in Meath and in the valley of the

When Mr. Park suggested the likelihood was stronger in the area between Tara and

Skreen, Ms Gowan said she thought it would be useful if she showed the Hearing a

"graphic" that they had prepared which showed that, not only was due consideration

given to the integrated complex on the Hil of Tara but also to what Conor Newman

described as Zone 1 which was what he desribed as "the broader landscape". She said this

was not the integrated complex on Tara but was the group of sites which might, at one

point in archaeological chronology, have had a relationship with settlement activity or

ritual activity on the Hill and she said they had taken account of this. Ms Gowan then

described this "graphic" ( Note -- Copies of the "maps" used by Ms Gowan during this

presentation/cross-examination are listed at Day 17 in Appendix 4 of this Report).

Ms Gowan said that one "map" showed Conor Newman's Zone 1 with Tara lying at the

heart of this zone and she drew attention to the M3 route being to the east of the existing

N3 and lying some 1.5kms. from the designated group of monuments on the Hill of Tara.

She said the second was a larger scale version and showed the designated zones and the

position of the road in relation to the Hill and to the designated complex of monuments in

the centre of the Hill. Ms Gowan said there was a ripple effect from Tara that was like a

stone in a pond, with the heart of the issue being the Hill of Tara and the complex on the

Hill. She said that Conor Newman's study had confirmed the integrated importance of the

numbering system there so all now had the prefix of 33 and the site code being 31:33:12

to allow for further sites being found on the Hill. She said that once you got into the

broader landscape, which was the inner Zone 1, all of the sites had discreet numbers and

they were discreet sites. She said that was important since they might have had a

relationship with the Hill at a point in time. She said that when you moved out to Zone 2

you were in a much broader landscape wher there were a group of monuments that might

or might not have had a direct link with the Hill ofTara. She said it was important to

understand that the M3 route was further east than the existing N3 and that their study

took account of the broader landscape by trying to skirt around Zone 1 as defined by

Conor Newman. Ms Gowan said she would like to quote from the EIS where it said the

route sought to avoid crossing between sites that could be seen as outliers to Tara itself

and said they had not succeeded in the case of Rath Lugh but that was because of the

topographical problem of Rath Lugh sitting on an eminence overlooking the valley

Mr. Park said they had not seen this map before showing Zone 2 and Ms Gowan replied

that it was an illustration in Conor Newman's published study of 1999 and she explained

that her "graphic" was a "blown -up" version that they had scanned to create the position

of the road. Mr. Park asked if Zone 2 was the 3 km. exclusion zone and Ms Gowan said

there might be some confusion about the numbers on the zones and she explained that

Tara was at the heart, then said that Zone 1 was the broader landscape as dealt with in

Conor Newman's book and that Zone 2 was a zone outside that again, with the motorway

shown on the right-hand side. Mr. Park concluded by saying that they were trying to

establish that Route P was the recommended route as it was the preferred route from an

The Inspector asked Mr. Park if the Route P that was being referred to in the Duchas

letter was one of the Pink routes that had been referred to earlier. Mr. Park said he

thought that it was called F in the first consultation and thern became P1 and P2 but that

F and P were the same. Mr. Guthrie intervened to say that there were two drawings in the

Mr. McGrath asked if he as correct in assuming that the process underlying the report

followed by field walking frm which it was decided to do a geophysical analysis of the

route and when Ms Courtney confirmed this, he asked if there had been anything in the

RMP or the archaeological survey of Meath for the Gerrardstown area andMs courtney

said there were no recorded sites there. Asked if Area 26 showed up in the field walking,

Ms Courtney replied that there was a slight curvilinear feature seen in the aerial

photography but nothing showing above the surface while they had noted the three

landscape features during the field walking. Mr. McGrath asked if they had noted these as

being near the route as they were mentioned in the EIS and Ms Courtney replied that the

field notes recorded them as being adjacent to the EPR and they concluded they were

historical parkland features that might contain archaeological features as well. She said

there was a photograph of one of them in the report on Vol. 4C of the EIS and that the

features had been cursorily inspected and a ditch and bank found that supported the

Mr. McGrath asked about the geophysical survey and Ms Courtney said this came from

the fact of the EPR going through a sensitive archaeological landscape and also from the

researches done by the Discovery Program on Tara which showed the type of area that

could be receptive to this type of prospection. She said the geophysics scannning took

place over a 100 metre width ( 50 metres on either side of the centreline) and covered

about 105 hectares and that in the Gerrardstown area they scanned further than the road

take because they were finding features to the east of the road. Mr. McGrath then asked

about Area 26 and Ms Courtney confirmed that the "stepped" area at the western side of

Area 26 was the furthest westward extent of the survey and said that the existence if Area

26 was revealed by the geophysical survey. Asked if there was any reason why the survey

was not extended further out around the feature, Ms Courtney said there was none but

they had established the boundary of the feature so it was not considered necessary to go

Mr. McGrath asked what was important about Area 26 which the EIS said was of major

archaeological importance. Ms Courtney said that it was from the pattern they got from

the geophysicsal results which showed a square enclosure surounding a circular enclosure

and said tat there were curvilinear features near the top, further circular features and a

square feature and she described what the interpretative drawings indicated, asking the

Inspector if he wished to see these. The Inspector replied that he was aware from the

correspondence these were available and said it was not necessary to show them at that

stage. Mr.McGrath quoted the description of area 26 from the EIS and asked if it were

possible the complex of features extended further than was shown by the survey but Ms

Courtney said they did not find anything further east, though she accepted geophysics

was an indicator rather than a defining locator. Mr. McGrath, having suggested that it

would be preferable to adopt a route that did not impact on Area 26, asaked if she would

agree the proposed route impacted to some extent on Area 26. Ms Courtney said it

clipped the northeastern corner but was outside the main concentration of the settlement

site and said that was what they had wished for when they had asked the Engineers to

Mr. McGrath then referred the the three garden features and asked if they had been asked

to test these to assess their archaeological importance and Ms Courtney replied that they

had not since they were outside the landtake. Asked if they had been consulted about the

options of Routes B, C & D by the Council, Ms Courtney said they had not but that they

had informed the Engineers of their preference for the EPR to be moved to the east rather

than to the west as they did not want any impact on outstanding landscape features. Mr.

McGrath referred to the 15 metre shift and Ms Courtney said they had discussed the

geophysical results with the Engineers and it was then that they requested if the route

could be moved to the east. Mr. McGrath suggested that if the landscape features had

been tested and no archaeological features found then she would not hve archaeological

concerns about a route going through them but Ms Courtney said she would not like to

see historical features removed from the landscape as these were upstanding and were

accepting there were some being impacted, maintained that the features were there were

over 160 years and were associated with the landscape of Gerrardstown and that as they

were upstanding, they would prefer to see them left there. She said they were not

impacting on any upstanding archaeological monuments through the entire length of the

scheme. Mr. McGrath said that his point was that if they were not archaeological then

Route D would not be impacting on an upstanding archaeological figure but Ms Courtney

said they would be impacting on a historical feature that characterised the landscape and

she said these were garden follies to be viewed and they were upstanding and repeated

this had just been done at the Hearing and she considered Route A was more preferable.

When Mr. McGrath asked if she had been consulted would she have carried out testing,

archaeological significane and Ms Courtney agreed but said they were outside of the

Courtney said they were not but that the RMP had a bias towards pre-1700 features until

recently and she was not surprised they were not recorded. Asked about the Meath

Archaeology Survey, Ms Courtney agreed they were not in that Survey but said it took its

lead from the RMP and SMR and was completed back in the 1980s. Mr. McGrath asked

if she accepted they were plainly visible and on the OS maps but were not recorded in

any archaeological inventory. Ms Courtney agreed they were not in any inventory but she

Mr. Keane asked was it the common view of archaeology that it stopped at about 1700

and Ms Courtney said that was what had been the view up to recently but it was now

considered that items of industrial interest as well as demesnes and landscape features

should be included in the records. Asked if she considered the features to be worthy of

preservation, Ms Courtney said she thought they could well be. Mr. Keane asked her to

hand in a page from the geophysical survey which had a figure of these features on it and

Ms Courtney handed in Figure 30 from the GSB survey report ( Note-- This is listed at

Day 21 in Appendix 4 of this Report) and described how this showed the impact of the

Note -- As Mr. Burns had already given evidence for the Council on the Clonee to

Dunshauhghlin to Navan Section, only the parts in his Brief of Evidence that are specific

Mr. Burns said Brady Shipman Martin was commissioned to carry out the landscape and

visual impact assessment for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section of the M3 project and

this assessment was completed over a 2 year period between 1999 and the end of 2001.

He said that in general the landscape from Dunshaughlin to Navan was good quality

agricultural farmland divided by strongly developed hedgerows with numerous mature

trees and these tree-line hedgerows with copses and larger woodland areas when viewed

against a relatively flat topography gave a more "wooded" and "secluded" character than

actually existed in much of the area. He said a feature of the area was the distribution of

Garretstown, Baronstown and Athlumney, with woodland of a larger scale associated

distinctive woodland along the valley flanks. He said the landscape rose gently from

Dunshaughlin for some 8 kms. northwards and crested at a line between Tara and Skreen

from where it fell towards the Boyne Valley but that it was in visual terms relatively flat.

He said there were some exceptions to this with the hills atTara and Skreen and the rise in

the main valley of the Boyne from Navan towards the west. He said that agriculture in

both arable and pasture was the dominant form but there were important stud farms at

Mr. Burns said the Meath CDP had one listing for Tree or Woodland preservation at

Dalgan Park and the River Boyne Valley was listed as an area of High Natural Beauty

Castletown Tara, Belpere and Cabragh and the Hill of Skreen (VP 27) were listed. He

said the Meath CDP described 11 zones of "visual quality" within the county as a whole

and most of the proposed route was in zone VQ 11 Rural and Agricultural, but the route

also crossed VQ 9, the Tara and Dunsany District, in the middle of the corridor area and

moderately sensitive to development especially close to river channels where the unspoilt

nature of the rivers would be impinged upon for anglers, walkers and where there would

be unacceptable risks to water quality. He quoted from the VQ9 in the CDP which said

this was one of the premier visual quality areas in the County, and part of a Strategic

Green Belt identified in the SPGs and was of high value for walking, cycling and other

amenity pursuits and that the area's character was defined by its archaeology and built

heritage coupled to copses of deciduous woodland, stone boundary walling and pastoral

grasslands. The CDP said the Hills at Tara and Skryne were particularly sensitive to

intrusive developments such as sporadic housing, larger agricultural structures, masts and

afforestation with the area being sensitive to all forms of development in so far as it

would detract from the character appearance and interpretative experience of the region.

He quoted an extract from the CDP for the VQ 11 which said comprised normal rolling

lowland pastoral landscapes that were not particularly sensitive except for occasional

ridges or prominent areas and they could absorb appropriately designed and located

development in all categories. He said there were four amenities listed as a SRUNA in

the CDP along or immediately adjacent to the route corridor which were The Hill of Tara

(No.3), Dalgan Park (No.20), The Hill of Skryne (No. 21), and Bellinter Bridge (No. 75)

and that the main aim of SRUNAs was for the social inclusion of a wide variety of

He said that the landscape was of a high quality rural and agricultural character and was

unremarkable in the overall but there were some small areas of better than expected

landscape primarily from mature trees and woodland, with the Lismullin and Dalgan Park

areas being the best examples of this. He said both the Hill of Tara and Skreen on either

side of the route corridor were visually prominent areas of cultural, historical and

landscape significance and that, in terms of visibility, it was a robust landscape where the

flat landscape and tree-lined hedgerows limited the extent of viewing, but local

Mr. Burns said that this type of landscape had a high capacity to absorb developments

such as roads which tended to be ground based and that where such development avoided

landscaping. He said in the tree-lined landscape it was important to limit impacts on

mature trees and the scheme was designed to retain, wherever possible, existing trees.

He said there would be a major junction at Philpottstown and additional landscaping was

provided as a specific mitigation to reduce the overall visual scale of the structure, its

locations on the Hill of Tara giving daytime and nighttime views of the existing and

proposed situations, to more fully represent the impact of the M3 from the sensitive

landscape of Tara. Mr. Burns said these photomontages illustrated the panoramic nature

of the view with the road set low in a strongly screened location in the fore to middle

ground that resulted in an insignificant visual impact ( See also Section 61. 5. of this

Report for further details on this issue). He said that any minor impact was readily

mitigated by the additional planting proposed and thattheproposed M3 was generally

always more distant from Tara that the existing N3. Mr. Burns considered the proposed

M3 would not visually impinge on the sensitive landscape setting surrounding the

He said the proposed road would cut through farmland outside the central core parkland

of Dalgan Park and as these lands were overlooked from the central area, additional

berming and planting was proposed to provide a "false cutting" for the road through this

open farmland. He said the crossing of the River Boyne would cause minimal disturbance

and intrusion but the proximity of the crossing would impinge on the visual setting of

Bellinter Bridge. Mr. Burns said the proposed bridge structure would be of light mass

construction so as to maintain open viewing and a light appearance with minimal impact.

Demesne with a new boundary re-created north-east of the road but the access from the

old Lodge would be cut and a realigned access created. He said the impact here during

intrusion and general disturbance, even though the area of land severed was small.

Mr. Burns said the only lighting was at Philpottstown Interchange which was set low in

the landscape and this lighting would be mitigated against vertical and off-scheme light

He said that in overall terms the landscape character was moderate with the more

impacting aspects relating to the setting of Baronstown House, Dalfgan Park, the Boyne

Valley, Bellinter Bridge and Ardsallagh Demesne but the specific mitigation measures

proposed at each of these would ensure the longer term integration of the road into its

landscape setting. He said the proposed road avoided the significant tree-stands at

hedgerows but it would have a locally significant impact on tree groups at the Boyne

crossing where the linear valley side plantings and the boundary plantations in Dalgan

Mr. Burns said that where the proposed road crossed the Tara and Dunsany zone (VQ9) it

was set low in the valley at the maximum distance from Tara and Skreen and had no

appreciable adverse impact from either viewpoint. He said part of the route crossed the

Beauty" and the impact here would be minor in landscape planning terms since the route

passed through strong planting on both sides of the valley and was not widely visible

disturbance was greatest and mitigation least effective and there would be major adverse

visual impacts for residential and other properties close to or adjoining the construction

boundary. He said some 112 properties were identified along the route corridor which

would have some degree of visual impact at either construction or operation sytage and

these were shown in Figures 5.1.1 to 5.1.4 in Vol. 4A of the EIS, with one of these being

acquired for the construction. He said 11 properties would experience severe visual

impact during the construction stage with a further 20 experiencing major visual impact,

59 having moderate or minor impacts and 21 having no significant visual impact. He said

the 11 properties with a severe impact were P3, P6 & P7 at the N3 crossing in Cooksland;

P37 at Collierstown road crossing; P45 & P47 at Baronstown road crossing including

Baronstown House; P69, P71 & P72 south of Dalgan Park; P91 at the Boyne crossing and

He said that in the operation stage the road would gradually establish in its setting and the

proposed landscaping would be increasingly effective in mitigating the severity of the

visual intrusion particularly where the road as at a distance from properties but some

degree of intrusion would remain in the medium and longterm as a reduced impact. He

said that only 3 properties, P3, P7 & P105 would continue to have a severe visual impact

after the initial construction and short term operation stages with a further 7 properties

experiencing major visual impacts, these being P 6, P45, P47, P69, P71, P72 & P91. He

said 45 properties would have no significant visual impact and 56 would have only

monor or moderate levels of visual impact after the road was established and the

Mr. Burns said the existing N3 offerred views to a good quality landscape of rural and

agricultural character and while unremarkable in the overall, areas of higher quality such

as Lismullin, Dalgan Park and the Boyne Valley offered visual variety interest and local

distinction. He said this was typical of the Meath landscape, which was a good quality

rolling agricultural land of tree-lined hedgerows and one which was dotted with old

estates, period houses and associated mature deciduous tree plantings, but, he said, it was

a landscape noticeably under pressure from ribbon and one-off housing development. He

said the proposed scheme followed closely the existing N3 corridor, traversed a similar

landscape and would provide similar views which, though not scenic, often were views of

Mr. Burns said that avoidance of impact was considered wherever possible during the

route selection and its design and the route had been selected to minimise impact on

residential property, trees and woodland but that some degree of impact was inevitable,

as with any development, and wherever possible mitigation measures had been proposed

to mitigate the adverse nature of those impacts. He said described how the visual impact

would be ameliorated by a series of general landscaping proposals that he had previously

He said the planting of small areas of severed properties along the route with primarily

deciduous woodland, in copse style plantations (SLMs -- Specific Landscape Measures),

visual intrusion, provide local identity and assist in integrating the proposed road into its

wider setting. He said that small areas within the Philpottstown Interchange would be

similarly treated to reduce visual intrusion of the lighting and structure. He said that in

order to mitigate the impact of the elevated crossings on nearby residences, additional

lands would be planted in primarily deciduous woodland copses at the N3 crossing at

Cooksland and at the Collierstown, Baronstown and Cannistown roads. He said to assist

in integrating the proposed road into its landscape setting that additional widths of

planting would be established along the road in Garretstown, Lismullin, Dalgan, at the

Mr. Burns concluded by saying that, in the overall, the proposed road would not have an

appreciable residual impact and would quickly be assimilated into the fabric of the robust

Meath landscape, even though some locations would continue to suffer appreciable visual

impact for a considerable period of time. He said the M3 would significantly improve the

character and quality of life for those properties along the existing N3 and improve the

commercial and recreational core of Navan through the removal of additional through

The Inspector asked if the photomontages he had referred to could be shown on the

screen as this could be helpful when cross-examination was taking place and Mr. Burns

Mr.Begley said he was looking at SK04 showing Collierstown Bridge and the bank that

stopped before it came to the bridge and asked what type of planting would be put there.

Mr. Burns said the idea was to recreate the disturbed hedgerows so there was a wide

screen of planting that was primarily deciduous but was a mix of trees with shrubs along

the edges. He sadi the trees were predominantly Ash and Oak which would reach 30

metres when mature. Mr. Begley asked what trees were in SLM 5 and Mr. Burns said

there was a big percentage of trees but as it was near residential property, there would be

an evergreen element in the understory planting in the shrubs there. He said they would

not have an evergreen element when the planting was away from houses and they tried to

stay with the native indigenuos species along the road in genaral but near to houses a

Mr. Begley asked what height of species were planted and Mr. Burns said it ws a mix

with 50 to 60 % being about 1.2 metres and a smaller amount of 3 to 3.5 metres. Asked

about the method of planting Mr. Burns said the contract usually included a 3 year

maintenance management program and the planting was at a very dense rate of 1 per

metre or 1.25 per metre and that after the 3 year period this had become established and

the canopy tended to close over and maintain a weed free ground layer. He said that as

the trees grow they tend to become naturally self-selecting with the weakers ones dying

out. He said it might be necessary on occasions to thin some slightly so it was partly selfselection

and Mr. Burns replied that it was usually 5 years to reach designed mitigation level and

within 7 to 10 years there would be a very effective mitigation screening in place.

Mr. Magee asked how high above the motorway would the Hills of Tara and Skryne be

and Mr. Burns said Tara would be about 30 metres and Skryne about 40 metres above the

motorway. Mr. Magee asked if there would be a great view of the motorway from those

vantage points andMr. Burns replied that one would probably not see the road at all from

the highest points of those Hills. Mr. Magee asked him to explain why was this and Mr.

Burns said the topography was the factor here and as Tara was a rounded flat-topped hill

there was a panoramic view from the highest point but not necessarily down into the

valley between the hills. He said that if you walked to the brow of the Hill, which was

some distance from the highest point, then you did see down into the valley. Mr. Magee

said this meant there would be a clear view of the motorway from both Tara and Skryne

but Mr. Burns said this depended on where you stood and on the intervening topography

and the vegetation. He said that there were parts of the road that would be seen from

particular areas but he doubted that you could see long stretches of the road from any

single point. He said the route had been selected to be low in the valley and generally it

Mr. Magee referred to his evidence which said "the crossing of the Boyne Valley is

minimal in extent of disturbance and intrusion" and suggested this conflicted with what

he had said about it being possible to see the road from Tara and Skryne. Mr. Burns said

he was referring to the River Boyne in that sentence. Mr. Magee said he referred to

lighting being restricted to the Philpottstown junction and asked was there a junction at

Philpottstown. Mr. Burns replied he understood it was known as the Blundellstown

junction which was adjacent to Philpottstown townland and Mr. Magee said it was quite a

Mr.Magee referred to Section 5.4.3 on page 81 in Vol.4A of the EIS where there is a

reference to the Blundelstown junction being set in a landscape increasingly influenced

by the expanding urban edge of Navan and asked Mr. Burns how far was Blundellstown

from Navan. Mr. Burns said he did not know exactly but it was several kilometres and

illumination there. Mr. Burns said the effect was clearly seen in the extent of housing

locating along all of the minor roads radiating from Navan, which he said he was

referring to there. Asked if he was saying these linear row of houses were urban areas,

Mr. Burns said he was not saying that they were urban but he was saying it showed the

influence or attraction of locating close to Navan. Mr. Magee said he could not know the

area or he would not have written "influenced by the expanding urban edge of Navan" but

Mr. Burns replied he did know the area and he had written "increasingly influenced". Mr.

Magee asked what existing illumination was in the area and Mr. Burns said the reference

was more about the impact of the lighting from the Hill of Tara, since you saw the lights

from all of the houses dotted around the area when you were on the Hill of Tara at night.

He accepted this might not have been clear from the wording in the EIS. Mr. Magee

asked how he could describe Blundellstown as the urban edge of Navan but Mr. Burns

said he had not described it as that but had described it as " increasingly influenced by the

Mr. O'Donnell asked who carried out the survey in Dalgan Park and Mr. Burns said he

had been there on one occasion and other colleagues had been there on other occasions.

Asked if he had identified himself to anyone that he was coming onto the lands, Mr.

Burns said he did not, and had used the paths there like any other member of the public

would do. Mr. O'Donnell suggested it was discouteous to have entered lands to do a

survey for a road and not to have identified his presence there and Mr. Burns replied that

he did not believe he had been discourteous and that his first survey had been caried out

without accessing the lands because he was not aware then of the public accessibility of

the lands and that he only accessed them directly at a later stage when he became aware

of the public access. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that no-one knew he was there and when

he established Mr. Burns colleagues entered similarly, he said his Clients were totally

unaware of their lands being surveyed for a road, and he asked if Mr. Burns went onto

other lands without telling the owners of his presence. Mr. Burns said this was not a

standard property as it had public access and Mr. O'Donnell suggested they had treated

Dalgan Park differently to others in choosing to enter and do their roadsurveys without

telling anyone. Asked when he had entered onto the lands, Mr. Burns said it was probably

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had walked the entiriety of the lands and Mr. Burns described

how he had done so without leaving the public footpaths but did not cross agricultural

land and, in response to further questions, where the paths lead along by both rivers with

some being gravel surfaced and others, which he said he had not walked, being grass

paths. Mr. O'Donnel suggested he could not have walked the full extent when he did not

go on the grass sections and asked how long and how often he had been there. Mr. Burns

said he would have spent up to 2 hours at a time and had been there on 5 or 6 occasions

over a 2 year period and had taken some photographs. Mr. O'Donnell suggested it was a

pleasant way to spend an afternon and Mr. Burns agreed it was a pleasant area. Following

some discussions on what constituted beauty and scenic landscapes, Mr. O'Donnell asked

if it was an area of significant landscape atractions and when Mr. Burns agreed, asked if

Dunshaughlin to Navan. Mr. Burns replied that each of the 5 sections had properties of a

similar nature and that in the Meath context these set the character for the County and

that it was typical of that. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there were some fine vistas along the

Blue Route and that the area was demesne-like landscape. Mr. Burns agreed the route

landscape types and aspects and that there were demesnes scattered about the area.

Mr.O'Donnell suggested there were spectacular vistas from natural features like the

Boyne which was an attraction for some of the properties in the area and Mr. Burns

agreed there were very attractive features or vistas along the Boyne with a variety of

landscapes along its length. Mr. O'Donnell suggested therewere some extraordinarily

beautiful areas within the particular corridor and Mr. Burns replied that he would not go

as far as beautiful or extraordinary but there were notable landscapes there. Mr. O'

Donnell asked if it was the landscape quality which was attractive or was this enhanced

by some of the more beaytiful parts being open to and used by the public and when Mr.

Burns replied that accessibility opened particular areas for public appreciation, he asked

if that enhanced its landscape quality. Mr. Burns replied that it was being contended that

landscape they were discussing would not be as sensitive to damage as an exposed

accommodate access, he asked if that would make it important in amenity terms by being

available to the public. Mr. Burns agreed these were widely used where the facility was

available. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested it was unique in Meath, or for anywhere so close

to Dublin, to have so much land opened for public access and asked if he was aware of

any other areas that shared the characteristics of Dalgan Park. Mr. Burns said it was a

very good example of property open to the public but he would not agree it was unique

and said therc were other Demesnes open to the public like Birr Castle but accepted there

Mr. O'Donnell suggested the lands were effectively parkland in landscape terms and Mr.

Burns replied that it could be described as a large farm where the owners have facilitated

its use by the public and he suggested it was not a public park as the owners could close

it as it was private property. Following some exchanges between Mr. Keane and Mr.

O'Donnell on the public's right of access, Mr. O'Donnell asked if Mr. Burns would have

concerns about a motorway being built through the Phoenix Park but Mr. Burns said they

were not comparable since the Phoenix Park was a city park defined for several hundred

years in its present use while Dalgan Park was a farm which allowed public access over

recent years. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there was no qualitiative difference between both

stand over a recommendation to develop a motorway through Dalgan Park in the context

of how the lands were being used at present and had he directed his mind to this in the

EIS. Mr. Burns replied that he had considered this in the EIS and that he stood over his

recommendations. He said that the amenity area of the park was not crossed or severed

by the road, that all of the paths looped around, interconnected and would remain and that

the proposed road would only cross the end of the path that ran along the Boyne towards

Bellinter Bridge which, he said, was a cul-de-sac path and not one of the main paths but

he did accept that this could be used by people in Dalgan Park. When Mr. O'Donnell

suggested he was accepting that part of the area used by the public was being impacted,

Mr. Burns replied that he agreed there would be some impact on users of the park but that

even the path towards the Bellinter Bridge was not being closed as the Boyne crossing

Mr. O' Donnell asked where were the most attractive parts for the public and Mr. Burns

repliedthat he thought these would be up around the Sports Pitches and the walks around

amenity area of those walks would be destroyed by the motorway being so close to that

location near the rivers, Mr. Burns disagreed and said he accepted there would be a very

severe impact during construction but the mitigation measures in providing for a

screening bund were introduced specifically to recognise the amenity there and that bund

would be 3 metres above the proposed carriageway, and it would be created at the start of

carriageway above the existing ground level and Mr. Burns said that it was in a cutting

through most of Dalgan Park, coming in from an elevated section, entering a cutting and

rising on a slight embankment to cross the Boyne. Mr. O'Donnell suggested it would be

visible from many areas of the Park as it was on a hill and would be elevated above the

park and that the overbridge at the Gate lodge entrance would be very high. Mr. Burns

replied that the road was on the upslope in the land on the opposite side of the Skane

River to the park which was some 10 to 15 metres above the river, he agreed that the

Mr. O'Donnell said there would be noise implications from this intrusion into the park but

Mr. Burns said he was not qualified to speak on noise and a discussion followed on his

ability to offer an opinion on noise and possible attenuation by tree planting, Mr. Burns

having suggested the bund would provide a visual and a noise screening and that they

would be planting the overbridge embankment at an early date to provide a mitigation of

the visual intrusion but, despite intensive questioning, he maintained that noise was a

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he had looked at the landscape characteristics of the Pink route

and if it had similar demesne type landscapes as that of Dalgan Park. Mr. Burns said he

had been involved there and the characteristics were the same and there were demesnes at

Gerardstown and at Johnstown near Navan which were similar. Asked if he had to chose

beween the Pink and Blue routes which was the more atractive, Mr. Burns said it would

be like splitting hairs since both were of a similar landscape and the Boyne had to be

crossed in both cases. Mr. O'Donnell asked if the fact of Dalgan Park being open to the

public would be a factor in one being more attractive, Mr. Burns said it was a factor but

they would also have to consider the visual impact for properties, which was more

significant along the Pink route by the nature of housing development along minor roads

Mr. O'Donnell then suggested that historic and aarchaeological factors were also factors

in the attractiveness of landscapes and that the Tara and Skryne landscape was one of the

most important landscapes in Ireland. When Mr. Burns said Tara was a very significant

place, Mr. O'Donnell suggested that the Pink route would not have that characteristic and

Mr. Burns replied that it would have more significance on Skryne and the Hill of Skryne.

Mr. O'Donnell said that was not what the Council's archaeologist was saying but Mr.

Burns said he was commenting from a cultural landscape aspec. He agreed that the Hill

of Tara was more important than the Hill of Skryne and when Mr. O'Donnell suggested

that meant the route should be the one with the least impact on Tara, Mr. Burns said that

he thought they had done this because, in visual terms, the setting of the route low in the

valley close to the existing N3 made it difficult to see it from Tara. Mr. O'Donnell asked

if he was seriously suggesting that a motorway on an embankment running from east to

west in the valley was not going to be visible looking down from Tara. Mr. Burns said

this was misunderstanding what he had said as it was the proposed M3 that would not be

very visible from Tara, Mr. O'Donnell repeated he could not be correct in what he was

suggesting and Mr. Burns agreed it might be difficult to accept but said that Tara was a

O'Donnell and Mr. Keane, the Inspector told Mr. O'Donnell to let Mr. Burns set out his

reasons. Mr. Burns then explained that his reference to Tara being flat-topped was in

topographical terms, since it was relatively flat where all of the principal monuments

were located, and said that to see into the valley you needed to walk to the brow of the

Hill to look down, since the brow screened out the valley. He said they had prepared

photomontages from the top of Tara Hill and he would put these up on the display screen

Before these came up on the screen, Mr. O'Donnell asked where they were taken from

and when Mr. Burns said one was taken from the back of the linear earthworks ( the

banqueting hall), he asked who selected the particular locations to be used in taking the

prepared the photomontages in consultation with his firm and a discussion followed about

the selection of Ark, the availability of their brief ( there being no written instructions

issued), availability of minutes of meetings about the selection of locations(there being

none kept), the details of those involved in the meetings and how drawings for the road

images were prepared. Mr. Burns explained that Ark had been told to take views from the

Hill of Tara which would give views to where the road would be constructed and that

there were difficulties in locating a place close to the monument due to hedgerows and

trees nearby which screened down towards the valley and that the positions were decided

by himself, John Kelly from Ark and Judy Houldey from Halcrow Barry, who indicated

where the M3 would be and that Halcrow Bary would have liaised with both himself and

Ark when preparing thegeometric drawings used for the photomontages. Mr. O'Donnell

suggested it was extraordinary that there was no archaeologist present when they were

assessing views from the premier archaeological site in Ireland. When Mr. Burns said

they were only considering the visual impacts, Mr. O'Donnell asked who decided the

banqueting hall was the most significant feature on Tara and Mr. Burns said it was

When Mr. O'Donnell continued to qustion the lack of archaeological input, the Inspector

intervened and said he understood Mr. Burns was giving evidence on a visual landscape

perspective, Mr. O'Donnell expressed concern on the lack of an archaeologist's input and

the Inspector told him that he had clarified Mr. Kelly of Ark had no archaeological

expertise, that he knew Mr. Burns had none and that there was not an archaeologist

present and he was suggesting the Mr. Burns be now allowed to finish what he wanted to

say and that he could ask his questions then. Mr. O'Donnell then asked if he could clarify,

before Mr. Burns continued, if the photographs were part of the EIS and when he said

they were not, asked why they were not included and Mr. Burns replied that was not his

decision. Mr. O'Donnell said that he now wanted to look at the photographs to see if they

should be introduced and that he was reluctant to deal with photographs that seemed to

understanding was they were omitted as it was thought it would be difficult to explain

what views were being looked at without this being "talked through" to the reader.

Mr.O'Donnell then asked if these two were the only photographs taken by Ark and Mr.

Burns replied their brief was to take photographs showing the area of the Blundellstown

Interchange, Mr. O'Donnell said this was at variance with his earlier evidence which said

it was the road they were to photograph, Mr. Burns replied that he considered the

Interchange to be part of the road and that there had been concerns about the illumination

effects from the Interchange and they were told to take photographs from the Hill ofTara

that showed an area including the Blundellstown Interchange. Mr. O'Donnell asked

which was his evidence now, the road or the interchange, and Mr. Burns replied they

were both the same thing. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there might be other photographs

taken that he was not referring to or from other locations, all with no archaeologist

present and Mr. Burns agreed this was possible since he had not checked that with Ark as

Mr. O'Donnell then asked for a map of the hilltop at Tara to be displayed on the screen at

the Hearing and put a series of questions to Mr. Burns about the location used at the

banqueting hall and asked if photographs were taken from other locations on the hilltop

that he pointed to with Mr. Burns replying that he could not say if others had been taken

or not and that he did not make a selection. When Mr. O'Donnell said he would look at

the photographs overnight if they could be given to him, the Inspector said he expected

thse would be computer images and Mr. Sweetman intervened to say he was a qualified

photographer and that those were photographs that Mr. Burns had and that he (Mr.

Sweetman) would want to have the photographs proved and to be able to cross-examine

photographs were now available and could be seen on the screen and if the validity was

going to be questioned he was suggesting they be seen first and the allegations could be

Sweetman, the Inspector ruled that the two photographs be shown to the Hearing, that

copies be made available to Mr. O'Donnell either then or in the morning and that Mr.

Burns cross-examination be left stand over until Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Sweetman had

been able to examine the photographs. Mr. O'Donnell said he thought the Inspector

The two photographs were then shown on the display screen at the Hearing and Mr.

Burns explained what was seen in each one ( Copies of the two Photographs View A and

View B were handed in by Mr. Burns on Day 16 and are listed at Appendix 4 of this

Report). Mr. Burns said each photograph showed the existing area, the new road with the

embankment and the new road with planting, for both locations. He said the first one was

taken from the northeast end of the banqueting hall looking towards the road scheme with

a view towards the Blundellstown area and Dowdstown over towards the west with a red

line included to show the road on an embankment where the Blundellstown Interchange

was, the red line indicating the top. Mr. Burns said the next showed the embankment with

the planting and the red line was still there to show the top and that one was taken from

the front of the banqueting hall where you could see down onto Blundelstown. He said

the second photograph was taken from the back of the banqueting hall and the linear

feature can be seen and again there was a red line to show the embankment would be

even if the trees were not there. Mr. Burns showed a further view with planting on the

embankment which, he said, indicated how difficult it would be to actualy see the M3

road from the hill of Tara. Mr. Burns said he had some night-time shots from those

locations as well since the illumination was the innitial cause for concern and he showed

these to the Hearing but it was almost impossible for the details to be seen by the public

given the dates when the photographs had been taken, asked if he had established why

they were not included in the EIS and Mr. Burns replied he did not became aware of this

until he recently read the EIS and said the references to the photographs were actually in

documentation prepared had not been disclosed, Mr. Burns said he had discussed this

with Halcrow Barry about two months previously and Mr. Guthrie told him the decision

was taken that including the photomontages would cause confusion, since the road was

such an insignificant part of the overall view in them, so it was decided to exclude them

from the EIS on that basis, and said this was something he had not been involved with.

Mr. O'Donnell then suggested they had been deliberately excluded from the EIS and Mr.

Burns replied he should raise this with Mr. Guthrie and a discussion followed about the

decision on the exclusion with Mr. O'Donnell suggesting it was extraordinary for

Halcrow Barry having commissioned the photographs to then decide to exclude them.

Mr. O'Donnell then asked a series of questions about the preparation of the photographs,

the apparent difference between photographs he was looking at and as to what he was

expected to see, with Mr. Burns explaining the content for him ( Note -- copies of the

Photographs handed in by Mr. Burns on Day 15 are listed in Apendix 4 of this Report)

Mr. Burns explained that for View A, "as existing" had no road superimposed, "as

proposed, no planting" had a red line on the grass seeded embankment in the smaller

insert, the green being the side of the proposed embankment and not the existing field and

"as proposed,with 7-10 year planting" again had a red line along the road which was

behind the proposed trees when 7-10 years old and that the larger photograph was a "

blown-up" version of the smaller one in the top left corner of the larger one and it also

had the proposed road superimposed but was without the red line. He pointed out the

diffficulty in distinguishing the embankment from being thought of being a field as being

part of the reason for they being excluded from the EIS. ( Note -- Similar arangements

apply to View B, and the night-time photographs show the position as of now in one,

with the Interchange lighting shown as a series of white spots in the second. The main

buildings of Dalgan Park are marked on View A "as existing" by an arrow inserted by the

While looking at these photographs, Mr. O'Donnell suggested it was not possible to

construct a motorway across a green field and for it to be concealed from the view of

those looking down on it but Mr. Burns said he could see the road in the insert and there

was no confusion about this and Mr. O'Donnell then said he was accepting that it was

visible from the Hill of Tara but Mr. Burns replied that he was not saying that it would be

visible but that in the insert there was a red line to draw attention to where the road was.

affected by the road construction there, Mr. Burns said he had not relied on these

photographs when preparing his report in the EIS since he considered the impact from the

Hill of Tara to be a minor visual one. Mr. O'Donnell suggested he was saying the

archaeological monuments, would not have a significant impact and asking An Bord to

acceopt that. Mr. Burns repeated that he had assessed the impact from Tara as being of

minor significance, Mr. O'Donnell questioned the basis for it being a minor impact, Mr.

Burns replied that the extensive landscaping measures proposed and the siting of the

junction in a low-lying valley were the reasons it was not so visible and Mr. O'Donnell

said it was in a direct line of vision from Tara and asked how it could be well sited. Mr.

Burns replied that any development in Co. Meath was to some extent visible from Tara.

A discussion on what could or could not be visible from Tara followed until Mr. Burns

agreed he might have exaggerated in terms of the extent of the visibility from Tara but he

Mr. O'Donnell then asked how far was Blundellstown Interchange from Tara and when

Mr. Burns said he did not know, Mr. O'Donnell suggested he should have known this to

have assessed the impact from Tara but Mr. Burns replied that he had done that from the

Hill by taking the worst case of two views as the second one was further back into the

earthwork. Mr. O'Donnell then asked if there could have been other "worst cases" and a

photographs taken and the lack of archaeological input. Mr. Burns said the proposed road

was further from the Hill of Tara than the existing N3 where it passed the eastern side of

Tara, Mr. O'Donnell compared the N3 to a simple county road in landscape terms and

suggested Mr. Burns considered the photomontages were of no relevance because they

did not indicate the significance of the road, which was why he decided they should be

excluded. Mr. Burns repeated he was not involved in that decision and said they had

classified the impact from the Hill of Tara as being of minor significance because the

view from the hillwas very expansive, as could be sen from the photomontages, with a

view over a very wide area of the surrounding landscape from any location there, that the

road was sited low in the valley with the interchange sited in a locally very low location,

Mr. O'Donnell asked how high was the interchange above the motorway and when Mr.

Burns replied that he should ask Mr. Guthrie, Mr. O'Donnell pressed for an answer on the

height and Mr. Burns said it could be 8 to 10 metres. Following some questioning on

whether he should have known the exact height when making his assessment and on his

technical qualifications, the Inspector intervened and told Mr. O'Donnell that the witness

had indicated he had made a guess at what the height was and that he should now move

Mr. O'Donnell then asked if, with hindsight, he would have measured the height of the

interchange and if he would have come to different conclusions and when Mr.Burns

replied that he believed the impact assessment to be correct nor did he believe he should

have measured the interchange, Mr. O'Donnell asked if the interchange being in the direct

line of sight of Tara required that level of detail but Mr. Burns said that if it was one

metre higher or lower the impact from Tara would not change. Mr. O'Donnell then asked

if it was 2 or 4 metres higher would that make any difference and Mr. Burns said there

was a level at which the interchange would become unusual but he could not say what

that was as he would have to see what effect this would have on the overall geometry of

the interchange, since an increase in height affected the whole interchange geometry. Mr.

interchange so close to Tara in so sensitive and vulnerable a landscape but Mr. Burns did

not agree the interchange was wrongly located while he did accept the landscape around

Mr. O'Donnell suggested this sensitivity should have made them avoid locating the

interchange in that landscape and Mr. Burns agreed it would be preferable if that had

been feasible. Mr. O'Donnell then referred to Skreen and asked if he accepted Skreen and

Tara constituted an integrated complex with intervisibility from one to the other and that

the archaeological evidence was the landscape should be preserved from damage. Mr.

Burns accepted they formed a complex with intervisibility but said he should ask the

archaeologist about the other part of his questions. Asked if they had looked at the impact

of the road and interchange from Skreen, Mr. Burns replied the road was located down in

the valley and the view from Skreen was similarly expansive as from Tara and, while

accepting it was all a cultural landscape and the importance of the intervisibility issue, as

the road was located in a small segment of the lower middle ground view, he said the

road did not intrude on that intervisibility between the two elevated points of Tara and

Skreen. Mr. O'Donnell suggested this could not be so unless someone standing on Tara

averted their eyes from looking down at this motorway bisecting the two monuments. Mr.

Burns agreed that a person could do this and that during the construction stage the road

would be very noticeable in views. Asked if one would create a visual barrier between the

two promontaries, Mr. Burns said it would not as there was extensive landscaping

architect gave, that we can plant and screen but he said there was a principal which was

more important than landscaping. Mr. Burns replied there was also the ability to mitigate

the impact and he believed there was extensive additional planting along both sides of the

road and around the interchange to appropriately mitigate the impact of both. Following a

discussion on how successfully or effectively impacts could be mitigated for in terms of

landscaping, Mr. O'Donnell that it would have been preferable to have located the road

on the other side of Skreen, and Mr. Burns accepted that in purely landscape terms there

would have been advantages in doing this, and he agreed to a further question that a route

When Mr. O'Donnell suggested the Pink Route had advantages that were not in the Blue

route, Mr. Burns replied that there were also disadvantages in the Pink route as it was

more visually intrusive on properties, residences and on the local community. Asked if he

had carried out surveys to show this, Mr. Burns said he had surveyed that route but did

not have the results with him as they were in the Route Selection Report. When Mr.

O'Donnell said he wanted to see the tests he had carried out on both routes, the Inspector

said this report had already been circulated and that Mr. Magee had cross-examined on

this Report previously. Mr. O'Donnell then referred to a question he asked on the

previous day about demesnes and suggested he was incorrect in saying the Pink route

went through Ardsallag if it went east of Skreen. Mr. Burns accepted it might not go

through Ardsallagh and that Gerrardstown was the only certain demesne that would

definitely be crossed by an east of Skreen pink route. Mr. O'Donnell then suggested the

east of Skreen route would be going through a visually less sensitive landscape than the

blue route but Mr. Burns, while agreeing it was less sensitive in landscape terms, said that

the Pink route crossed at an elevated point to the east of Skreen and that route would be

very visible from the Hill of Skreen and they had to take cognisance of the hill of Skreen

as well. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there was an equal impact on Skreen if the Blue route

west was viewed but Mr. Burns disagreed and said the Blue route was much lower in the

valley and was better screened by the nature of existing hedgerows and topography tthan

the Pink route passing to the east. Asked if he had determined the boundaries of the

Skreen archaeological complex were, Mr. Burns said he did not determine that except

from what was in the CDP. Mr.O'Donnell concluded by putting it to Mr. Burns that his

report was so fundamentally flawed that no reliance could be placed on it and Mr. Burns

said he did not believe it to be fundamentally flawed and that it was an equal and

Mr. Sweetman asked what was the entire coverage of the picture in View B "as existing"

and what lens were the photographs taken with. Mr. Burns replied that he had not taken

them himself and could not say what the lens was nor what the entire coverage was.

produced to answer his technical questions to prove how they were taken, Mr. Keane

replied that the location drawing showed clearly where the photographs were taken from

and that the Hearing was informal and he did not intend calling a witness from Ark. After

some further exchanges between Mr. Sweetman and Mr. Keane, the Inspector said there

was a reference to the photomontages having been prepared in page 9 at Sections 3.8 and

3.9 in the Brady Shipman Martin Report in Vol. 4C and it was clear from the wording in

Section 3.9 that views were being portrayed by photomontages. He said that having

regard to the circumstances of how these became the subject of discussion, he considered

that the photographer that took the photographs should be made available for some

limited cross-examination by Mr. Sweetman. Mr. Keane said he would arrange to have

him available on the following day. It was then stated that the photographs had been

taken by two different persons, one for day views and one for the night, and Mr.

Sweetman confirmed that one person to question would be adequate for his purposes.

Before Mr.Hasting's cross-examination commenced Mr. Keane for the Council asked him

to identify where to two photographs had been taken from, both for the daytime and night

time views and Mr. Hastings said one was taken at the left hand side of the little gateway

which was at the little road that ran from the bottom of the banqueting hall and was taken

upon the bank. He said that was the nearer of the two and the other was taken from the

top of the banqueting hall where the two ramparts stopped and he pointed out these on the

drawing displayed at the Hearing. Mr. Keane then asked him to say if he could have got

a better or worse view of the man section of Tara in the backgroud if he had gone further

back into the two circular enclosures shown in the background. Mr. Hastings replied that

he had used Dalgan Park as an indicator of where the Interchange would be as it was

disappeared and so did the ground where the Interchange would be built. He said the

main enclosure was relatively flat but sloped slightly towards the south which caused this

to happen the further back one went. ( Copies of these photographs and the Drawing were

Mr. Sweetman asked if both daylight Views A & B were taken on the same day and Mr.

Hastings confirmed that and said it was in late June or early July 2001. Asked what

camera he used Mr. Hastings replied that it was a Hasselbad with a 50mm lens and Mr.

Sweetman said a 50 mm lens on a 2.25 square negative was not the normal eye view and

Mr. Hastings replied that no lens was a normal eye view. Asked what was considered the

visual view or what the normal eye saw, Mr. Hastings replied that what the eye saw was

complicated as the eye had a wide field of vision but near the edge it was poor while in

the centre it was precise so that a camera produced a picture that was not exactly what the

eye saw. Mr. Sweetman said that was not his question and repeated it and Mr. Hastings

replied that the field of vision of the eye horizontally was somewhat over 180 degrees

and the sharpest field of vision, which was to do with a bunch of cells called the "fovea?"

qualifications in photography and Mr. Hastings said he had not as he was an Architect.

Mr. Sweetman suggested most people would understand normal practice for what the eye

would suggest that, but said it was not meaningful and he described the historic reasons

for this. Asked what he regarded as a tele-photo lens, Mr. Hastings replied that anything

gave a slight tele-photo effect. He then described how lenses were defined in different

books and said that he had been teaching photography at a university level for about 20

Mr. Sweetman then asked why he had taken the photographs with a wide-angle lens and

Mr. Hastings explained that if you sat in a room you got a wide vision of the room but if

you read the page in front of you, you could not read sharply the top and bottom of the

page together so wide-angled lenses were used to try to create the whole view. He said

the 57 degree lens used was not a particularly wide-angle lens and said the wide-angle

lens on the Hasselbad was 38. Mr. Sweetman suggested the Hasselbad 38 was a fish-eye

lens but Mr. Hastings refused to accept this suggestion despite pressure from Mr.

explained that he had been contacted first by Halcrow Barry in February 2001 who

wanted daytime and nighttime shots, which was reasonable in February as it was dark

about 5 pm, and then the foot and mouth intervened and they rang him again on 21 June

and again wanted day and night shots. He said he pointed out the problems of nighttime

in June and said the Brief was that there had been concern locally of the potential impact

photographs taken that might represent that impact both during the day and at night. He

said there was no specific location given to him in the Brief. Asked who in Halcrow

Barry contacted him, Mr. Hastings said it was a Monica Cahalane and asked when he

first met Mr. Burns about them, he replied that he had not met Mr. Burns as he dealt

mainly with Halcrow Barry, but his staff had some conversations with Mr. Burns after

Mr.Sweetman then said View A was negative 13 and View B was negative 9 and asked

how many others were taken, Mr.Hastings said he had only taken two pictures but had

bracketed them so he would have three or four negatives of each frame exposed at

slightly different exposures. He said he had walked around first and then chose the

camera locations to show the maximum impact. Mr. Sweetman asked him to draw on the

photographs the sections he had used for the photomontages, and Mr.Hastings said it was

full width but cropped at the top since it was an A3 size and the original negatives were

square ( These were shown to the Inspector who gave them back to Mr. Hastings). Then

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Hastings to look at View A and also at another picture on

which he had drawn a red line and asked if this picture was an accurate reflection of

View A and when Mr. Hastings agreed it was fairly accurate, Mr. Sweetman said he had

been up on Tara that morning and stood between the points the photographs were taken

from and asked if Mr. Hastings had stood on the bank at the banqueting hall. When Mr.

Hastings said he had, Mr. Sweetman asked why then he had said in his evidence at the

start that he had taken it from the most advantageous point. Mr. Hastings replied that he

had used his judgement that this was the most important view to take since he also had to

have identifiable features for fitting the road into the landscape and it seemed to him that,

in terms of a tourist looking down from the centre of the major feature, it would be an

Mr. Sweetman said he had told the Hearing earlier that it was not the most important

view he took, Mr.Hastings said he had meant the view with the highest impact, Mr.

Hastings replied that as you went up on the Hill at all, it became less visible and the most

visible one was View A which was not actually on the monument. Mr. Sweetman said

that if he had been at the Hearing over the last few days he would not make that statement

and asked, if he had looked from a point that Mr. Sweetman indicated, what difference

was there in the view and Mr. Hastings said it was minor. A discussion followed on the

various features in the views and what was the highest point available and where

Mr. Sweetman then asked what height was the camera from the ground when he took the

photographs and when Mr.Hastings said he normally looked into the top of the camera so

it was about 1.45 metres above the ground, he asked if he had used the top or look

viewfinder on the Hasselbad. Mr. Hastings explained that there was a top viewfinder but

you could hold it in your hand and when Mr. Sweetman asked what the focus used was,

the Inspector intervened and asked where these questions were leading to. When Mr.

Sweetman said he was coming to it, the Inspector commented that he had better start

moving faster as he had previously indicated to him that he was not prepared to spend too

distance, rather than have a realistic view of the road. Mr. Hastings said that if you were

dealing with features that were in the distance there was a problem and he explained that

the eye saw a very wide field of vision but focussed on a narrow one so a wide angled

lens on its own for a distant object was not always that useful. He said they did here what

they did for radio or TV masts by taking a wide angled view so someone standing at the c

location was sure they were in the right location. He said that with the big picture one

could walk to the location and position yourself fairly accurately as there were enough

features for you to do this, and that would be hard to do with a narrower view. He said

that they used an enlarged section to deal with the distant view to mimic the way the eye

behaved when it saw both wide and narrow things slightly sequentially. He said the angle

of coverage of the narrower section was 21 degrees which approximated to a 105 mm

lens, which was a mild telephoto on a 35 mm camera. He said a photomontage was not

reality and neither was a photograph but they were providing a document from which

Mr. Sweetman then suggested that if he stood at a point opposite the "Maytree" with a 50

mm lens on a 35 mm camera his picture would be somewhat different to that taken by

Mr. Hastings and Mr. Hastings agreed it would. Asked when the nighttime pictures were

taken, Mr. Hastings said he did not know since he did not take them and that Mr. Kelly

who did was present and he could be asked about that. Mr. Sweetman asked if he had

looked in another direction ( to which he indicated, possibly eastwards) when on Tara

and if so, would the road have been more visible across the flatland. Mr. Hastings replied

that he had looked that way but had no instructions to take photographs in that direction

and could not say if the road would have been visible there but he could look at the map

and see from that. Mr. Sweetman then asked if he had had a map of the road with him

when he was on Tara and when Mr. Hastings said a had a very local map showing where

the Interchange was but subsequently he was given a more detailed map of the road, Mr.

photomontage, the only part of the road he knew the location for was of the interchange

and Mr. Hastings replied that it was since the Interchange was the only thing he had been

Mr. O'Donnell said he found it incredible that his contact with Halcrow Barry was only

discussions were only with Halcrow Barry and not with the archaeologists but Mr.

Hastings said that in his business most of it was done by phone. Asked if he knew the

extent of the monument in Tara, Mr. Hastings replied that he did not know but doubted

there were boundaries as in hedges and walls in archaeology. Mr. O'Donnell asked why

he did not take photographs from the location on the other side of the county road on

Tara, which would be closer onto the interchange than the one he used and Mr. Hastings

replied that he had been asked to take them from as close as possible to the top of the

Hill. Mr. O'Donnell then referred to his earlier comment of doing a worst case scenario

and asked why he did not take it from the field on the other side of the road. Mr. Hastings

suggested he could not then stand over his submission of these views being a worst case

scenario but Mr. Hastings disagreed and said that when people visited the Hill ofTara

they visited the enclosed area on the Hill and looked at the monuments under Duchas'

care so that, in terms of tourists visiting Tara, that was the place of most impact as they

could not go into the fields. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that as a National Monument

people had access anywhere by law but Mr. Hastings said he was not permitted to go into

the fields at the time he was there. The Inspector said that the Foot and Mouth restrictions

Mr. O'Donnell asked what drawings he had with him when he was on Tara and when Mr.

Hastings said it was just a map showing where the interchange was, he asked if this

indicated the dimensions of the structures, Mr. Hastings replied that they were only

general and said he had a map and that interchanges were "big things". Asked if he had

the height of it, Mr. Hastings said he did not know that at the time but they modeled it

later, so the dimension was in his office. When Mr. O'Donnell said he could not know the

height since the designer had said he could not indicate what it was going to be in his

evidence to the Hearing, the Inspector intervened and said there were OD levels on the

drawing in front of him which related to the height. Mr. O'Donnell said he was referring

to the evidence of the Structural Engineer that this was a matter for the Contractor and the

Inspector said he had listened to that evidence but there were still OD levels on the

drawings. Mr. Keane intervened to say that the heights were set out on the drawings and

that if Mr. O'Donnell wanted to raise this he could, but it did not appear to be a matter for

When Mr. O'Donnell said that it was a matter for the modeler of the photomontage, the

Inspector again intervened and said that Mr. Sweetman had asked for the photographer to

be made available to prove the photographs and to be asked a certain amount of technical

questions and that he was not sure this matter was getting anywhere. Mr. O'Donnell said

he took what was being said and the Inspector said it was becoming clearer to him, as he

commentary would want to be there with them. The Hearing was then adjourned to the

Mr. Park asked if he was aware the EPR was identified as impacting on a number of

views and prospects listed in the CDP and that the Route Selection Report identified

some 1.4 kms. of the EPR as impacting on views from the Hill of Tara. Mr. Burns replied

that that VP1 was the listed view of Tara which was provided from specified townlands

and that the EPR did not cross that listed view. He said that, similarly for VP 27, the

listed view of Skreen was not crossed by the EPR but said that the Pink route did cross

that view. When Mr. Park asked about VP 28 at Bellinter Bridge, Mr. Burns said the EPR

crossed that one and said regarding the 1.4 kms, which Mr. Parks told him was in ROR

6.6.1 in the Route Selection Report, those views of Tara were not listed views and Mr.

Parks said the reference there was to an impact on the landscape setting of Tara, and not

Mr. Park then asked about Mr. Killeen's opinion, as given in his Brief of Evidence, that

the route traversing the Tara/Bellinter area would have a negative impact on the high

quality landscape and asked if he would agree with this. Mr. Burns said he would not as

the EPR had been selected to cause the least visual intrusion possible and tsaid that it was

not of a severe nature from the Hill of Tara. Mr. Park said this seemed to contradict what

Mr. Killeen had said and Mr. Burns replied that they had assessed the landscape and

visual impact of all of these routes and had drawn the conclusion he had stated. He said

other routes within the selection report had a major and a severe impact and that, while

the EPR had a short section that did impact on the setting of Tara, he considered the

selected route was very well sited in a difficult landscape and that this short section did

not bestow a severe rating on the selected route. When Mr. Park suggested that section

was about the third worst and there were other routes that did not impact, Mr. Burns said

that all of the routes had some degree of impact on Tara but they had apropriately

mitigated both by its location in the valley and by the Blundelstoown area being located

disagreeing with Mr. Killeen and asked how should this be addressed. Mr. Burns said that

he would have to accept there was a conflict if he believed there was, but that his report

was as he had made it in both the Route Selection Report and in the EIS and that he

believed that report to be the truth of the matter. Mr. Park said he presumed Mr. Killeen

belived his opinion to be the truth also and when Mr. Burns said it might be but that he

could not speak for Mr. Killeen, a discussion followed on the difficulty from two experts

disagreeing and the issue of landscape architectural qualifications in the assessment of

Mr. Park referred to the impact listed in ROR 6.6.1 where it described the section through

Dalgan Park as being of a low impact and asked how this could be. When Mr. Burns

replied that they had highlighted in the Route Selection stage the need to provide a false

cutting to screen the route visually and as this had been done he believed the impact

factually to be low, Mr. Park said the berm had only been added after the EIS was

published, and when Mr. Burns said it was in the EIS, Mr. Park suggested that was not as

extensive as had now been promised by Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Butler intervened to say that

Mr. Guthrie had pointed out the berm was referred to in both noise and landscaping texts

and that these were tied in by land being provided for the full length of 1000 metres as

was shown on the CPO maps. Mr. Park said he heard what was being said but this was

not shown in the EIS. Mr. Butler repeated that it was on the CPO map, but Mr. Park said

Mr. Park said the road through Dalgan Park crossed one of the walks and the impact there

would be severe. Mr.Burns accepted the walk was crossed but said it was still be kept

open and when Mr. Park maintained there would be a huge visual intrusion, Mr. Burns

replied that the section where the road crossed the Boyne and the path was rated as severe

but that, for most of the section, the road was in the cutting with a 3 metre high berm

above ground level to act as screening and he said this was what reduced the visual

intrusion for much of the route. Mr. Park questioned the extent of the cutting and when

Mr. Burns referred to it being from chn. 32700 to 33350, he asked where this was in the

EIS and Mr. Burns said it was in Vol. 4B on figure 4B 3.8. A discussion followed about

the impact on the walks approaching the Bellinter Bridge area, there being two which

joined into one at the proposed road crossing location, and Mr. Burns accepted there

would be a severe impact prior to the berm being put in place and the screen planting

taking effect but said the berm could be provided at the outset of development and

screening could then be immediately planted which would speed-up the screening's

effectiveness but agreed that there would still be a severe impact at the paths along the

Boyne. Mr. Park suggested the impact should be rated in relation to the usage and said

there was a large public usage of these lands and Mr. Burns said he had allowed for the

accessibility of the lands in his assessment but he said they had to assess routes on an

equal standing which was why they took them as being established in the landscape and

that he felt the route through Dalgan could be effectively mitigated which was why the

Mr. Park then referred to what had been described as the "increasingly urban edge of

Navan" at page 81 in Vol.4A of the EIS and said he did not understand what this meant

as it related to the Blundellstown Interchange. Mr. Burns said he had been referring to the

night time view from an elevated position when you could see lighting from the housing

in the ardsallagh, Bellinter and Royal Tara areas and was saying that, with all of this

illumination, the lights at Blundelstown woyuld not be noticeable when viewed from an

elevated positrion at night. A discussion followed on whether this illumination was of

recent origin or a sign of an expanding residential development from Navan and Mr.

Burns accepted that this reference could be misleading in the context of Blundellstown.

Mr. Park asked if he still agreed that route P had the least visual impact on the landscape

of the route he had analysed and when Mr. Burns said that he thought people were

missing the effect Route P had on the Skreen area, Mr. Park referred to the matrix in the

Route Selection Report that showed Route P1 as having a lessor impact than any other

route. Mr. Burns replied that there was only a marginal difference between the pink and

the emerging routes and that the pink route would have had an excessive intrusion to the

east of Skreen and would separate the Church and School to one side of the route with

many properties and the sports pitches to the other side and it also crossed VP27 from the

east of skreen looking at Skreen. Mr. Park accepted that, but referred him to his rating on

the P route in the document as being the lessor impact of any other route. Mr. Burns

accepted this, but said the difference was marginal and that in overall terms he believed

Mr. Park referred to Table RSR 6.6.1 in the Route Selection Report on page 73 and to the

rating for Blue route 3 which said a moderate visual impact and then to Table 4.2 in

Vol.2 of the EIS where this said Blue 3 was major and Blue 2 was moderate. Following

an examination of the two documents, Mr. Burns said that in Table 6.6.1 in the Route

Selection Report Blue 2 was rated as moderate high and Blue 3 was moderate while the

conformed to that in Table 6.6.1 in the Route Selection Report. Mr. Park commented that

Mr. Park asked if he had assessed the visual impact of the motorway on the residences

along theroad between Bellinter Cross and Cannistown and when Mr. Burns said he did,

asked at what time of year was this done and if there was a difference between seasons.

Mr. Burns said they had been there in summer and winter and that there was no great

difference with the vegetation on the Dalgan Park side providing very effective screening

when the plantation was in full leaf as it was a very dense and very wide plantation of 5

to 6 metres wide. Mr. Park said that was only in one area but Mr. Burns said it was along

most of Dalgan and he showed a number of photographs to illustrate the extent of the

plantation. He said there were a few areas where it had been cleared out and lawns sown

but he maintained that it gave very effective screening. He said that in wintertime it was

Mr. Magee said he lived on the Bellinter Road and he wanted to show Mr. Burns the

view he would have from his front door if the motorway went ahead and he showed a

picture of a heavily trafficed road to the Hearing, but Mr. Burns said that the road was in

a cutting as it passed the Bellinter houses and there was a 3 metre high mound on the

Bellinter resident's side as well Mr. Magee said his house was elevated and that he would

be able to see at least the other side of the carriageway and he would see every truck, bus

and high sided vehicle that would use the road. Mr. Burns suggested that once the

planting was established on the berm he might see the tops of those vehicles but he would

not see the carriageway and he said the planting could be in place for several years before

traffic started to use the road. Mr. Magee said the view from his house would be severely

disrupted and Mr. Burns agreed that it would be during the construction phase but not

Mr. Magee referred to his previous discussion with Mr. Burns about Blundellstown being

the urban edge of Navan and that Mr. Burns had violently disagreed with him on this. Mr.

Burns said he had acknowledged to Mr. Park that it could have been misleading in that

context and Mr. Magee said that it was misleading. Mr. Magee then referrred to his reply

to Mr. Park that the difference between the EPR and the pink routes was marginal and

referred to a chart in the Route Selection Report where the routes were ranked in a colour

coding of red for severe to white for none. He pointed out that P1 was blue for moderate

and P2 was green and blue for low to moderate and that blue 2, the EPR, was blue and

yellow for moderate to high and asked how marginal was it between low and moderate

and moderate to high. Mr. Burns replied that the P2 was low-moderate but it was not

comparable to the EPR since it continued to the east of Navan and did not cross the

Boyne where the P route would have a severe impact. Mr. Magee said he had assessed all

of the routes and that in Table 6.6.1 it clearly said the pink routes were less affected than

the blue route. Mr.Burns said the P2 route would be the least impacting because it did not

cross the Boyne at a sensitive area but it was to the east of Navan. He said the P1 route

went to the south of Navan and crossed between Ardsallagh and Boyne Hill and it was

rated as moderate and blue 2 was considered as moderate to high, and said he considered

Mr. Magee suggested that the pink route was still the preferabl;e route in terms of

landscaping and visual character but Mr. Burns said that it was slight and not sufficient as

a reason to make a decision between the two routes since it was so marginal. Mr. Magee

said that if this was added to archaeology, ecology, air, built heritage, there was a picture

building up, Mr. Burns replied that he would not say in terms of landscape that it was

enough of a reason to determine there would be any significant difference but Mr. Magee

said the question had to be answered why of every single category in the Route Selection

Report there was not one that said the EPR was the best route and he said that was a

The Inspector asked Mr.Magee to identify the location of his house on the Bellinter Road

on the map at Figure 4B 5.4 and established it was the tenth house at approx. Chn. 33400.

After the completion of the cross-examination of the Council's witnesses ( except that of

Bill Hastings ) by Mr. O'Donnell and Peter Sweetman and before the evidence on behalf

of the Missionary Society of St. Cloumban, Dalgan Park, was opened, Mr. O'Donnell

informed the Inspector that he wished to make a submission on behalf ofhis Clients.

Mr. O'Donnell said that what had occurred over the previous two days ( when he and

Peter Sweetman had been cross-examining ) was influenced, to some extent, by what had

extraordinary and unprecedented position. He said the Hearing was to deal with an EIA

for a road through one of the most sensitive sites in the world, as Tara was a world

landscape, and the EIA was critical to the determination of the Hearing. He said that they

had just had a series of totally incompetent submissions on what the team was required to

investigate and give evidence on and that there had not been a single witness that one

could have confidence in the approach taken, the level of detail addressed or the

conclusions they came to. He said that the one exception to this was the archaeologist but

that even with her there were two issues, the first being that she had indicated the road

would have a profound effect on the achaeological remains and was extremely critical of

required to be done and he thought that witness had made a reasonable examination of

Mr. O'Donnell said that the Project Director, Mr. Guthrie, had no idea of the regional

context or local detail and had no knowledge of what occurred in Dalgan Park which he

had identified as being a critical issue and said that, by having no knowledge of what

occurred there, his evidence was unreliable and incomplete. He said that Mr. Richardson

was in a similar position and that Ms Dempsey had justified huge areas of absence of

information in the EIS by saying the developer would have difficulty in obtaining them

and by implying this justified the non-inclusion. He said the indication of difficulties did

not justify the complete absence of evidence in the EIS and that these were extraordinary

Mr. O'Donnell then refered to the other Consultants and said that the witness for the Built

Heritage did not know the law relating to protected structures, had no architectural

qualifications andneither investigated nor understood the extent of what he was required

to investigate andthat his report was inadequate and lacking evidentail value. He said the

Ecology expert had indicated that while he knew about a Proposed SAC, he did not

disclose that to the Hearing, he did not carry out investigation to see if protected species

were there and did not bring to the attention of the Hearing critical matters he knew of

that he was duty bound to do. He said that in the Landscape and Visual analysis the

concealment of documentation was shown in the evidence and said that it was conceded

that, other than for a social and economic impact, there was a more appropriate route

available. He said that he had never sat through such an extraordinary performance as

that of Mr. Summers and that he could not understand what his difficulties had been, and

it was clear that virtually no regard could be had to his evidence. He said that in terms of

the Structures report, the witness had accepted the designs were conceptual and that the

designs had not even been completed. He said that it terms of the Socio-economic report,

they did not even have an expert in this area and that in terms of the Air Pollution report,

it was accepted that there were mutually contradictory results between the model and the

Mr. O'Donnel said he accepted that the Inspector would have a knowledge of technical

matters and would understand the extent of these shortcomings but said that it was

unreasonable that his Clients, who could be described as a small group of people, were

being asked to participate in a Hearing where there was such inadequate evedence being

given. He said they were being treated unreasonably by the Council's design team and

this was the prevailing impression from the manner in which things had been revealed in

the cross-examination and he said it was unfair to expect them to participate further in the

Mr. O'Donnell said that it was not just a landscape of world importance that was being

dealt with but there were the lives of people, their houses, farms and their total life which

would be affected by the road. He said there was a statutory scheme that required these

matters to be dealt with in an appropriate manner and that it had been said to him, that if

the Hearing were to continue, that it would be an exercise in futility. He said there could

be differences in opinion at Hearings like this but, where a comprehensive study had been

done, the evidence could be heard and he said this was not the case at this Hearing where

it seemed there was a non-engagement by the Project Team with the actual issues, a lack

of interest indoing any proper analysis and a contempt for the entire procedure.

Mr. O'Donnell submitted that his Clients could not be asked to participate further with the

process as if it had been carried out in accordance with the Directive and Regulations and

he suggested the Inspector would have come to a similar view as to the quality of the

evidence as he had. He suggested there was an un-answerable case that the Hearing

should not proceed any further and said that, while he accepted where there was only one

bad witness that part could be adjourned, in this case where witness after witness

displayed the same level of incompetence you could not have confidence in the system.

He said what had occurred over the preceeding two days could not be let pass as if it did

Mr. O'Donnell submitted the Council should be required to go back and prepare the

various headings in the EIS in a manner that would allow for a proper assessment to be

carried out in terms of an appropriate EIS and he said that anything less than that would

make the Hearing no more than an exercise with no status or value. He said that a

community had gone to considerable expense to involve themselves in this process from

the beginning and were being landed with incompentent evidence which was not how the

procedure was required to operate and they should not now be required to participate

further in the circumstances. Mr. O'Donnell concluded by saying the Inspector should

require the Council to carry out what they were statutorily required to do in an

appropriate and proper manner, not just for his Clients, but also because he had concerns

on how the Inspector would be able to advise An Bord since there was no evidence on

Mr. Sweetman said that he totally supported Mr. O'Donnell's submission and that it

should not be the requirement of voluntary organisations like An Taisce to see that the

animations of the State performed in the manner the EU expected them to perform. He

said he would go slightly further than Mr. O'Donnell and that he did not think it was

possible, from the evidence heard at the Hearing, to do an EIS on this road that would

make this Section of the road acceptable in environmental terms. He said the Scheme was

totally misconceived from the beginning and that the Council had got it all wrong when

they selected this route. He said it had been fundamentally flawed ever since and that

everything that had happened since then had been set out to cover up that error.

Mr. Butler said he accepted that both Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Sweetman were entitled to

criticise the evidence put before the Hearing did not come up to the standard they

required and that this could be refuted, or tried to be refuted, by their own evidence but

he said that to go so far as saying that the evidence which had been presented did not

conform to the legislative requirements nor to give sufficient information for An Bord to

Mr.Butler referred to Mr. O'Donnell's criticism of Mr. Guthrie and said this characterised

all of his attitudes to the other witnesses he had referred to as well. Mr. Butler recalled

that Mr. O'Donnell, when cross-examining Mr. Guthrie, had asked if he had knowledge

of the activities which took place in Dalgan Park and that Mr. Guthrie had set out in

general terms the activities he believed took place there and that Mr. O'Donnel crossexamined

activities which Mr. O'Donnell said took place there. Mr. Butler said these were almost

the same as in Mr. Guthries evidence yet it had been consistently put to him that he had

no knowledge of what theses activities were. Mr. Butler said that, despite having been

brought that up on that issue, Mr. O'Donnell repeated it now in his submission that Mr.

Guthrie had no knowledge of the activities and therefore could not make an assessment

on the a property. Mr. Butler said this was Mr. O'Donnell's way of attacking a witness by

cross-examining, and when finding what he believed was a flaw in their evidence, to then

say the witness had no knowledge. Mr. Butler said that in the context of the entire crossexamination

ability to give evidence relating to Dalgan Park, reflected Mr. O'Donnel's view across the

entire scheme and he said this was without foundation or validity and that, he said,

Mr. Butler said that Mr. O'Donnell had criticised the Noise expert and called into

question his professional ability but that it would be shown quite clearly, when Mr.

searson gave his evidence, that the basis of the cross-examination was on matters that

were being put to him. Mr. Butler recalled that the Noise expert had asked, on several

occasions, to be given the details Mr. O'Donnell was using to put those points and that

they were not given to him. Mr. Butler said they now had seen Mr. Searson's evidence

and that, when it came for Mr.Searson to be cross-examined, it would be shown to have

been fallacious and an unsound basis to have asked Mr. Summers to comment without

giving him these details, but said that remained to be shown. Mr. Butler said it was unfair

and unprofessional and could not be accepted that a witness was cross-examined in the

manner he had been without giving him the opportunity to either see what he was being

cross-examined on or to reply, and then to condemn him by saying he was the worst

Mr.Butler said that the entirety of the evidence presented by the Council's witnesses went

to the core of the issues which were being raised and set out clearly the basis on which

the scheme had been prepared and he submitted there was sufficient evidence for An

Bord to come to a view on the EIS. He referred to Mr. O'Donnel's remarks about the

method and presentation of evidence to the Hearing by the Council and their attitude to

Mr. O'Donnell's Clients and to other objectors and said that he rejected the references of

the Council and its witnesses being unreasonable in their attitude. He said that every

effort had been made to facilitate the objectors, whether by way of information or

discussion or otherwise. Mr. Butler concluded by referring to the socio-economics issue

and said that it was open to Mr. O'Donnell, if he thought the evidence was unacceptable,

to make a submission to An Bord . Mr. Butler submitted the legislation had been fully

compliedwith, that there was sufficient information before the Hearing and that the

Mr. O'Donnell denied he had ever indicated to Mr. Guthrie the uses that took place in

Dalgan Park and said he simply repeatedly asked what activities took place there. He said

considerable time to go through them and he said that, in any event, these had not yet

been indicated to the Hearing by his Clients which, he said, made his submission. He said

that, if he had set out these activities, then the other Council witnesses could have

indicated their familiarlty with those activities which they had never taken the trouble in

Mr. O'Donnell said that in relation to the noise expert, Mr. Summers, he never visited the

lands and that cross-examination of Mr. Searson would not change that. He said nothing

would change the statement by the noise expert that he would not wish to live in the type

of noise environment that the road would create and that nothing would change why he

could not justify a 27 decibel increase in noise. He said that every answer given was that

roads have to be built and no amount of cross-examining Mr. Searson would change that

submission. He said the entiriety of his evidence was either misleading or incompetent

and the evidence and the manner in which it was presented was apparent to anybody at

Mr.O'Donnell said he questioned Mr. Butler's reference to every effort having been made

and said the noise expert did not bother to come to the area until the EIS was completed;

the socio-economic report was prepared by people with no expertise in either social or

economics matters; the structures report was for a design not yet prepared; the ecology

report did not reveal there was a proposed SAC while the expert involved knew it existed

and did not investigate protected species in an internationally important river; the

drainage report did not understand that potentially contaminated discharges would enter

such a river system; the built heritage report that did not understand the law relating to

protected structures; the air pollution report that was mutually contradictiory. He said you

could not ask a reasonable person to participate further in the circumstances and to accept

that an EIS based on those matters could stand any test at this stage in the Hearing. He

said it was not a case of they producing their evidence and the Council producing theirs

and the two then being balanced one against the other. He said the onus to produce

evidence was on the Council. He said people were watching the questions being asked

but it was their houses and property that were being effected and they deserved better

treatment and it was his submission the Council should be asked to redo the EIS.

Mr.Sweetman said Mr. Butler had made a point that the Council had been co-operative

and said that when he had asked Mr. Guthrie on Day 1 if there were any other matteers

rabbits" came out of the hat over the two prevoius days when somebody decided to keep

the photonmontages out of the EIS as they might create the wrong impression and the

ecologist admitted knowing for a substantial time the site was an SAC and this had to be

dragged out of him and he said this was not co-operation but was hoodwinking the

public. He said the EIS failed every test that would ever be put before it on this Section

and he asked that the Hearing be adjourned that day, that the Inspector should make his

report to An Bord and take the advice of An Bord before any more of the public's time

was wasted. Mr. O'Donnell intervened to say his submission was that the Hearing should

not proceed until there had been an adequate assessment of the various items the Council

The Inspector said he had listened carefully to the various points put forward by Mr.

O'Donnell and Mr. Sweetman on the one hand and by Mr. Butlker on the other and that

his first comment was that the proposal giving rise to the Hearing covered a fairly

substantial distance across County Meath from Clonee near the southern end of the

County to the county border north of Kells and that, as Mr. O'Donnell had pointed out,

his Clients were the Missionary Society of St. Columban in Dalgan Park and some other

individuals. He said the almost 400 submissions were received by An Bord in respect of

the Motorway Order and EIS and a number of these had been heard from in the earlier

Section of the Hearing and others wished to make points for the later Sections. He said

that what Mr. O'Donnell was effectively seeking was for An Bord to now decide to refuse

Mr. O'Donnell intervened to say that was not what he was seeking as he was only seeking

a redoing of the EIS for this Section (Dunshaughlin to Navan). The Inspector told him

that he ( Mr. O'Donnell ) would be aware of the Motorway Order covering a particular

route with an EIS attached and that An Bord could confim this and attach modifications if

they thought fit of refuse to certify if they were not satisfied and he was asking for a part

in the middle to be dealt with now. He said that in his opinion an Bord would have to

assess all of the evidence that had been given and that, while both Mr. O'Donnell and Mr.

Sweetman were entitled to make submissions, neither of them had offered any rebutting

evidence on behalf of their Clients. The Inspector said it seemed to him that they were

indicating that standard of evidence from the Council was of such a level they did not see

any point in rebutting it, but it was his view that, taking into account the totality of the

scheme, the Hearing should proceed until the various other objections that were there had

been heard. The Inspector said he would then be able to make a report on the overall

proposal and An Bord could then make a considered decision on what was to be done.

The Inspector said that the net effect of what he was sayng was that he was not proposing

to adjourn the Hearing and the Hearing would continue. He said the Council witnesses

had been cross-examined and he saw the next stage as Mr. O'Donnell presenting the

evidence on behalf of his Clients. The Inspector pointed out that the normal format of the

Council presenting all of their evidence and being cross-examined before any of the

objectors cases were heard had been altered at this Hearing to facilitate people in the

different Sections along the M3. He also reminded Mr. O'Donnell that his request for a

"slot" for his Dalgan Park clients had been facilitated by the Inspector. The Inspector

repeated that having listened to the arguments advanced and to the evidence given so far

and taking cognisance of, and in fairness to, the 400 people who made submissions he

Mr. O'Donnell said that while he accepted the ruling, he asked if the Inspector would

frequently directed that EISs on road schemes be amended so it was not an unusual

situation. He said that the Council had complicated the situation in having different

experts for different sections of the Scheme but he still considered the EIS failed to

comply with EU law. He said the Inspector was perfectly entitled not to accept his

submission but he still felt it would be reasonsable for a direction to be sought from An

The Inspector said he heard what Mr. O'Donnell was saying but he pointed out that while

there were a number of volumes in the EIS they all made up the overall EIS. He said he

was aware of An Bord, on occasion, having directed that an amended or varied EIS be

prepared, and this might be a course that An Bord would decide to take, this was for

another time. The Inspector said that while he was not prepared to adjourn at that time, he

would think further on the issue over the weekend but that his initial view was this was

something to be dealt with in his report to An Bord at the end of the Hearing. The

Inspector said that if Mr. O'Donnell wished to present his evidence, he would hear this

and if he choose not to give evidence, there was other evidence that could then be taken.

Mr.Sweetman said this project was put forward as five different projects initially but

following the EU letter to the Irish Government complaining about "project splitting" it

was combined into one project. He said that if any part of the EIS failed then the whole

scheme fell and the Inspector told Mr. Sweetman the point he was now making supported

the Inspector's opinion that one heard the evidence for the entire scheme and then decided

Mr. O'Sullivan said he had worked as a Pollution Officer and Fisheries Biologist in the

UK and as a Science Policy Analyst with the former IIRS/Eolas before setting up as an

independent Environmental Consultant in 1977 and since then he had specialised in

aquatic pollution, fisheries, aquaculture, hazardous and toxic wastes, oil and chemical

spillages, natural resources management and planning and in the environmental impact

assessment of industrial, infrastructural and other projects and that he had established

Mr. O'Sullivan said that 6 options for a route between Dunshaughlin to Navan were

considered in the EIS in Vol.2 excluding the upgradingof the existing N3 which had been

dismissed without any detailed reasons being given, other than that the relatively high

number of junctions and private access points, the need to restrict vehicle and other user

conflicts and the topographical and settlement patterns along the route would make up

grading not feasible. He said that 10 options were initially considered in the Route

Selection Report which said " there was little between them in terms of design standards

and safety" and while this mentioned the environmental factors affecting Tara and the

River Boyne, no mention was made in the Executive Summary of the effects on Dalgan

Park, Dowdstown House or the environmental effect of relying on road transport as

opposed to rail in improving the interconnection between Dublin, Navan, Kells and other

settlements along the route. He said that Report noted the Pink Routes as having the least

intrusive and least archaeological impacts and being less visualy intrusive than any others

as seen from the Hill of Tara. He said Blue Route 2, as the recommended route, crossed

the Boyne at Bellinter Bridge, ran through a wooded demesne between Bellinter and

Dowdstown, through the centre of Lismullin Demesne, and pased close to the Abbey site,

impact on Dalgan Park and Dowdstown House, though this was not stated in the EIS. He

said that environmental impacts not mentioned in the Route Selection Report included the

contribution af additional traffic movements to greenhouse emissions, other wastes

generated by vehicles such as used tyres or the increasing problem of end-of-life vehicles.

Mr. O'Sullivan said Dowdstown House or the other important buildings in Dalgan Park

were not mentioned in the built heritage section of the Route Selection Report and that

agricultural, tourism and recreational pursuits were described as the primary land uses

from Dunshaughlin to Navan but there was no mention of the recreatiional and amenity

facilities at Dalgan Park in the report. He criticised the Route Selection Report as being

engineering biased with six pages describing the geotechnical and ground conditions and

with only ten lines of typescript describing land use issues, and there being no mention of

road based transport being the largest consumer of land for transport purposes. He said

the references to educational establishments in Section 6.10 of the Selection Report did

not list the longterm educational activities of Dalgan Park and the 6 kms. of riverside and

woodland walkways established there by the Society were not mentioned in the Visitor

Attraction section of page 88. He said it was obvious that the full cost of road traffic on

the environment had not been considered in the Route Selection Report and that it was

well known that road users did not pay the full costs of their activities, which made the

demand for new roads artificially high. He said the failure to achieve full internalisation

of the social and environmental costs of road transport had caused considerable distortion

of competition between different forms of transport, and said that the failure of the Route

Selection Report to consider these issues must make its conclusions distorted and

Mr. O'Sullivan quoted extracts from the National Roads Needs Study published by the

NRA in 1998 and said that in Section 7.5.1 it recommended that the N3 be upgraded to

dual carriageway between Kells and Navan, a dual cariageway Navan By-pass, a dual

cariageway linking Navan and Dunshaughlin and a dual carriageway Dunshaughlin Bypass

improvements should not cater for present and future traffic needs, if coupled with

planned measures to reduce road traffic demand and to divert a proportion of existing

passenger and freight traffic to other modes, such as by a greater use of public transport

and improvement of the rail network. He said the EIS failed to address these demand

reduction measures despite the importance placed on demand reduction by Government

and EU policies. Mr. O'Sullivan said the option of upgrading the existing N3 to the

standard recommended in the 1998 Roads Needs Study had been dismissed without any

detailed reasons being given, as he had already referred to, and the general reasons given

elaboration. Mr. O'Sullivan said it was his opinion that if by-passes were provided for

Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells, the remainder of the route could be improved to dual

carriageway without major disruption and at much less cost and with lessor landtake. He

said that when Mr. O'Donnell cross-examined Mr. Guthrie on Day 2 it became apparent

that the primary reason for building a new road was to allow a private company, as yet

unidentified, to design, construct and operate this new road and to generate a large and

continuing income for itself by tolling the new road. He said that Mr. Guthrie had

admitted not having read the SPGs nor taken their recommendation to reduce private

vehicles by increasing the use of public transport into account and he said it should be

clear to An Bord that the need for an entirely new road to motorwat standard had not

Mr. O'Sullivan then dealt with the constraints and opportunities listed in the Meath CDP

of 2001and referred to the lack of any mention of a new motorway linking Navan or other

towns to Dublin as being a constraint in Section 2.3 of the CDP, but that it said the lack

of a direct rail link to Dublin was listed as a serious constraint which placed increased

reliance on road transport. He quoted several statements from Section 2.6.2 of the CDP

which outlined how the SPGs were provided for in the County Plan and he said these

extracts were quoted to show that, within the framework of the SPGs, the CDP proposed

that further development of the County would be linked to a significantly enhanced

public transport system, with a high quality rail link regarded as essential to make Navan

as self-sustaining as possible. He said that An Bord's attention was being drawn to the

role of an effective public transport system in ensuring the principles of sustainable

development were upheld and that the protection of the countryside was regarded as a

key issue in adhering to the SPGs and that the Development Plan stated in Section 2.7

that the principles of sustainable development could not be met without a modal choice

being offered in transportation. He said that while a good road system was necessary, the

primary need was for a high quality rail link, which would be less environmentally

damaging than a motorway of similar capacity and he said that would accord with the

Mr. O'Sullivan then dealt with the Transportation and Economic Corridors as outlined in

Section 2.6.5.1 of the CDP and outlined what the Plan said about these and drew attention

to the absence of any mention to the need for upgrading the N3 to motorway standard,

while acknowledging that the N3 was listed for upgrading as an objective. He also

referred to the objective to reinstate the raillink from Dublin to Navan in support of the

aim of making Navan the primary growth centre, as indicated in Section 2.6.6, with a

target population of 60000 by 2011. He drew An Bord's attention to the likelihood of

improved roads resulting in increased private car ownership and greater development

pressure for housing outside of the principal urban centres, with the potential to dilute the

creation of self-sustaining urban centres like Navan. He said that a major highway linking

structure more difficult and said that this was in contrast to the effect which would follow

from the provision of better public transport, particularly rail, in concentrating housing

Mr. O'Sullivan read extracts on the Transportation Policy Objectives from Section 2.7.1

of the CDP which he acknowledged would require some road improvements, such as the

listed in the Plan, but he said the emphasis was on the need for a detailed feasibility study

into the provision of a direct rail link between Dublin and Navan. He read further extracts

from Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.2.(i) on Public Transport issues and said it was clear from

these that the Council had expressed a long term view and policy in support of a modal

shift of passengers from road to rail, with rail becoming the primary method or passenger

transit to and from Navan. He said the only mention in the CDP of the proposed new

highway was in Section 3.5.2 where it was stated that the provision of a new motorway

development objective that would be supported without any more details being given.

Mr. O'Sullivan said that the proposed motorway was mentioned in the Variation to the

CDP adopted by the Council on 4 February 2002 as Variation No.2, but that An Bord

should note this did not change any of the major policies on transport, the enviroment or

spatial planning in the Plan and he said this merely inserted an isolated and out of context

reference to the proposed motorway and that the variation was logically inconsistent with

other objectives and provisions that had not been amended by the variation. He said that

it seemed very curious to him that a CDP with all of the emphasis on seeing public

transport as the solution suddenly had a motorway included without there being any

recognition of the impact that would have on the other transportation policies in the Plan.

He said that while the Variation did refer to a motorway, he believed a CDP had to be

looked at as an integral document and he suggested that An Bord should consider it as an

isolated out of context reference and give it far less attention than the remainder of the

Mr. O'Sullivan then dealt with the Settlement Location Policies as set out in Section 3.2

of the CDP and outlined the ways listed there to apply sustainable principles to the use

and development of land and he noted that minimising energy use was an important

consideration in the copntext of sustainability. He dealt with the protection afforded

toareas of high amenity in the CDP in Section 2.8.4, including the Boyne and Blackwater

Valleys, and the Hils of Tara and Skryne and the range of views and prospects in the

County and quoted extracts from Areas VQ3, on River Valleys, and VQ 9, the Tara and

evidence). He said that while any transportation infrastructure would detract from the

landscape, the impact from a major road was much greater than that of a railway line of

similar carrying capacity according to the EPA's report on "Indicators for Transport and

encouraging a modal shift from road to rail and by providing for only a moderate degree

of improverment to the existing N3 would accord with the CDP policy of landscape

protection. He said that the proposed motorway would detract significantly from the

unique character and landscape value of the area at the hills of Tara and Skryne, which

were particularly sensitive to intrusive development such as sporadic housing, larger

agricultural structures, masts and afforestation. He acknowledged there was no reference

to a road in these restrictions but said he thought that was because the planners never

expected anyone would want to put a major motorway through this particular area.

Mr. O'Sullivan referred to Section 3.5 of the CDP on Education, Recreation and Heritage

Conservation and said that the Dalgan Park complex included educational facilities,

amenity and recreational areas, a cultural centre devoted to the promotion of intercultural

values and a heritage centre that provided historical and current information on Irish

Christian missionary activities throughout the world. He said it was a unique facility

within the County and should beprotected from adverse developments thatwould damage

its longterm viability and value. He said the CDP in Section 3.5.1 (iv) stated that large

scale educational or former centres in the County would be preserved for potential Third

Level or Outreach type education services and he believed Dalgan Park fell within this

category and should beprotected from developments that would reduce its value as an

educationl institution in the broadest sense. He said this did not mean only education

within the classroom since Dalgan Park was specifically looking at the wider world

education with, for example, ecology as it was taught by Fr. Sean McDonagh. He said

Dalgan Park was included in the Inventory of Natural Recreational Areas as a SRUNA

and said that Section 3.6.2 listed a number of core rural development objectives and that

by reason of its location in a rural part of the County and its resources, he believed that

He said it was an Objective in the CDP to protect the aquatic environment and in Section

3.6 to conserve water resources and said the River Skane which flowed through Dalgan

Park was not specifically designated in the CDP but it should be afforded a greater degree

of protection because of its salmonid status and its recreational amenity use by walkers

and others. He said the Skane was an important spawning stream for salmon in the Boyne

catchment and that the Lismullin River, a tributary of the Skane, was a nationally

important spawning stream for trout and salmon. He referred to the legally protected

aquatic animals and fish in and around these rivers as listed in Vol.4A of the EIS at

Section 6.3.3 and to the species listed in Annex 2 of the Habitats Directive which the EIS

noted that as the Consultants had not surveyed the Skane or Lismullin Rivers for them,

the presence of these protected species in these rivers could not be ruled out. He said the

ERFB had stated they observed lampreys and freshwater crayfish when conducting some

recent investigations in relation to a water extraction scheme, which indicated more

Mr. O'Sullivan referred to the "Land Use, Urban Design and Transportation Framework

for Navan " Plan being prepared by Consultants for Navan Town Council which would

chart the way for Navan to reach city status for the town and reduce its dependance on

commuting and said those Consultants had worked closely with the County Council, the

DTYO, Bus Eireann and Iarnrod Eireann, which he suggested the M3 consultants did not

do, and said the emerging prefered option was for a rail line from dublin with 3 stations

which would allow for two new growth centres. He said the advantages of this would be

to include for a moderate landtake and increased interchange with buses and park and

ride facilities consistent with the SPGs and DTO strategies and that car ownership or

excessive car use promoted by the availability of a major highway to Dublin, with excess

vehicle capacity, would irretrievably damage this vision. He suggested that while it

remained easier for Navan residents to drive to Dublin than to go by train, or to walk,

cycle or use public transport to reach to projected Navan City centre, then it would be

difficult for Navan to reach the status of a self-sustaining regional small city. He said the

Mr. O'Sullivan outlined several details from the National Stategy for Sustainable

Development 1997 which he said must be taken into account by An Bord and particularly

drew attention to the fact the specific actions listed, as reflected in the section on roads

infrastructure on page 107 of the document, did not include any reference to new road

building. ( Note -- The extract he quoted also says that the Government would maintain

the current road policy which focussed on key economic corridors and concentated on

upgrading and realigning rather than building new roads, bypasses to relieve congestion

statements in the NSSD of continued Government support for the improvement of public

transport systems and infrastructure to increase their market share and to the objectives to

educe transport-related emissions of greenhouse gases, to internalise the environmental

and social costs of transport and to integrate transportation and land use planning. He also

referred to the National Climate Change Policy as working towards more sustainable

alternative transport modes including better facliities for non-motorised transport and,

Mr. O' Sullivan said that Ireland's policy of road building throughout the 1990s, and in

the proposed M3, took no account of the need to shift transport from road to rail to meet

emissions. He outlined the implications as set out in the EC Green Paper "Security of

Supply" of November 2000 of more than half of all oil consumed by transport being by

private cars and referred to what had been set out in the "National Climate Change

Strategy for Ireland" of October 2000 with a reduction in emissions of 13.1 M tonnes

CO2 equivalent per annum being needed to now meet the EU Irish target of 13% above

the 1990 level of emissions. He said that according to the EPA Millennium forecast

Ireland's growth rate in greenhouse gases was currrently 4% over target and that by 2010

the net emissions would have reached 30% above 1990 levels and said that the EPA had

concluded the rapid increase in road traffic volume was environmentally unsustainable,

with a much greater effort necessary to provide alternative modes of transport and to

Mr. O'Sulivan then quoted a number of the points made in the EPA discussion paper

"Indicators for Transport and the Environment in Ireland" of 2000, a summary of this

paper is attached to his Brief of Evidence, in support of his opinion that private cars were

monopolising the modal share of the road transport sector with road traffic being one of

the fastest growing contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and adding to local air

pollution and noise levels. He referred to the recent undated progress report on the

implementatrion of the National Climate Change Strategy and to the progress report of

September 2000 by the DTO on the Integrated Transportation Strategy for the Greater

Dublin Area and said that none of the conclusions and recommendations of these reports

on the reduction of emissions had been taken into account in any meaningful way in the

decision making process for the proposed M3 motorway and he suggested that was a

good reason for An Bord to refuse sanction for this development. He referred to the EU

White Paper on "Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide" of 2001 and to some of its

conclusions and suggested that EU policy did not see the construction of further roads as

Mr. O'Sullivan then referred to the EC's White Paper proposals for a greater effort to

break the link between transport growth and economic growth and to bring about a modal

shift from transport of goods and people by road and said that Rail transport was seen by

the EC as the strategic sector on which the success of these efforts to shift the modal

balance would depend. He said the EU transport policy also stressed the need to secure

intermodality with the biggest missing link being seen as a lack of a close connection

between sea, inland waterways and rail. He said that transport by water was much more

energy efficient, less polluting and involved les land use trhat either road or rail . he

suggested that connecting Navan by a fast rail link to the ports of Drogheda or Dundalk

as well as to Dublin could take a significant amount of freight traffic off the road corridor

though he conceded that possibility had not been examined in any depth and that there

Mr. O'Sullivan said the increasing numbers travelling by road and the increasing speeds

of vehicles were major contributors to road accidents and that some 41000 deaths

occurred annually within the EU. He said that rail had always been safer than road

transport abnd that the DTO strategy for the Greater Dublin Area also concluded that

reducing the numbers of private cars on the roads and encouraging greater use of public

transport would reduce traffic accident deaths and injuries. He said the EC Transport

Policy intended to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions by favouring rail over road

and fiscal measures to impose heavier costs on road transport as it did not pay the cost of

its full impact on the environment and said there were some 60 measures proposed in the

White Paper to reduce dependance on road transport, to develop rail and short sea/inland

waterway transport and to improve intermodality, among others. He said that in the

context of the EU policy on transport, the proposed new M3 route must be seen as a

product of out-dated thinking, in conflict with present day needs and analyses and in

conflict with almost every aspect of EU Policy and said that An Bord should take account

Mr. O'Sullivan said that while the major deficiencies in the EIS had been addressed by

*Failure to consider the wider policy context of reduced traffic demand and greater use of

rail and public transport to deal with the growing emission of greenhouse gases in

*Failure to consider greenhouse gas emissions by construction vehicles, wastes generated

by vehicles usuing the road, additional traffic induced by increased road capacity and

*Failure to consider "Induced Traffic" effects which by encouraging greater car use, was

*Failure to give any significant information on locations where construction materials

would be excavated or where excess or unsuitable material would be disposed of or the

*Failure to provide detail of how motorway would affect implementation of policies in

CDP, SPGs and other policies emphasising a greater use of public transport modes,

*Failure to consider any alternatives other than a number of route options which were

assessed on criteria that omitted references to significant environmental and human

*Failure to provide adequate reasons why the Roads needs study to upgrade the existing

N3 to dual carriageway should be abandoned for a motorway on an entirely new route.

*That the proposed PPP for construction and operation removed control of the road from

the public domain, deprived road users as stakeholders of any participation in the road's

future and imposed additional costs on the road user and that none of these issues were

*That the EIS had not been prepared by or on behalf of the developer since the private

Mr. O'Sullivan said that in his view the deficiencies in the EIS were so significant that it

failed to meet the requirements of the EU EIA Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC. He

then said that the uniqueness of Dalgan Park would be addressed by Fr. Pat Raleigh in his

evidence but that there were a few points he wished to emphasise and he said that :-

1. The integrity of the Dalgan Park Estate would be damaged and agriculture would be

2. The proposed route would interfere with the amenity value and the purpose for which

the Estate was being used and developed as a Retreat centre and location for spiritual

3. There would be significant visual intrusion to the south and east of Dowdstown where

4. The Estate was a nature reserve and rich in wildlife and the motorway traffic would

be a disturbance that would cause a reduction in species requiring a more peaceful

habitat such as kingfishers with species like badgers and deer at risk from traffic.

5. The River Skane was an important salmonid spawning stream and any interference

6. The River Skane might also provide a habitat for other species protected under the

Mr. O'Sullivan referred to the SPGs which had been given statutory recognition in the

Meath CDP and outlined the history and purpose of these guidelines and said the Strategy

defined a transportation corridor as an area served by a road link of dual carriageway or

motorway standard and a passenger rail link. He said the 1999 Executive Summary noted

that the Dublin to Navan road was designated for future upgrading to dual carriageway

standard but that there was only indirect rail freight access to the town at that time. He

noted that Navan had beeen selected as a primary development centre in the SPGs and

then outlined the proposals in the DTO's document " Platform for Change" as a document

that An Bord should also take into account. He noted that there was no mention of the N3

being upgraded to motorway standard or to building a new motorway on a green field

site, though he also noted that the improvement of the N3 from Clonee to North of Kells

was listed as one of the National Road projects for the period 2003 to 2006. He suggested

principles ans implementation strategy of the DTO. He drew to the attention of An Bord

that some Local authorities in the SPG area had granted planning permissions that

conflicted with the Guidelines and referred to one at Fassaroe in County Wicklow which,

he said, was rejected on appeal by An Bord in June 2001. He suggested An Bord should

apply sustainable development criteria and continue to uphold the principles of the SPGs

Mr. O'Sullivan said that the SPGs must be regarded as essentially a spatial strategy in the

absence of a National Spatial Strategy which was expected to be published shortly ( Note

-- This evidence was given on 10 October 2002) and he said the SPGs were based on the

European Spatial Development Perspective and he outlined the core policy aims of the

ESDP. He said the National Strategy for Sustauinable Development also referred to

spatial planning and he quoted from page 148 of that document on the Territorial

Integration of Sustainable Development issues. He said the proposal to construct a new

road to motorway standard on a greenfield route where there was neither a perceived

need nor any strategic or spatial planning reasons was completely at variance with all of

the Reports, Guidelines and Policy documents he had discussed and quoted from in his

He said the developer of the M3, who was an entity or person unknown to the Hearing,

had failed to justify the development of a new road to motorway standard instead of

upgrading the existing N3 as was recommended in the Roads Needs Study. He said that

the adverse environmental, social and economic costs had not been adequately taken into

account and the supporting EIS was fundamentally flawed. He said that it would "fly in

the face of reason" to build this new road as it would conflict with the policies and

guidelines of sustainable development, spatial planning, greenhouse gas reduction and

transport demand reduction. He said its construction and existence would place additional

engineering and financial obstacles to the re-opening of the direct rail link from Navan to

Dublin, would add to the cost of the line and would place an environmental burden on

present and future generations. Mr. O'Sullivan concluded by saying that the benefits of

the proposed new road could be more cheaply and easily obtained by constructing a dual

carriageway along parts of the existing N3 or by constructing one new road to motorway

standard along a route between the N2 and the N3 to take traffic from both National

Mr. O'Sullivan attached Extracts from the EPA document " Indicators for Transport and

the Environment in Ireland" in his Brief of Evidence as well as Map 1 from the SPGs

showing the area covered and Figure 3 from the DTO " Platform for Change" showing

Mr. Butler asked if his preference was for this combined road between the N2 and N3

even if it was to motorway standard and Mr. O'Sullivan said that if a need for a road

could be shown despite the emphasis in Irish and EU policy to reduce road traffic he

thought the single road to take traffic off both would be preferable. When Mr. Butler put

it to him that the document to start from was the Roads Needs Study Mr. O'Sullivan

carriageway standard but said he would like to see that study revisited since the need to

reduce the CO2 emissions was not as apparent in 1997 as it was now. Mr. Butler referred

him to his statement of it " -- being clear a good quality road system was necessary -- "

and asked if he accepted the need for a high quality road system as he also accepted the

Roads Needs Study had identified a dual carriageway. Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he

believed there should be a high quality road system and that the road system should be

more efficiently used and that bottlenecks should be removed where these caused traffic

tailbacks, and that there were many places in Ireland where relief roads were needed and

suggested it was the method of implementing the need to upgrade the road was the issue

between them and Mr. O'Sullivan said he accepted there was a need of an improved road

system and he referred to poor horizontal and vertical alignments both of County and

Mr. Butler pointed out that the SPGs specifically provided for a motorway standard road

in the definition of a corridor and asked how he could then say the proposal conflicted

with the SPGs and Mr. O'Sullivan said the guidelines referred to both a road and rail link

so both were vital and that they also said dual carriageway or motorway but did not say

the road must be to motorway standard. He said that if there was a dual carriageway and a

rail link that was acceptable and there was no need for a motorway. Mr. Butler suggested

the opposite also applied and that if it was a motorway he could not argue that was not

within the strategy. Mr. O'Sullivan accepted that if a motorway was already built then

that would be within the guidelines. When Mr. Butler suggested the definition envisaged

the provision of links and not that they had to be in place, Mr. O'Sullivan replied they

envisaged one or the other but they did not state which was necessary, as it stated "dual

carriageway or motorway". A discussion followed on the words used and Mr. O'Sullivan

then said he accepted the definition did not preclude a motorway but did not require one.

Mr. Butler then put it to him that the provision of a motorway was not in comflict with

theSPGs and Mr. O'Sullivan agreed it was not in conflict with that statement and that if a

motorway was present, or was envisaged, it was not in conflict with the guidelines. He

then said that when you looked at the other part of the guidelines they were very much

aimed at reducing traffic and that roads must be more efficiently used, and the remaining

Mr. Butler asked if he accepted the guidelines provided for the building of a road on this

corridor whether that be a dual carriageway or motorway and Mr. O'Sulivan replied that

he accepted the definition did not preclude this, when the definition was taken in isolation

of the guidelines as a whole. When Mr. Butler suggested that Mr. O'Sullivan had quoted

the definition in isolation, Mr. O'Sullivan accepted that he had. Mr. Butler suggested that

was the strategy in the guidelines and when Mr. O'Sullivan replied that it was the

definition of a corridor within the guidelines, Mr. Butler put it to him that he had said the

strategy was based on the identification and development of a number of transport

corridors and asked if he accepted the corridor between Navan and Dublin was one of

these, and Mr. O'Sullivan accepted that it was a future corridor. Mr. Butler then

suggested that the strategy was based on the identification of a corridor and that the

building of a motorway on that corridor was not precluded and was part of the strategy of

Mr. Butler referred to his comments about the CDP and asked if his qualifications were

scientifically based and Mr. O'Sullivan replied that his qualifications were scientifically

based but that he had become involved in planning matters for some 20 years. When Mr.

Butler suggested he would have his knowledge of planning and traffic and other areas by

practice, Mr. O'Sullivan agreed and Mr. Butler suggested he would be upset if he ( Mr.

Butler) said that because he had no formal qualifications that he could not comment on

those issues, and Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he would not be upset but would regard it as

development corridors in his Brief of Evidence and had said in it that there was no

mention of the need for a motorway and when Mr. O'Sullivan agreed he had made that

observation, Mr. Butler referred him to his comment further on of the only mention of a

towards the end. When Mr. Butler suggested that his first reference to there being "no

mention" was incorrect, Mr. O' Sullivan said that he had been quoting from the early part

of the CDP and that perhaps he should have amended it by stating that it was in relation

to the three prime corridors that there was no mention of the motorway. Mr. Butler said

the impression was being given that there was no mention in the CDP of the motorway

and Mr. O'Sullivan accepted that it was mentioned towards the end. When Mr. Butler

asked why use " the only mention" when he did refer to it, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he

had seen no other mention and Mr. Butler asked why it would need to be mentioned

elsewhere since it was an objective. Mr. O'Sullivan said that other objectives were

mentioned so many times it seemed curious that this was only mentioned once. Mr.

Butler then asked him to indicate one other objective mentioned many times in the CDP

and when Mr. O'Sullivan said that the objective of giving Navan self-sufficient status was

an example, Mr. Butler pointed out that the basis for Navan getting that status was what

was repeated, but the objective of doing so was only mentioned once and a discussion

Mr. Butler asked if he accepted that the provision of rail links and roads were all matters

of Government Ploicy and when this was accepted, asked if they would not be provided

until the Government came to a policy decision. Mr. O'Sullivan said it was government

policy to determine the extent to which road and rail were used in transportation but he

said that each particular development of a road or a rail line might not necessarily be a

matter of Government policy as long as the development was in line with policy as a

whole. Asked if he had heard Mr. Killeen say that the provision of the motorway was in

line with the NDP, Mr. O'Sulivan said he had heard that being said and when Mr. Butler

asked if he was aware there was no provision in the NDP for a rail link between Dublin

and Navan, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he had not studied the NDP in full but he had seen

many mentions of it in other Government policies. Mr. Butler quoted from the CDP

where it refered to "-- a detailed feasibility into the provision of a rail link between dublin

and Navan -- " and asked if that was what was in the CDP as an objective and when Mr.

O'Sullivan agreed, Mr. Butler suggested that until the feasibility study was carried out

there could be no decision on whether or not there would be a rail link. Mr. O'Sullivan

replied that there could be a decision and then a feasibility study to determine how and by

what the route the link would be. He said Mr. Butler had referred him to the NDP and this

said " N3, further improvements, N3 Dublin, Belturbet, Enniskillen, Derry" and he

pointed out that it said N3 not M3. Mr. Butler asked if he was saying Mr. Killeen was

wrong in saying that the provision of the motorway was part of NDP but Mr. O'Sullivan

said he was not necessarilly saying that, but he had read from the NDP at page 12 where

it only referred to the N3. Mr. Butler asked if he accepted from his own evidence that,

until there was a decision made to provide a rail link from Navan to Dublin, there was no

point in trying to compare the use of a rail link with a road. When Mr. O'Sullivan replied

that he believed a decision in principle had been made, Mr. Butler asked him to point out

in the SPGs where it said a decision had been made and Mr. O'Sullivan said he could not

point to it in the SPGs, but that there was a very strong recommendation in them and he

said that as the SPGs had been accepted in the Meath CDP this had a statutory force

behind it. Mr. Butler suggested there was only an aspiration but no decision made and

Mr. Butler referred to his comment of the CDP affording protection to areas of high

amenity such as the Boyne and Blackwater Valeys and the Hills of Tara and Skreen and

asked if he accepted the preferred route did not cross any of the listed views referred to at

Tara or Skreen. Mr. O'Sullivan said he was not an expert on listed views or an architect

so he could not definitely answer one way or the other but he would have serious worries

about the adverse impact of the road seen visually from Tara as it was shown in the

photographs they had seen on the previous day at the Hearing. When Mr. Butler said he

could not contradict the fact of the preferred route not going through any of the listed

views, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he could neither contradict or not contradict since he

did not have a list of the views before him, nor had he investigated that issue. When Mr.

Butler asked if he was aware that the Pink Route went through listed view V27, Mr. O'

Sullivan said he could not comment and he accepted that all routes crossed the River

Mr. Butler referrred to his comments about legally protected acquatic species and his

statement of the EIS saying there were no records of lampreys in these rivers and of the

crayfish and pearl mussel not being recorded in any of the 10 km. squares crossed and

asked if he accepted that the EIS at paragraph 7.3.4 stated that lampreys were likely to

occur more widely in the River Boyne system. Mr. O'Sullivan accepted this and when

Mr. Butler asked why he did not include this in his evidence, he replied that he had noted

the people who carried out the EIS did not survey the rivers but merely looked at the 10

km. squares, but they had said they might be present. He said he had been in touch with

the ERFB who told him there was evidence of Lampreys and when Mr. Butler suggested

there was no real conflict, Mr. O'Sullivan agreed there was not and said that both had

agreed that Lampreys were extremely likely to be present and that they were a protected

species. Asked if he accepted that the type of mammal he had referred to would quickly

adapt to the road environment, Mr. O'Sullivan said he did not as otherwise one would

never see dead badgers and foxes on roads and when Mr. Butler asked if he disagreed

with Mr. Nairn's view on this matter, he said that he did and that there would be damage

Mr. Butler asked if he would agree that whatever had to be done about greenhouse

O'Sullivan agreed they must be dealt with by Government. Mr. Butler asked if he agreed

that if the N3 remained without any motorway being built that the traffic would increase

to the same extent but Mr. O'Sullivan disagreed with this and said he believed that if the

new M3 was built, it was axiomatic that additional trafic would be induced or generated

by the new road and that would make the task of curbing greenhouse gases more difficult.

Mr. Butler asked what evidence had he to support this belief and Mr. O'Sullivan replied

that it was axiomatic and he thought that it was a well-known phenomenon, which he had

read about in European literature, that new roads induce more trafficv and do not merely

Mr. O'Donnell asked if it surprised him that the Council had now put the Roads Needs

Study to him as the basis for their proposal and Mr. O'Sullivan said that it had since the

Roads Needs Study had clearly said that a dual carriageway was sufficient to cater for

present, future and projected traffic even in the absence of any traffic demand measures.

Mr. O'Donnell asked if the SPGs indicated that all corridors must have two separate

forms of transportation modes and Mr. O'Sullivan said that to be defined as a corridor it

must have a both a road and a rail link. Mr. O'Donnell suggested that there must also be a

raillink if the Council were going to rely on the corridor to support their proposal and Mr.

described as a potential corridor since no rail link existed as yet. Mr. O'Donnell asked if

he was amazed that the Council had not dealt in the EIS with how these two objectives

were to be reconciled when only part of the objective was being provided and Mr.

O'Sullivan said he believed this was seriously undermining the objectives and that the

Mr. O'Donnell referred to Mr. Butler's questions about the landscape issues in the CDP

and the Tara landscape asked if he considered there would be a conflict with the Tara

designation by the provision of the motorway interchange and the ancillary development

and the protection of Tara's historic landscape. Mr. O'Sullivan said he believed there was

a very serious conflict there and this had been reinforced by what he had heard when the

photographs were being discussed. Asked if the failure of Council's Consultants to give

any definite information of the ecology of the different watercourses was thefundamental

difference between them since he had identified the presence of the organisms within the

river system and the Council were not aware whether or not they existed, Mr. O'Sullivan

investigation of all of the flora ansd fauna likely to be affected in both the construction

and operation phases. Asked if he was surprised the Council with their expertise in the

water area were not able to identify the presence of these protected species in the river

system before coming to the Hearing, Mr. O'Sullivan replied that he was surprised, since

The Inspector asked what were the differences, as he perceived them, between a dual

carriageway and a motorway and Mr. O'Sullivan said that, as an environmental scientist,

he saw differences in the greater speeds on the motorway, fewer exits and side turnings, a

much greater landtake and by reason of the higher speeds there would be more generation

of pollutants. The Inspector suggested the speed difference was 70 mph as against 60

mph and Mr. O'Sullivan accepted those were the legal limits but suggested the actual

speed on a motorway was often in excess of 70 mph. The Inspector said he had sought

and had been given a Table which compared the relative widths of the roads in the Needs

Study with those in the motorway proposal and that this Table had been circulated ( See

Section 19.9 and documents listed at Day 5 in Appendix 4 of this Report). He said this

Table showed that the overall width including hard shoulders in the motorway proposal

was less than that for the Roads Needs proposal but Mr. O'Sullivan said he would believe

that a motorway had a greater land take than a dual carriageway and the Inspector

commented there was some difference from the restrictions of access. The Inspector

referred to the map from the "Platform for Change" that Mr. O'Sullivan had submitted

with his Brief of Evidence and suggested there were also maps relating to road upgrading

in that document as well as the map of rail links and Mr. O'Sullivan agreed that there

65. Evidence of Fr. Pat Raleigh, Missionary Society of St. Columban, Dalgan Park,

Mr. O'Donnell said that Fr. Raleigh had been ordained in 1967 and had worked in the

Philippines from 1968 to 1977 and as the Columban Justice and Peace Co-ordinator in

Ireland from 1977 to 1982 and in Pakistan from 1982 to 1992. He had taken an MA in

Spirituality in Berkeley from 1992 to 1994 and that since 1994 he had been the Justice

particularly as Co-ordinator of the Jubilee Campaign to cancel Third World debt. He was

also the Co-ordinator of the Mission Awarenes Centre in Dalgan Park and the Editor of

the Columban Justice and Peace Newsletter "Voices for Justice". Mr. O'Donnell said that

Fr. Raleigh was co-ordinating, on behalf of the Columbans, their objections to the

Fr. Raleigh said that he had given his objections the title of " Preserve the Sacrednes of

Tara and Dalgan" and saw his presentation in the context of Fr. Sean McDonagh's earlier

presentation to the Hearing which was entitled " The Madness of Motorways". He said

that while their objections related to their home as Columban Missionaries, they were

also in solidarity with other people whose lives and homes along the route would be

Fr.Raleigh said that in the Built Heritage section of the EIS Dalgan Park was refered to as

a "Seminary and Nursing Home" and that he would like to point out to the planners of the

motorway that it was much more than a former seminary, nursing home and headquarters

of the Missionary Society of St. Columban. He said he found it mind-boggling that

nothing of the recent developments in Dalgan and Dowdstown were mentioned, or about

the contribution both make to the local community through the wonderful amenities,

wodland and river walks or to the courses that take place in Dalgan and Dowdstown. He

said that very little consultation had taken place even though they had made many

submissions, together with the Bellinter Residents Association, to the Council and, as

could be seen from the correspondence presented by Fr. Peter O'Neill, they had invited

representatives of the Council to Dalgan but that seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. He

said that on Fr. O'Neill's invitation Mr. Crockett, Assistant Co. Manager, had come to

Dalgan where they had outlined for him what happened at Dalgan and Dowdstown and

the contribution both made to the local community. Fr. Raleigh said he found it strange

that nothing of that appeared in the EIS. Fr. Raleigh referred to an article wriiten in the

Irish Times of 13 August 2002 where the NRA spokesman, Michael Egan, was reported

as saying that the overall impact on the environment and people of the area was fully

taken on board and that the Council had done everything to take the concerns of the

Columban Missionaries on board. He said the Columbans found this statement to be

Fr. Raleigh said the EIS was most misleading when it said that the road would cut

through farmland outside the central core parkland of Dalgan Park on page 9 of 23 in

Vol. 4C. He said Dalgan must be taken as one entity and not subdivided and where the

road would cut through would destroy the ethos of the Estate. He said the Council and the

NRA might have all of the technical skills and the proposals might meet the technical

standards but said that what was proposed was soulless and showed scant regard for the

history and importance of the area or for the people of the area and the many others who

would be affected by this preposterous plan. He said that many of his colleagues had

bureaucracy and forms of dictatorship and did not realise that the same forms of

bureaucracy and lack of consultation were very prevalent here in Ireland. He asked if any

of the planners had ever visited Dalgan and the Dowdstown Estate to enjoy its walks and

Fr. Raleigh then described the history of Dalgan and the Dowdstown Estate which, he

said, probably went back to the ownership of the High Kings of Tara with Dowdstown

becoming the property of the local chieftains in 550 AD when the High Kings left Tara.

He said that a Church was built on the Estate at a later date and all of its land had an

immense historic value due to its proximity to Tara. He said that following the Norman

invasion the Church was handed over to St. Mary's Abbey in Dublin and the land became

part of Athlumney Castle whose stewards occupied the farm which in 1690 consisted of

184 acres, the Church and a farmhouse. He said that after the Battle of the Boyne the 251

acre Estate was granted to Robert Rochford and by the end of the 18th century it had

become the seat of Thomas Taylor, a retired British General who had a demesne of about

590 acres of which some 240 acres were plantations. He said General Taylor was one of

three generals who fought at Waterloo and he had laid out the property with trees planted

in groups in the pattern of the troops before the Battle of Waterloo with tall trees

signifying the officers. He said General Taylor built Dowdstown House as it was today

and that various families lived in it for periods, including Geoffrey Hone the uncle of

Fr. Raleigh said the "Maynooth Mission to China" was founded in 1918 by Fr. Edward

Galvin who was on loan to Brooklyn from the Diocese of Cloyne and Fr. John Blowick

from Mayo who was a lecturer in Maynooth, both educated at Maynooth and the first

revolutionary idea at the time and they took their patron as St. Columban who was an

Irish missionary monk who had founded many monasteries in Europe. He said it was the

first indigenous Irish Missionary Society and was followed over the next 35 years by

many others including St. Patrick's Kiltegan, Holy Rosary Sisters, Killeshandra, Medical

Missionaries in Drogheda. He said the conditions in Shrule were rather basic and as more

students arrived it became too small and that in 1926 Frs. John Blowick and James

Kennedy bought Dowdstown Estate on behalf of the Maynooth Misssion to China using a

gift of �2000 to open negotiations, which concluded with the purchase of Dowdstown

House, other buildings and about 500 acres of land for �12000 to make this the

headquarters of the Missionary Society of st. Columban in 1927. He said that over 1937

to 1941 the new college and seminary were built on the grounds to cater for the huge

intake of students and that from 1941 to 1977 St. Columbans remained a seminary, with

many young men from Ireland going from Dalgan to missions in China, Philippines,

Fr. Raleigh said that as a Missionary Society since 1977 they had been challenged by the

changing face of missions today with the negative effects of globalisation being

horrendous, one of which was the devastation of the richness and vitality of life systems

on earth. He said that many species faced extinction and the very survival of crucial lifesystems

planet and in the service of consumer values by a globalised monoculture, the well-being

of the vast majority of the world's population and the planet were being undermined. He

said that this environmental degradation was why concern for Justice, Peace and Integrity

of Creation had been a central theme of their missionary activity for the past 20 years

and that this had been consolidated at the 2000 Columban General Assembly in Sydney.

He said that in applying this to the proposed motorway it was sheer vandalism that was

being put forward, and that it was mind-boggling to contemplate putting a motorway

Fr. Raleigh said that St. Columbans College and Dowdstown House were set in the rich

and beautiful pastureland of Co. Meath in an estate of some 540 acres, and that looking

out from the front door to the Hill of Tara makes you aware of it being an historic and

sacred area with the panoramic and scenic view of the beauty of the place. He said the

strolling along the banks of the Skane and Boyne rivers in the grounds of the Estate. He

said the grounds in Dalgan had 6 kms. of scenic woodland and river walks and was

situated in the centre of the Boyne Valley and in Tara's shadow, where wildlife abounded

in the grounds which was a nature reserve. He said such animals as the fox, otter, red

deer, hare, mink, squirrel field mice, hedgehog and bats could be seen and that birds such

as the thrush, wren, chaffinch, goldcrest, blackbird, dipper, robin, kingfisher, swans,

pheasant, herons were plentiful. He said there were about 50 acres of their land under

trees which included very many mature trees decades old and also 25 acres of newly

varieties in the woodlands and hedgerows. He said the woodlands had many varieties and

Maple, Chestnut, Scots Pine and Cypress. He said the Skane and Boyne rivers flowed

through the Dalgan grounds and were natural habitats for salmon spawning and that there

were salmon, trout, minnow, stickleback and eels in both rivers. Fr. Raleigh said that to

destroy such a wonderful amenity with a motorway would be a great loss that could never

be replaced and it would be an act of desecration and he said that, if the motorway went

Fr. Raleigh said that the EIS suggested Dalgan Park was now a static place as a former

seminary and now a retirement home but that this was far from the truth as he would now

show and he said that any attempt to put a motorway through the property would greatly

endanger the ethos of the place and its contribution to the community and be an example

of economic development taking precedence over human and spiritual development. He

said that it had been the generosity of the ordinary people of Ireland, and not big

business, who had supported their missionary effort and the Columbans had seen the

great need, over the past number of years, to return something for this generosity and that

one of the ways to do this was by making the place more accessible to the community

Fr.Raleigh said that in spite of all of the advances made in the world and in Ireland,

people now experienced a greater level of stress due to the high demands of work and

from having to commute more and they had less time for leisure and play. He said that a

faith that stood the values of the modern world on its head by consumerism should be

able to say that the purpose of the economy was to free people to enjoy true leisure. He

said that through the initiative of Fr.Sean Holloway and the FAS program the Columbans

created over 6 kms. of woodland and river walks in Dalgan some years ago. He said that

while St. Columbans was not a public park, they were pleased that people from Navan

and other parts of Meath as well as from elsewhere enjoyed these walks amid the peace

and tranquillity of Dalgan. He said that people travelled for miles to visit and that it was

estimated some 35000 people visited Dalgan annually simply to enjoy the recreational

aspects of the walks. He said there were no other such amenities or facilities around with

Fr. Raleigh said the NRA plan to put part of the motorway through this haven of peace in

the name of economic progress would commit a grave act of injustice and desecration

and said that what was proposed was one form of development at the expense of another,

more precious, development and one that promoted peace and tranquility for the person

who had already endured enough stress. He said the proposed plan was on a collision

course with the sacredness of the beautiful land and the proposed motorway would

deprive many people from enjoying the peacefulness of the walks along rivers that were

the natural habitats for salmon and other fish. He said people would be deprived of

leisure to enjoy the soothing noise of the Skane as it joined the Boyne as the peace and

tranquillity of the place would be destroyed. He said they would experience the loss of

bird habitats if the ill-advised plans went through, with more and more noise from cars

swishing by at an accelerated speed, with 8 out of every 10 cars having only one person

Fr. Raleigh said the Dalgan Farm was a farm with a difference and was a source of great

enjoyment for walkers as it was an integral part of the landscape and he said that it could

almost be regarded as an open farm since so many people used the walks through its

fields and woodlands and with many plantations and copses of mature trees forming its

boundaries. He said that over 30000 indigenous trees were planted over 1988 to 1996 on

25 acres, that the river Boyne bordered the west side of the property and the river Skane

flowed through the central area with its mature parklands, all adding to the overall

aesthetic value which contributed to the enjoyment of people who came for Retreats or

Conferences and for the general public. He said the Farm Management ensured that the

best practices were followed, they were ever conscious of European directives and strove

to run the farm as organic as possible by being environmentally friendly. He said Teagasc

had recently undertaken a feasibility study to show what would be the difference between

their present conventional type of farming as against less intensive farming and being

fully organic and that study showed their income would be greatly depleted if 40 acres

was lost to the proposed motorway. He said the area being farmed was about 400 acres

and the CPO would take about 40 acres which cut diagonally through a 70 acre field on

the west side of the Boyne. He said the land being severed was in 3 divisions and was of

about 60 acres and that access to the severed lands would be difficult and dangerous for

farming due to the steep gradient of the proposed access roads. He said the motorway

would interfere with the developed walking areas and would subject them to traffic noise,

Fr. Raleigh summarised the Farming problems associated with the proposed motorway :-

Flyover wpuld cause difficulty for tractors and trailers to and fron severed land

He said that the main effect on the farm program would be the temporary and permanent

disturbance, the cost of servicing the severed lands in future and the depreciation of these

lands and said that the Teagasc study had indicated an annual loss of income by the 40

Fr.Raleigh then read from a selection of the letters he had received from people who

enjoyed the woodland and river walks in Dalgan which, he said, did not include the 500

or so objections sent in to the Council in July and August 2000. He said that over a period

of 10 days in August 2002, when he knew the Hearing would be starting on 21 August,

he and Fr. John McEvoy collected over 190 petitions from people and he could have got

lots more. He said these were the voice of the people and he presented an envelope to the

Inspector that contained these letters/petitions ( Note -- These are detailed at the end of

I am writing to say how sorry and alarmed I am to learn the M3 motorway is to pass

through the grounds of Dalgan Park. These grounds are a great amenity to the Navan,

Bective, Tara, Kilmessan, Dunshaughlin and other areas as there are few areas in Meath

where you can walk in peace and tranquillity. Dalgan is far and away the best and is

convenient to many people, families, couples and the elderly can walk there without

being hassled. This is most important in an age of stress and to help people to relax and

unwind. It would be a total disaster if this amenity were lost to Co. Meath. You are taking

your life in your hands if you walk on the roads of Meath as they are so congested with

speeding motorcars. We of Rataoth ICA sincerely hope that sense will prevail and that

It is with great sadness that I write to you. As an avid lover of Dalgan Park, its beauty,

peace and tranquillity, I feel it is a terrible mistake to run the new M3 across its rolling

fields. I have four boys and we love going to Dalgan. The walks provide such a wide

variety of interesting things for little people from squirrels, rabbits, birds, fish and a huge

variety of flora and trees. Endless games and discoveries can be found in its grounds.

This haven will be destroyed by tons of concrete and the roar of traffic. And for what

purpose? I believe that the building of this motorway wil provide little benefit to our

locality. Commuters to Dublin will not get there much faster. If anything they will get in

queue quicker to queue for longer to join gridlock. The billions of euros being poured

into this project would be better put to use by building town bypasses and a railway line.

I am writing as a frequent user of the wonderful facilities that the Columbans offer us, the

peopleof Meath, at Dalgan Park. With the complete lack of safe and pleasant walking

areas in Navan, I have become very dependant on walking in your lovely grounds. It is a

facility to be treasured in these days of increasing noise and pollution. It is with this in

mind that I would like to register my shock and disgust at the proposal to build a

motorway through the beautiful and tranquil lands of Dalgan. The area in question is one

of the few places where a walker in Meath can stand still and enjoy the sound of almost

silence, other than birds and perhaps the very faint and distant murmur of traffic. I never

fail to stop and enjoy these very precious moments. In the Autumn as I walk along the

river walks the only sound, apart from the water, is that of the leaves falling into the river.

I an devasted that this area of peace and tranquillity may disappear and would like to

offer my assisstance in ensuring such an outcome is avoided. We are so rapidly ruining

the beauty of Ireland and all in pursuit of materialism and its so-called comforts. What

sort of legacy will we leave for the next generation? Previous generations fought to allow

us the freedom to enjoy our land and now we are busy desytroying that legacy, to our

eternal shame. I would like to thank the Columbans for sharing their lovely grounds with

us and in return offer my solidarity in their fight to preserve such a wonderful but

threatened amenity. Keep up the good fight. " ( Note -- There are Eight other letters in

Fr. Raleigh said the two main buildings on the Estate were St. Columbans College and

Dowdstown House ( the Blowick Retreat Centre) and that to some people it might seem

they were just buildings where nothing took place, but he would now outline the various

courses and activities that took place in these two centres. He said that central to the wide

variety of activities in both places was the peace and tranquillity and space of the

surroundings and he said that the ill-advised motorway would destroy for many this

Fr. Raleigh said that St. Columbans college, with the main door looking at the historical

Hill of Tara, was home to Columban missionaries, and was formerly a seminary where

many trained for overseas missions but was now a place of rest for those on home leave

from Asia and Latin America. He said that an integral part of the complex was the

Retirement Home for their sick and retired Columbans who had spent many years on

overseas missions. He said it was also a Centre for Mission, Education and spirituality

and it was now recognised in a worldwide context as a Conference centre and home to

numerous conferences and seminars on matters of national and international interest. He

said that many of these conferences related to the environment and that Fr. Sean

McDonagh, Columban Environmentalist, Anthropologist and Theologian had higlighted

that concern for Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation had been a central theme of their

missionary activity since 1985 in his presentation to the Hearing. He said it was vitally

important in the construction of the new motorway that this central theme of the

Fr. Raleigh said that for the past 10 years the Mission Education Department at St.

Columbans had been offered workshops on issues relating to Justice, awareness of World

debt and its crippling burden on the poor, abuses of human rights, asylum seekers,

relationships of major religions to issues of ecology and justice and workshpops on

ecology. He said the workshops aimed to raise awareness and to facilitate transformative

action for change and were geared particularly for senior second-level students and young

adults. He said that an estimated 4000 students yearly had participated in these

ecology were of particular interest to students and the aim of that day of reflection was to

help young people to re-discover the importance of their relationship with the earth and

exploitation. He said that a guided walk through the woodland and river walks was an

integral part of the ecology workshops and that students were given an opportunity on

these walks to reflect on the great diversity that Dalgan offered in trees, plants, animals

and birds. He said the audio-visual room in Dalgan, with its wide range of videos on the

environment and of Dalgan itself, provided the students with an oportunity to further

engage with the need for a deeper appreciation of the environment. He said that putting a

motorway through Dalgan, and particularly along the area of the river walks, would

Fr. Raleigh said that the Mission Education Department had organised a number of Open

Days centred on themes of multi-culturalism and ecology over recent years and that these

were geared towards people from Navan and surrounding areas, with people also coming

from Dublin and elsewhere. He said well over 1000 people had participated on each

open day, where, in additon to participating in guided walks, they experienced the peace

He said that in 1995 a new Mission Awareness Centre was opened in Dalgan where the

audio-visual centre used music, image and video to tell the story of the Columban

missionaries and the cultures they worked in. He said one section dealt with ecology and

the destruction of the environment at global level and that by visiting the Centre and

particularly the ecology section, people could realise how much our environment was at

risk. He said the spacious nature of the grounds, woodland and river walks offered people

the opportunity to become more aware of the graciousness of God's creation and he said

that thousands of people had visited the Centre since 1995. He said these visits to the

Centre had encouraged people to return to enjoy the walks and that it would be an act of

Fr.Raleigh said that many groups of international visitors came to Dalgan regularly,

particularly during the summer months, drawn by their association as an International

Misssionary Society with St. Columban who founded many monasteries and centres of

learning in Europe. He said that in recent weeks they had two groups of German visitors

with 45 in each group; a group of 35 students from many parts of the world studying in

Maynooth; and a further 40 from France. He said there were groups from Chile, Korea,

Peru, Japan, China, Fiji, Pakistan and the Philippines that visited Dalgan and that one of

the things they found attractive there was the beautiful spacious grounds free from noise

and pollution. He said that a number of these overseas visitors had remarked on how

lucky they were to have such amenities and that they should never let them be destroyed.

He said that because the Columban Society was mission oriented and with Tara and the

Boyne Valley close beside Dalgan, the staff of the Mission Education Centre could help

these international visitors explore theur historical and missionary roots and that in

addition to guiding them through the woodland and river walks of Dalgan, they are taken

to Tara, Skreen, Newgrange and Bective. He said this focus was linking the past with the

present in the context of today's Missionary challenges and that this concept would be

Fr. Raleigh said that Navan was twinned with Bobbio in Northern Italy, the burial place

of St. Columban in July 2002, when a delegation from Navan went to Bobbio, and that

Municipality would be present. He said that the Navan Town Council and the Columbans

worked together to highlight the twinning and that prior to the twinning a delegation from

Bobbio had come to Navan and visited Dalgan Park. He said the translator for the visit

had enjoyed the river walks and that later on, when asked how she and the delegation had

enjoyed their visit to Dalgan, she had remarked how sad it would be to see a motorway

Fr. Raleigh said that over the past number of years St. Columbans, Dalgan Park and

Dowdstown had hosted many National and International Conferences on a wide range of

issues on Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation and that many religious congregations

of Priests, Sisters and Brothers held their Provincial Assemblies in Dalgan, including

Missionaries of Mary, Christian Brothers, Patrician Brothers and the Irish Missionary

Union AGM. He said the Federation of Contemplative Sisters of Ireland held their

assemblies there and the Carmelite Communities were meeting there as he spoke. He said

Dalgan also hosted the Summer School reunion for graduates from Mount St. Oliver in

Drogheda and that over 100 participants had gathered in Dalgan from all over the world

for an ecumenical conference on China. He said that the Columbans had hosted a 3-day

seminar on Globalisation and Ecology in Dalgan in May 2002 and that Dalgan was also

the venue for the Meath Peace group meetings, with other groups using the facilities

being Al-Anon, the Tara Bridge Club, and Amnesty International. He said that each Lent

dalgan hosted Lenten Talks which recently focussed on Ecology and Care for the Earth

and that Bradan House, part of the Dalgan complex, ran a drug rehabilitation program for

addicts with AA meeting there thrice weekly. He said one of the reasons for Dalgan and

amenities, the woodland and the river walks and because it was a peaceful and tranquil

Fr. Raleigh said that the Columbans were in the process of creating an Arboretum and a

Meditation or Reflection area in the grounds of Dalgan to highlight the integrity, vitality

and sanctity associated with their Patron, St. Columban, and said that it was appropriate

to initiate this in recognition of St. Columban's great missionary endeavour in founding

monasteries, places of learning and quiet reflection in Europe and with Dalgan located at

the foot of Tara, Ireland's most famous ancient religious site. He said that Dalgan was

recognised for its Centre for Mission Studies and its grounds had become the focal point

for people to relax in a quiet and natural setting and said that the aim of this twodimensional

reflection. He said the Meditation area looked out at Tara and the 14th century Cistercian

ruin and was set in a copse of 38 trees and would give people the opportunity for peace

and stillness. He said they envisaged that the addition of a piece of sculpture would serve

to focus people's attention on the Columban bias of respect for the sanctity of creation.

overlooking the Skane and Boyne rivers --as well as the pasture land where the motorway

was planned to run -- would incorporate many of the existing trees and would have as its

backdrop the tall trees surrounding Dowdstown House. He said that when completed, the

project would further honour the local landscape and the memory of the many religious

figures that were part of the area's activity. He said the Arboretum and Meditation area

would further enhance Dalgan as a place of reflection and meditation and allow people to

escape from the pressures of today's life style and that it would also provide an

opportunity to inform people about local, national and international cultures and

environments. He said that additional trees, that were native to the countries where

Columbans worked, would be planted in the Arboretum area so that a walkway through

the garden would unfold the Columban journey in a planned outdoor setting. He said that

this project, called the "Sun Under Tara Project" had been used as a theme of the Mission

Fr. Raleigh said that for over 20 years St.Columbans had been the location for The Faith,

Mission and growth for Ministry Programs in association with the Irish Missionary union

and that an average of 40 people participated in these twice yearly live-in sabbatical

programs. He said the participants included Irish returned missionaries and those going

on cross-cultural mission for the first time as well as participants from Africa, Asia, Latin

America, Australia, Britain and Europe. He said the Renewal for Ministry Programs at

supportive and peaceful environment and also provided space for people to pause and

reflect. He said the programs offered a Holistic renewal in a multi-cultural community of

men and women, the opportunity to foster a more contemplative life and individual

accompaniment on the journey of self-discovery and renewal as well as being able to

participate with and enjoy the company of those on the same journey. He said there was

an emphasis on environmental concern and care for earth which Dalgan, through its

beautiful woodland and river walks, so aptly provided as well the opportunity to visit

prehistoric and ancient sites such as Tara, Newgrange, Glendalough and others. He said

that being set in 500 acres of parkland and woods, with the wildlife sanctuary and the

Skane and Boyne rivers in the grounds, Dalgan offered an ideal setting for rest and

relaxation and for people to get in touch with the basic natural rhythms of life which had

been lost in the pressures of modern living. He said that, over the years, the one thing

where Dalgan really helped the participants was in its peaceful surroundings and walks

and that putting a motorway through this sacred place would be an act of grave injustice.

Fr. Raleigh then outlined the details of a part-time MA degree program in Ecology and

Religion/ Theology that the Columbans would be offering in Dalgan from September

2002 in association with the Irish Missionary Union Institute. He said it had become

evident to many people around the world, during the past few years, that if the human

community continued to abuse the environment future generations would be forced to

live on a ruined planet and said that in January 2001 Pope John Paul 11 had called for an

ecological conversion. He said their MA program would address issues of science and

ecological problems both locally and globally in the light of the Christian faith and the

insights of other religions. He said the program would be of interest to those promoting

ecological awareness in schools and the wider community and who wished to link this to

Society of St. Columban in 1927 and was re-dedicated as a Retreat and Pastoral Care

Centre by the Bishop of Meath, the late Bishop John McCormack, in 1981 when it was

named as the "Blowick Retreat Centre" after one of the co-founders of the Society and

that it had been leased to the Diocese by the Society and was being run as a Retreat and

Pastoral Centre by the Sisters of Mercy. He said that groups touring the Boyne Valley

could avail of the Centre where there was residential accommodation -- 25 single and 50

shared rooms -- as well as Meeting Rooms, a Conference Centre, Coffee Room, a Chapel

and Prayer room for retreats and the spacious grounds were available to people from all

walks of life. He said that Dowdstown House now served as a Conference Centre and

Retreat House and, with its panoramic view of the Boyne River and being set in some of

the richest pastureland in Co. Meath, it was ideally located for people to escape from the

rat race of modern day living. He said that up to 50 people were facilitated every

weekend, coming from surrounding areas, the inner city, various parts of Europe and

comfort and space to those who needed it most and that there was an active counseling

centre based in Dowdstown that helped people to engage more fully in life and he said

that people who engaged in bereavement and suicide support groups were enhanced by

the setting and beauty of the place as it was all-important to provide a peaceful and

private facility for people needing space. He said that Dowdstown House was basically a

centre for holistic and spiritual healing and that its basic requirement was space and a

peaceful environment to assist the healing process. He said that about 10000 people used

the facility annually and he listed the various courses offered in Dowdstown in his Brief

Fr. Raleigh said that interference with the grounds both from the Dalgan and Dowdstown

perspective and from the wide range of courses, conferences and retreats offered would

result in people not availing of the Centres and said the future and livelihood of both

places would be at stake, if there were to be any interference with the grounds of the

Estate. He said this was particularly true of Dowdstown House since it faced in the

direction of the proposed motorway. He said that many people would be deprived of

services that were so much in demand in the present stressful climate of modern day

living and said that the main attraction of the Dowdstown historic house would be

diminished with the intrusion of a motorway through the grounds of Dalgan, since it

Fr. Raleigh said he hoped this sharing with the Hearing of the ethos of Dalgan and the

Missionary Society of St. Columban would have gone some way to dispel the myth in the

He said that the tapestry of their Columban journey and spirituality was woven from their

experience of mission and from the stories and experiences of those they worked with in

Asia and Latin America and that their journey had led them outward where God met

them in the painful cry of the poor, in lonely faces of migrants and refugees, in injustices

in the world and in devastation of nature. He said they saw the gospel call to promote

Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation as being integral to their lives as Columban

Missionaries. He said it was no accident that Dalgan was situated close to Tara and the

exploitation of either land or people unless people gave up the idea that economic growth

and development was the aim and that land and people were only the tools, or means, to

achieve that aim. He said that way of seeing things gave no value and no purpose to

Fr. Raleigh said that putting a motorway through Dalgan in the name of so-called

offered leisure, relaxation and peace to so many people. He then read from a letter from

Claire Oakes, Bellinter, which had been published in the "Meath Chronicle" on 17

" I find it disturbing that people seem to think for themselves less and less. It is amazing

how many people believe that a motorway to Dublin will solve the transport problems

commuters experience. Surely even limited reflection will reveal that getting to join an

ever lengthening tailback at the M50, in addition to arriving in a city sliding relentlessly

into gridlock, with no parking space is not going to solve much. Even if on reflection a

new motorway still seemed desirable, how can we not take into account the cost? Apart

from the wholeissue of the colossal financial cost, how can we justify the rape of what is,

according to the consultant archaeologist on the M3, "one of the richest and best known

archaeological landscapes in Europe -- the Tara -- Skryne Valley". In addition, how can

we condone the destruction of a unique and beautiful amenity in dalgan so generously

Fr. Raleigh concluded his Evidence by reading two vignettes dealing with Caring for the

Earth. One was from Chief Seattle on "Teach your Children" and said in part that " The

earth does not belong to us we belong to the earth" and the other was a Columban

"Creation Prayer" which started by saying " To Care for Earth is to, share with God in the

Note -- Fr. Raleigh handed a covering letter to the Inspector with the package of

Petitions he handed in to the Hearing. This said the Petitions stated "I am strongly

opposed to the building of the motorway through the back of Dalgan Park. It is the only

natural area where people can safely walk, away from all the traffic and noise pollution. I

urge you to stop plans for the building of this motorway through our natural amenity"

The breakdown of the signed petitions was given as -- 667 from Dalgan walkers; 52

Sisters who held their provincial assembly in Dalgan in august 2002; 52 from the

Federation of Contemplative Carmelite Sisters who also held their assembly there in

August 2002. Another 190 individual letters were enclosed in the package, some of these

were used in Fr. Raleigh's presentation of his evidence and 3 are quoted in this Report.

He also gave details of the breakdown of a further 419 letters that had been sent to the

projects, the Council acknowledging receipt of these on 08/09/2000. This covering letter

Mr. O'Donnell referred to his expression of disappointment to the manner in which the

EIS described the activities that went on in Dalgan Park and asked if silence and a quality

of environment was one of the principal requirements for the successful operation of the

range of activities within that area and it was that which he had the grave concerns about.

Fr. Raleigh replied that while people did not have to be silent when they were in Dalgan

but that the stillness of the place was what gave it the ambience. Mr. O'Donnell suggested

the very silent parts were along the river banks and that it was that silence would be

destroyed by the road and Fr. Raleigh said he and others were worried that it would be

destroyed and that if the motorway went through the pastureland that it would destroy the

most beautiful walk at the end of the Boyne near Bellinter Bridge. He said that it would

come close to the lodge where the 92 year old woman lived and said that if you looked

through the bridge at the River Skane, that was where the slip road would go at the back

of the two houses there and that it was not true to say these would not be impinged upon.

Mr. O'Donnell asked if he was concerned that none of these issues appeared in the EIS

and Fr. Raleigh said he was and that it had been borne out clearly in their evidence that

certain members of the design team had not the faintest idea of what went on in Dalgan

evidence, apart from Mr. Farrelly, had made themselves known to the Dalgan Psark

community and Fr. Raleigh replied that no one approached him and, as far as he was

aware, nobody else in St. Columbans was approached but that Mr. Crockett from the

The Inspector asked that the Council would consult with Fr. Raleigh to have the location

and extent of the walkways that were referred to marked on a map which should cover

all of the Park and show the motorway relative to the walks. He also asked that the

location of internal farm roadways should also be marked on this map. Mr. Butler said

they would arrange for this to be done. ( Note -- A copy of this map was handed in by

Mr. Clarke said he had studied for a Science degree in UCG and had worked in the

mining industry in Canada and with Tara Mines in Navan before joining the OPW as a

Guide at Newgrange and had later worked as Headguide at the Hill of Tara. In the mid

1990s the Columbans asked him to run their Visitor Centre when it opened and he was

Mr.Clarke said that a few years ago the people of Mayo raised objections to proposed

important to desecrate and destroy in the name of development and that reason and

popular will won the day. He said that interference in the ability of a community, either

local or national, in identifying with its symbols of origin and being could not be taken

lightly and said that while the area surrounding Tara could not approach Croagh Patrick

in its physical stature, Tara far surpassed it in terms of history, heritage, archaeology and

native Celtic spirituality. He said that over 100000 people visited Tara, Skryne and

Dalgan annually and about 35000 of these availed of the visitor centres provided by

Duchas at Tara and the Columbans at Dalgan, with rest visiting privately, and said the

Mr.Clarke said that everyone acknowledged the need for infrastructural development but

the the loss must be balanced against the gains and that driving a dual carriageway or

motorway through the richest archaeological zone in the country was not going to do

anything to help Ireland to retain even the merest hint of its uniqueness in the everexpanding

ideas of being new, european, developed, we could not lose sight of our origins and that

from 1990, when there were 27 known archaeological sites on the Hill of Tara, this had

increased four fold by 1995 and was still increasing due to the work of the Discovery

Program and the Meath Archaeological and Historical Society. He said this increased the

knowledge and awareness levels of the surrounding population and had all come from a

non-invasive geophysical prospecting of the region. He said that to actively mine the

region, by excavating for a motorway, was to rape and plunder 6000 years of heritage and

He said that the education of Irish people today and the presentation of Ireland to the

destroying the landscape of the region and its archaeological sites, by ignoring the local

communities and installing a motorway the noise of which would dispel the tranquillity

of the area, we were actively shouting a very loud NO to Ireland and being Irish. He said

Tara should be felt alone and they wanted a very loud STOP. He said the Tara region,

including Skryne, Bellinter, Ardsallagh, Dalgan and Lismullin was a core area of Irish

importance and he said the only site that approached its stature was Newgrange and Bru

na Boinne. He said the development of the motorway would plough through known and

as yet undiscovered sites and permanently remove them from the landscape. He said

more than 33% of our national monuments had been lost to development in the past

century and asked if we had to begin this new century by destroying our greatest.

( covering much the same details as already covered by Fr.Raleigh ) and said that Dalgan

today was a thriving community of trees and farm and people, with people taking part in

courses or visiting as walkers trying to exercise or de-stress. He said that Dalgan, in the

shadow of Tara, helped to provide the necessary outlet for people trying to cope with the

pressures of life and those who needed to find themselves in a world gone mad. He said

that some of the treescape in the landscape of Dalgan was very interesting, with trees

from all round the world providing an atlas of the world and reflecting the connections

Irish people had with the world, and all linked in the 6 km. walkway provided free of

charge by the Columbans to the community. He said the Dalgan arboretum project " Sun

under Tara" had continued the Columban policy of tree-planting and that Sean Boylan

trained the Meath team in Dalgan because of the purity of the air and he asked what the

effects fron thousands of cars would have on the pollution free landscape. He said that the

trees planted to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo in 1825 now vied for fresh air with

Mr. Clarke said the walkways provided a major attraction and were part funded by Meath

increased noise levels and interference with natural water run-off making the remainder

less viable. He said the confluence of the Rivers Gabhra and Skane and of the Skane and

Boyne were important sites in the pre-historic period and that one of the five great roads

coincide with the track leading to the 18th century lime burning kiln in the woodlands

investigation. He said that, given the great archaeological wealth of the region and the

great natural wealth of the Estate, any interference would result in the irreplaceable loss

of one of Ireland's great estates to future generations. Mr. Clarke concluded by saying

that there would be an equal loss in the opportunity to create in the Tara/Dalgan area a

region capable of preserving for the future the essence of being Irish, and the place where

Note - Mr. Searson's main Brief of Evidence contained his general appraisal of the Road

Traffic Noise issues arising from the proposed M3 in the EIS and he had a number of

separate Briefs of Evidence that related to specific locations and for individual affected

landowners. His main Brief of Evidence is being dealt with under Dalgan Park, even

though some of the references do not relate to Dalgan Park issues. Copies of all of Mr.

Searson's Briefs of Evidence were handed in to the Hearing on Day 22 and are listed in

Mr. Searson said he was a Chartered Engineer and was a Member of both the Institute of

Occupational Safety and Health and the Institute of Accoustics and was Principal of

assessments of noise from both the construction of the road and the residual noise when

the road was finished and these assessments were dealt with in Volumes 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7

and were based on two distinct premises, the first being the Prediction Method and the

Vol.11, section 3, part 7 --Traffic Noise and Vibration, with the parameter used being

Mr. Searson said the prediction aspect of CRTN only used one parameter, the LA10

18hour which did not readily translate into LAeq and said that CRTN specified the

measurement being taken close to the fa�ade which gave a higher figure than a free-field

reflection would be about 3dB higher than a LAeq assessed at free-field of 3.5 metres or

more from a reflecting surface and that there was a relationship, of sorts, which equated

LA10 18hour 68dB (A) to LAeq 18hour 65dB (A). He said he had conducted formal tests

on the attenuation of steady-state broad band noise to measure the attenuation of

windows when they were ajar, with ajar meaning a gap of 100mm and said that he found

a difference of 15dB between free-field arrival level, measured at 3.5 metres from the

He said that at a recent Road Traffic Noise conference there was a NRA representative as

a speaker and said that he had asked about the origin of the guidance of CRTN and was

told this came from a particular advisory Enterprise and Mr. Searson suggested that a

Noise Consultant contributing to many EISs also came from that advisory Enterprise and

involved with. Mr. Searson said that the adoption of CRTN would permit an in-room

noise LAeq of about 48 dB(A), ie 63-15, and while this would be acceptable in working

conditions with household equipment operating, it was too high, he said, for restful

conditions like quiet reading where in-room levels of about 35dB(A) were required. He

said the CRTN did not address night time conditions apart from 23000 to 0000 and 0600

Mr. Searson then referred to the LA10 18hour parameter and said that as it was the

arithmetic mean of 18 sequential 1-hour results, it was possible to "hide" one or two

calculations in his Brief of evidence to show how two results of 95 and 110 dB could be

He then referred to the Plate 2 given at page 28 in Vol.3C, and repeated in the other

additional Plates he provided in his Brief. One of these came from an "Overseas" EPA

document of 1999 which gave a bedroom level of 25dB(A) and the second was from the

BRE publication showing a bedroom at night at about 25dB(A). He referred to the WHO

should not exceed 45dB(A) and he said these recommendations were re-affirmed in 1999.

Reduction for Buildings and said that this recommended 30dB(A) for good conditions in

living and bedrooms with 40 and 35 dB(A) respectively for reasonable conditions but that

the LAFmax should not exceed 45dB(A) for a bedroom at night for all cases. He quoted

from page 18 of the BS that reasonable conditions were acceptable for resting/sleeping

with good listening conditions in other rooms and that occupants would usually tolerate

higher levels of anonymous noise, like that of road traffic than noise from neighbours. He

said the WHO made recommendations for outdoor noise in sensitive locations which

included patios, balconies and by inference, he said, gardens which said that to protect

the majority of people from being moderately annoyed the noise level should not exceed

50dBLAeq. He said that BS 8233/1999 noted it was desirable in gardens and balconies

that the steady state noise level did not exceed 50 dB LAeq and that 55 dB LAeq should

Mr. Searson then referred in detail to the origins of CRTN and the use of an external level

of 68dB(A) in the UK to determine if compensation was payable in cases where road

trafficed than Ireland and from a different era, was still being used in the present EISs,

example of what, he said, was the methodology as set out in the UK DMRB of 1994. He

2000/2001 which said road traffic noise was the most widespread source of noise and set

He then referred to an Engineering Design Prediction Method, the "Road Traffic Noise- -

particular standard to predict what such in-room levels would be before a road was

constructed and open to traffic. He described how he had visited the Roads Directorate in

Denmark and had discussed this method with the Road Engineers and Designers there

and had been very impressed by their work. He said that he had taken photographs of

numerous types of noise barriers and absorbers, some of which were transparent to admit

daylight into the shadow zone behind the barrier. He said the free-field target for new or

modified roads in Denmark was LAeq 55dB(A) as their experience was that if that level

was achieved for even a 1-hour week-daytime period, then the night time level would fall

to about LAeq 45dB. He said that, in Denmark, they were currently working on reducing

the noise levels of roads constructed many years ago where the noise levels were above

55 dB(A). He said that there had also been significant reductions in noise emissions from

vehicles over the past 20 years but that none of these benefits would accrue to those

living within about 400 metres of the proposed M3 if that was built as planned in the EIS,

since CRTN was not capable of being adjusted for general societal amenity improvement.

Mr. Searson then referred to construction noise and said the EIS referred to BS 5228, Part

1, 1997 and gave a number of extracts from the references in the EIS on page 96 of

Vol.3A and listed the details in Table 4.9 from Vol.3A of the maximum permissible

limits at adjoining houses during construction. He said it was usual to add a single 5db

penalty onto a measured noise level to give a rated noise level that reflected thetonality of

construction noise and said the noise levels set out in Table 4.9 should have been in terms

of rated limits but they were much too high even for temporary works. He said once the

work was away from a noise sensitive location, which included a garden in BS 5228, the

only limit was that needed for occupational exposure. He said that for noise sensitive

locations the arrival level must not exceed a rated 1 hour LAeq of 65dB(A) and he

referred to a case involving Meath County Council where Mr. Justice O'Donovan granted

Interlocutory Relief on 25 September 2001. Mr. Searson said he subsequently checked

complainants was nicely within the Court ordered limit of a rated LAeq of 65dB(A).

Mr. Searson said there was references to Blasting in the EIS and he quoted an extract

from pages 95 & 96 in Vol.3A and said that BS 5228/1997 contained no limits for the

accoustical parameters associated with the detonation or firing of explosives. He said that

limits in resoect of peak air over-pressure limits were applied to commercial blasting

imposed by the EPA on a mining operation, with dB(L) being denoted Pmax to represent

the peak air over pressure values. He said that where blasting was necessary there had to

be strict Pmax levels imposed where valuable bloodstock particularly mares and foals

were situated and since such animals were not capable of being prepared in advance by

pre-arranged signals, the Pmax for mares and foal must be capped at lower levels that that

for human beings. He described how suitable substantial earthen berms may have to be

put in place where stud farms were involved with timely notification to allow for stock

He said the WHO made recommendations for parkland and that the target there was to

keep the current ambient noise level as low as possible and he stressed the societal

amenity of these unique and one-off locations which, he said, if they were in private

ownership were still amenities of extraordinary value to be preserved. He said the EIS

Mr. Searson concluded his main evidence by saying that if the Council were to address

the reality of what was currently required by using up-to-date prediction methods and

international engineering standards and criteria, as opposed to outdated criteria from the

1970s, and to modify and re-submit the noise and vibration portion of the EIS then he

saw no reason then why the proposed road might not be constructed and finished for the

benefit of all. He said that as matters were presently proposed the individual properties

Mr. Searson said he had attended at Dalgan Park on 19 August 2002 and he described the

noise measuring equipment that he had used and referred to the Book of Photographs he

had handed in to the Hearing. He said that he had taken a series of measurements at a

location 10 metres from the front of Dowdstown House which was shown in photo. No. 5

as this was the nearest occupied part of Dalgan Park to the proposed road. He said the

existing trafic from the N3 was audible and gave the following readings which had been

taken over a 15 minute interval at 18.45 pm :- LAeq 40dB(A); LAFmax 60dB(A); LAF

90 34dB(A); LAF10 42dB(A). He said he had taken a further set of readings at a location

on one of the pathways adjacent to the Skane River at 19.14 pm as shown in Photo. No.6

54dB(A) and said that a turboprop plane flew overhead during the readings. He said that

he took a further reading on a path at the extreme edge of where the path extended to with

the view in Photo. No.7 in a southwesterly direction where the short term reading gave an

LAeq of 38dB(A). He said the final readings were taken at 19.58 pm over 10.26 minutes

at the Gate Lodge to Dalgan Park, which was the closest part of the Columban's property

to the proposed road, and said this was occupied by a Mrs. Lynch and that 11 cars and 2

HGVs went past during the readings. He gave the results as :- LAeq 49dB(A); LAFmax

House where the first reading was taken was about 560 metres from the motorway; the

location on the path at Photo. No.7 was some 230 metres and that at Photo. No. 6 was

Mr. Searson then commented on the readings shown in the EIS for several stations and

said that the noise measurements given for Site 2 in Figure 4.1.3, apparently mid-way

between the Gate Lodge and the motorway, gave very high LAeqs with those for Site 3 at

St. Columban's College being given as 49 to 51 dB(A) which, he said, were higher than

different and he questioned what the weather conditions were like when that was taken.

Mr. Searson said that the 2.2 metre barrier proposed over 900 metres on page 52 of

Vol.4A for receiver location 45 in figure 4.2.3 would also seem to serve receiver location

indicated for the do something with mitigation. He said this would equate to about LAeq

53dB(A) but said this was far too high as the target there should be about 50dB(A) at a

short distance out from the fa�ade. He said that by increasing the mass, size and height of

the barrier and with these extended to about chn.33750 it was likely that the residual

noise would be properly controlled to take in the sensitive nature of this location both

from the activities arranged by the Columban Fathers and the peaceful environment that

was made available freely to the public. He said that it was likely the construction noise

levels set out in his main evidence could, with some attention to detail, be complied with

in respect of the Gate Lodge. He said that as there were no thoroughbred mares or foals

within Dalgan Park the stricter Pmax levels for blasting were not required and a level of

accordance with any particular road traffic noise criteria standard. When Mr. Keane

asked if he was criticising the way in which the readings in the EIS for the Dowdstown

knowledge of what the weather conditions were like since the EIS was silent on that point

and agreed that he was not suggesting it was too windy to have taken readings, adding

that we did not know. Mr. Keane asked what were the parameters used in Denmark that

he had referred to and when told it was the LAeq and LAF max, asked if the maximum in

daytime was 55 dB LAeq. Mr. Searson said that this was used in daytime for sensitive

areas in and around houses and built-up areas where they looked for a free-field LAeq.

He said that in the middle of the countryside they might use different criteria. Mr. Keane

asked what arrival time was he advocating for the Dalgan Park area (or the Peters house)

and, after some discussion about the methodology which he felt should be used in the

design and the Inspector asking him to be more precise, Mr. Searson said that it should be

Mr. Keane then referred to the comparison he had given between the arithmetic and

logarithmic versions and suggested that his use of a figure of 110 for traffic was beyond

the bounds of possibility. Mr. Searson said the reason it was used was to show that the

arithmetic version did not have a safety net which the logarithmic one did but Mr. Keane

said it was an unrealistic figure since it would require AADTs of about 320 million

vehicles. Mr. Searson accepted that but said he was drawing a comparison and that there

was no protection for people in the use of 67 in the CRTN. A discussion followed about

the rationale for using LAF10 18hour instead of the LAeq and the CRTN method instead

of more up-to-date methods and with Mr. Searson suggesting the the present method

being used originated from the Wilson Report of the 1960s. Mr. Keane said several of his

measurements were taken as late as 8pm and asked if he would accept that a comparison

of those to measurements taken during peak business hours was not a valid comparison.

Mr. Searson said that there was still traffic at those times and he referred to the 11 cars

and 2HGVs that passed when he was measuring for a short time at Dalgan Park Gate

Lodge. Mr. Keane asked if he had ever done noise modeling of the type done for the EIS

and Mr. Searson said he had not and that he was not there to present noise modeling but

did keep himself abreast of up-to-date happenings in the field of noise engineering. Mr.

Keane asked if he accepted that a level of 60dB LAeq would give rise to internal daytime

levels of 45 dB LAeq and nighttime levels of 35 dB LAeq using his own calculations and

Mr. Searson replied that with an ordinary window being ajar by some 100 mm, then it

Mr. Keane said he had referred in his comments about blasting that timing notifications

for moving bloodstock should be in the EIS and he suggested that it was already there

and gave page 160 in Vol. 6A as an example. When Mr. Searson said there was nothing

about this under the section on noise from blasting and Mr. Keane said it was included

under construction mitigation ( Note -- Under "Noise and Dust"). Mr. Keane asked if he

was aware of the CTRN remaining in force and applicable in the UK in 2002 and Mr.

Searson replied that it was a statutory thing and it would take an Act of Parliament to

The Inspector said that he had referred to the need to cap the arrival level of the Pmax for

foals and mares below that appropriate for residents but that he had not indicated the

level of a reduction he was suggesting was appropriate. Mr. Searson said that possibly 20

dB below that and the Inspector said that there would not be blasting for road works at

Mr. Keane asked where was Mr. Searson saying that the 105 should be applied and when

Mr. Searson said that it was at whatever location that they had been moved to, Mr. Keane

suggested the purpose of the timing notification was to have them moved but Mr. Searson

said it applied even after they had been moved and a discussion followed about the

susceptibility of mares and foals to sudden or loud noises and how these might be masked

with the Inspector saying he noted that Mr. Searson said a reduction of 20 would do.

Mr. O'Donnell asked if there was a criticism of the Dowdstown House area EIS reports

because they failed to do as he had done by giving details of the weather conditions and

Mr. Searson said it was a shortcoming and he had been puzzled by the differences in the

two sets of readings when he had got very low ones there. Mr. O'Donnell then referred to

the Council's witness not being able to say what the conditions were but Mr. Keane

intervened and said that he had produced records of what the wind measurements were.

Mr. O'Donnell then asked if there would be a difference in terms of the impact from an

increase in noise levels that occurred over a long period gradually as distinct to a sudden

increase in the level of noise. Mr. Searson said there was a huge difference both from its

effect and how people got used to the noise and said that when it was gradual people

O'Donnell then asked if he was aware of any assessment having been made in Ireland on

the design standards used for road traffic noise and Mr. Searson said he thought that

nothing had been done on that. Mr. O'Donnell then asked what the Wilson Report that he

had mentioned was about and Mr. Searson said it was a report by a Royal Commission in

the UK in 1962 they looked at noise levels in the countryside and was the first time levels

Mr. Searson said he attended the McCarthy home on 15 August 2002 as requested by Mr.

Sudway of Sudway & Co. and described his equipment and procedure as in his visit to

Dalgan Park above. The measuring position used, as shown in Photo. No. 2, was located

3.5 metres from the projected edge of the house, adjacent to the lamppost seen near the

porch in the photograph and was some 35 metres from the edge of the existing N3 where

road works were in progress with road planing of the surface and an abrupt ramp in place.

Mr. Searson said that the McCarthy were involved in the breeding and bringing-on of

thoroughbred mares and foals and that the proposed motorway would pass to the south

relatively high levels he had measured could be expected. He said that the motorway ran

through their land for a considerable distance which would impact of the blodstock and

He said that the McCarthy's house was neither measured nor predicted for in the EIS but

there was a measurement location at Garlow Cross, location 11 in Figure 4.1.3, with

locations 40 & 41 being the closest to their house as shown in Figure 4.2.3 for the

predicted levels. He said that the 15 minute LAeq of 63dB(A) for location 11 on page 64

of Vol.4A was significantly higher than the measurements he had taken. He said that no

mitigation measures were proposed on page 52 for locations 40 & 41 and he said that the

predicted LAF10 for location 41 was equal to 69dB(A) on page 68 ( Note -- without

Mr. Searson said that no measures were proposed to reduce the noise for either the

construction or operation of the motorway in the EIS and he said that special provisions

would be required during any blasting for the reasons set out in his main evidence. He

said that advance and close liaison would have to be established with the McCarthys to

arrange how their bloodstock and livestock could be rotated into paddocks as far away

from the construction work as possible, and he mentioned a four week period as the

minimum advance notice required. He said temporary earthen berms of substantial height

should be erected along the boundaries while construction work was in progress across

the McCarthy property, but said that once that work had passed the western boundary

these could be discontinued, since distance attenuation should maintain adequate noise

levels. He said that while the motorway construction of the was some 350 metres away

roundabouts would need mitigation during construction, particularly where these came

within about 250 metres of the house. He said that without these the McCarthys would

suffer serious intrusion and said that the implementation of the practical measures he had

outlined in his main evidence would enable these road works to proceed in an orderly

manner, with a controlled short term impact on the McCarthys, so that when finished the

Mr.Bergin said that there was evidence given that the only funding for the M3 was as a

tolled road and this meant the alternative of an untolled road did not exist or was an

unrealistic possibility. He said that the alternatives considered for the design were

Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells and said that when it was decided to join these together,

no attempt appeared to have been made to design an independent scheme from Clonee to

Kells. He said that it was unclear what the relationship was between the Council, the

applicant was in this instance before the application was considered. He asked who

would be responsible for trespass or damage occurring outside the CPO takeline if the

scheme proceeded on a PPP basis and suggested landowners would have to take legal

action against the contractor unless the Council or NRA accepted full responsibility for

Mr. Bergin questioned how accommodation works could be agreed on at present when

elements of the design might vary in the contractor's design and suggested the Council

would no longer be interested in the accommodation works issue when the contract

commences as they would be focussed on implementing the contract and he said clients

might have to be advised to defer settling their claims until all works were completed. He

said the proposed M3 crossed the Kilmessan to Navan railway line and sought assurances

that the scheme provided for the upgrading of this railway line to include a second track

effects of a direct rail link from Dublin to Kilmessan and Navan on the road requirements

and said this did not appear to have been evaluated. He suggested that the lack of funds

to build a dual carriageway linking the previously designed by-passes of Dunshaughlin,

Navan and Kells, which could not then be tolled, was the reason why an upgrading of the

He said that the drawings submitted for the toll plaza were totally inadequate and that it

had been stated the design would vary depending on the contractor and asked who would

make the final application for planning permission in that case. He also submitted that

every bridge and the toll plaza would require planning permission as their construction

was "development", as was that of the road. He said the diversion of the Tolka River was

a major cause for concern and details of the diversion should have been included in the

published drawings and not be hidden as a private arrangement between the Council and

Mr. Bergin referred to the estimated 1.2 M cubic. metres of imported fill required to

complete the project and the disposal of 0.49M cubic metres of unsuitable fill off-site and

said the Hearing was told that the location of borrow pits and disposal areas was for a

commercial decision to be by the contractor with the Council accepting that no details of

these locations were provided. He asked if that meant the PPP contractor would make

separate applications for each site to avoid possible delays by third parties if one overall

application was made, or would it be the owners of the pits/areas that would make these

applications. He said there could be endless delays with financial implications for such

proposals and that could mean the target of completion by the end of the NDP in 2006

earthworks and set out calculations by from which he concluded that using 10 cubic

metre trucks and a 30 week period of 6 working days would require 235 return trips per

day for a 4 year contract or 313 return trips per day for a 3 year contract to transport the

1.69 M cubic metres of material in and out of the site. He said the Hearing was told of an

18 month contract which would increase the trip numbers substantially and said that there

was no mention in the EIS of the damage this would do to the existing road network or to

Mr. Bergin said the scheme would affect 223 farmers directly and require 657 hectares of

land, with the drainage system being designed for a 5 year storm and still complying with

the OPW requirements for pipe sizes to meet a 100 year storm and he said that the system

should be designed for at least a 20 year storm since the french drains would not have

adequate surcharge capacity when the surrounding ground was waterlogged, as was a

frequent occurance in recent years. He said no indication was given of the capacity of the

petrol, interceptors or the frequency of they being cleaned with Figure 7.11.3 of Vol.4A

not giving any assurance that accidental spillages would be adequately dealt with, or

Mr. Bergin said there was a risk that leaving certain details of the scheme to be decided

by the contractor would lead to the scheme being completed as economically as possible

at the cost of a possible unsatisfactory experience for adjoining residents. He suggested

that the scheme would isolate considerable areas of farmlands in Dalgan Park from the

remainder of the holding and questioned the location for the farm access road exit as

being too close to the top of the overbridge. He said the residents of local road L 4009-8

( Ardsallagh Road ) would also be isolated from their existing facility of walking through

recreational facilities available on those lands at present. He said that until such time as

the final access arrangements were in place there would be considerable disruption for all

69. Evidence of David Healy, Environmental Consultant on behalf of Dalgan Park :

Mr. Healy said that his brief had been to review the Air Pollution section of the EIS and

the specialist report on air pollution and to comment on induced traffic issues in the EIS.

He said he had received extracts from the EIS, the Traffic Brief of Evidence by Charles

Richardson and Ernie Crawford's Brief of Evidence on Air Pollution and that he had

Mr. Healy first dealt with Induced Traffic and said that an increase in road capacity lead

to an increase in traffic volumes using the routes in relation to the potential time savings

that had been enabled and that this was particularly so in situations of urban congestion.

He said that this phenomenon had been empirically verified in a number of studies and

was accepted as real by official working groups and review bodies. He said that in the

its report in 1994 and all road proposals in the UK were now required to assess the

Mr. Healy outlined a number of the conclusions from the SACTRA report of 1994 which,

essentially, were that routes should be assessed in their entirety for environmental reasons

and recommended that variable demand methods should become the basis for trunk road

traffic forecasts. He then referred to the report from the OECD European Conference of

Ministers of Transport 105th Round Table in 1996 dealing with Infrastructure-Induced

Mobility which suggested that induced traffic could range from Zero to 40% depending

on circumstances and that the net effect depended on the existing levels of congestion. He

also referred to work by the US EPA on induced traffic within the framework of transport

Mr. Healy said that induced traffic was required to be assessed in the UK and that

procedures were set out for this in the DMRB that was relied on in the M3 EIS for the

design but that it had not been the practice in Ireland until recently to consider this. He

said it had been allowed for in the Kinnegad to Enfield motorway but not in the Westlink

modeling and said that it was not included in the M3 EIS modeling according to Mr.

Richadson's evidence. He said there was no official Irish guidance on the use of variable

demand models and said that the use of a fixed demand model in the M3 case lead to

significant errors in prediction to a degree which would make the proposal unacceptable

in other jurisdictions. He said it was for An Bord Pleanala to rule on the acceptability of

the modeling technique used and he said that it could be expected the road would

generate more traffic than predicted, which was a fundamental flaw in the information in

the EIS, since the levels of air pollution would be underestimated by underestimation of

He said the M3 had the potential to divert traffic currently using the M1/N1 corridor to

the M3/N3, particularly for traffic with a northern origin or destination or for traffic with

a southern origin or destination to the east of the N3 junction with the M50, both of

which would produce different traffic patterns and which, he said, had not been assessed

in the traffic model. Mr. Healy said that he had based that last comment on the Figure 3

in Mr. Richardson's brief of evidence which showed the area modeled but he had now

matrix seemed to indicate that traffic was coming from a wider area. He said that given

the limited amount of information provided to him and that he was not going to carry out

a model exercise, he said he was not in a position to resolve this conflict in the Council's

Mr. Healy then referred to the Air Pollution section in the EIS and said that the results

reported for the PM10 monitoring at location M1 was between 0.33 and 3.96 micrograms

per cubic metre and for location M2 was between 0.88 and 6.88 micrograms per cubic

metre, both being taken using a continuous sampler. He said that both seta were well

below what could be expected at rural unpolluted locations with levels below the natural

background level. He said they could not be given any credance as they were essentially

saying that the air at those locations was cleaner than anywhere else. He said they were

also lower than the modeled values in the EIS and he disagreed with the statement on

page 34 of Vol.4A of they being the same order of magnitude, and suggested that there

was an error in the monitoring equipment or in its use. He said he had requested full

monitoring datasets and when these became available to him he could then make a further

He said that the NO2 diffusion tube monitoring also gave results much lower than the

modeled results and that the results were also much lower than would be expected from a

location beside a major road and he again suggested that there was some error in the

equipment or in its use. He said that the Benzene diffusion tube monitoring, by contrast,

He referred to Tables 3.8 and 3.9 in Vol.4A and said that the data presented in these

geographic pattern and distribution of pollutants and that Mr. Crawford's evidence said

that 3 locations were examined, at the north and south ends and at the nearest location to

the Blundellstown Interchange. He said that in Table 3.7 there was a comparison of

predicted against measured values at 8 locations and said that he had attempted to match

these locations to the map on Figure 3.1 and had found from this that the descriptions of

the two ends were not as he had understood. He said he could not make an evaluation as

there was not enough information supplied and said he would have expected that the

Inspector said that Table 3.4 gave houses and the locations for M1 and M2 and that Table

3.3 just said Blundellstown area for D6. Mr. Healy agreed the monitoring locations were

identified but said the modeling locations were only indirectly identified from Table 3.7.

He said that the correct assessment would have been to have addressed the houses most

likely to have an increased pollution and that this should be evident from the maps

supplied. He said that they had requested further information on the modeling but this

had not been supplied so he was at a difficulty in trying to examine the assessment

claimed to have been carried out. He said he was also surprised to learn from Mr.

O'Donnell that different forms of air pollution assessment had been carried out by

Mr. Healy said that the induced traffic impact on the air pollution was substantial and that

a table in the traffic evidence at page 6 gave growth factors which predicted a 2.7 fold

increase in car traffic to Dublin city centre between 1999 and 2024. He said that it was

physically impossible to have such an increase in car traffic to and from the City Centre,

as the counter point to induced traffic was the fact that a lack of road capacity would

suppress traffic growth, and he said that it was well-known traffic levels entering the City

in the morning peak hour had not changed in 20 years. He said the modeling had been

carried out without acknowledging the capacity restraints and induced traffic, and said

He concluded his evidence by referring to the motorway design as including multiple

roundabouts which had particular difficulties for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians and

asked that the sight and stopping distances be examined to see if they were adequate for

a car travelling out onto the road. He said that if they were not adequate for cars then it

was unacceptable that pedestrians should be asked to cross the road unprotected at that

location He said that members of the public were entitled to use existing roads and that

the difficulties in crossing at roundabouts for pedestrians was, in effect, closing public

Mr. Butler asked if he had undertaken any exercise on Mr. Richardson's traffic figures

which showed them to be incorrect and Mr. Healy said he had not done an exercise as

such but had looked at the methodology used and believed the methodology was bad

since there was no induced traffic or mode competition effects used. When Mr. Butler

suggested that his only criticism of Mr. Richardson was his lack of referring to induced

traffic, Mr. Healy agreed that was his core criticism and also referred to his comment

about the Dublin City Centre traffic which he said he found hard to understand in the

Table he had only received that morning. Mr. Butler asked if he had done any study on

the figures with his induced traffic factored in and Mr. Healy said he had not since

variable demand modeling was quite complicated and was not a role for objectors to

undertake. Mr. Butler accepted that but asked if, in criticising what had been presented,

alternative model but said that the DMRB required where induced traffic was expected

that variable demand models be used. When Mr. Butler asked if he accepted the use of

the DMRB model for traffic prediction, Mr. Healy replied that he had thought it was the

Mr. Butler asked what level was he expecting for the PM10 results and Mr. Healy said it

expect for NO2, Mr. Healy said he would expect to get from 10 to 20 or 30 beside a

major road but that was much more variable than PM10. Mr. Butler then asked him what

he would expect for PM10 in a rural area and not beside a major road and Mr. Healy

replied that for a rural area you would expect 10 or 15 and said this was shown in Table

monitoring was done beside a major road but would depend on the proximity and weather

conditions at particular times. When Mr. Butler suggested a distance of 30 metres from a

road, Mr. Healy said it would depend on which way the wind was blowing and that if it

was towards the monitor there could be a higher level depending on traffic, but that the

background level stayed fairly stable and did not go below 10. Mr. Butler asked if the

same criteria applied to NO2 in relation to traffic, wind and location of the monitoring

device and Mr. Healy agreed the same variability criteria applied. Mr. Butler suggested

that the Blundellstown D6 monitor was about halfway along the scheme and when Mr.

Healy agreed, asked if that would be the point nearest to Navan where a lot of traffic

would come onto the scheme. Mr. Healy agreed that was so and when Mr. Butler asked if

that area could be expected to be highly affected by traffic, Mr. Healy replied that you

would expect an interchange to be affected, Mr. Butler asked if that would be a logical

Christopher Oakes, the Chairman of Bellinter Residents Association said their evidence

would be given in three parts, with Alan Park and Brendan Magee speaking as well as

himself. He said their Association represented 36 houses in the Bellinter area and was

formed in 1999 primarily to examine proposals by the Council to site a major Water

Abstraction Works from the Boyne on a 22 acre site which they intended acquiring from

the Columban Fathers. He said that site was immediately adjacent to their houses and the

sworn Public Inquiry into this proposal was currently under review by An Bord Pleanala,

the Inquiry having been heard in March 2002. He said that at the time the association was

formed there were plans well in hand to site a major Sewerage Treatment Works about

400 metres from Bellinter Cross and that they had been too late to have any meaningful

input into its location since it had been advertised and described as the Dunshaughlin

Sewerage Treatment Works. He said that as Dunshaughlin was some 8 miles distant from

the works it had not been immediately apparent to them that this Works was to be located

adjacent to their properties and this plant was not a fait accompli. He said that it was now

proposed to run a tolled motorway through Bellinter, again adjacent to their properties,

He said that most of them bought their first house in Bellinter to raise their families in

what could be described as idyllic countryside and that they were now living in a

nightmare with the prospect of their countryside being despoiled and their properties

devalued. He said they wished to put on the record that the siting of three major facilities

on their small rural community was a level of intrusion that was unjust, unfair and

unprecedented in this country. He said they were objecting to the ratification of the EIS

for the emerging preferred route for this motorway and he would now outline their

Dalgan Park, Bellinter and Ardsallagh areas as being of high natural beauty and high

amenity and said it was their contention that a motorway and a substantial bridge could

not be effectively integrated over the Boyne without having a very significant detrimental

effect on the landscape and visual and environmental aspects of those areas. He said this

was particularly true for Dalgan Park which was the only amenity facility for the Navan

area and was used by 30000 people each year for recreational purposes and said that a

motorway through Dalgan would destroy the ambience of the Estate which, he said, the

EIS acknowledged in the Residual Impacts section at 5.8 in the EIS where it referred to

motorway ran parallel to the houses in Bellinter, Dowdstown and Ardsallagh over a 3 km.

long stretch and they could not find any precedent for such an intrusion along any other

Mr.Oakes said their objection was set out in a number of headings, starting with the

Residents. He said that they looked at the motorway between Ross Cross and Cannistown

and found that the number of houses within 100 and 300 metres from the motorway was

2+2 in Collierstown, 1+4 in Baronstown, 11 in Lismullin, 1 in Blundellstown, 9+27 in

the Bellinter/Dowdstown/Ardsallagh and 3+7 in Cannistown for a total of 67 of which 15

were within 100 metres, 29 were within 200 metres and 23 were within 300 metres. He

said the impact of the motorway so close to so many houses in a quiet area had many

facets since the people living there did so because they wanted to enjoy a quiet rural

ambience and the proximity of Dalgan Park, and he said the visual intrusion through such

an area of listed views and prospects would destroy the very qualities identified to be

Character, 5.4, did not acknowledge the quiet rural ambience that would be destroyed in

the Bellinter, Dowdstown and Ardsallagh areas and said that they totally disagreed with

the nature of the visual intrusion described in Tables 5.4 and 5.1.4, where it was stated to

range from "severe" to "minor" when they considered it would be "severe" for all of their

homes. He said they questioned the predicted air pollution level of being "slightly higher"

in section 3.6 when there was no motorway there at present and said this pollution was

not mentioned in the Residual Impacts in section 3.9. he said the issue of noise was not

satisfactorily addressed in the EIS and that the baseline survey could not be considered as

satisfactory when only one location was monitored over 24 hours and short periods of

less than 30 minutes in other locations, with no survey done on the Bellinter road. He said

representative of the noise environment along the proposed route. He criticised the

absence of details of what the construction noise levels would be and that there was no

details of what plant would be used or the noise emissions, and said that the German DIN

4150 standard was not a suitable standard to quote when no data was there to sustantiate

it. He said the overall impact of the motorway on their community would be severe and

their peaceful area would be forced into a noisy visually offensive polluted environment

which would damage their quality of life and devalue their homes. He said that even if

they were to tolerate these negative impacts for the greater good, the decision was stilll

flawed and they believed the destruction of the amenity of Dowdstown and Dalgan and

the desecration of Tara and Skreen would not be served by that assumed benefit to the

Mr. Oakes then dealt with Dalgan Park and the Dowdstown Estate and said that while it

was a former seminary and a retirement home for missionary priests, it was also a vibrant

centre for human and spiritual development and he referred to the walkways created by

the Columbans which were a great and well-used facility for people from all round the

Navan area as there were no amenity areas in Navan, despite the Council talking about

providing them for years. He described the uses made of Dalgan Park for recreational

purposes ( in similar terms to Fr. Raleighs description ) and said the Council were fully

aware of the high amenity value of the area since they had met with strong opposition

from Dalgan and the local residents and Councillors when the Water Treatment Plant was

proposed to be sited in Dalgan Park previously. He said the Council were forced to

withdraw the proposal and had to have a feasibility study carried out by PH McCartthy &

Partners. He said this feasibility study highlighted the proposed site as being located in an

area of natural beauty that had been developed as an amenity area and he said this was

motorway. He said that to propose building a motorway through the area where the river

walks and the proximity to Tara and Skreen combined to provide an unrivaled amenity

Mr. Oakes referred to the extensive usage of Dowdstown House as a conference centre

and retreat house which attracted some 10000 students annually to the various courses

there. He said Dowdstown had been listed in the Navan By-pass Constraints Study of

May 2000 as a "Country House" in Figure 4.2.2 but was not listed as one in the EIS. He

said that the extent of the estate type landscape of Dalgan was understated in Figure CR

3.1.1 in the Constraints Study as it omitted the broad swathe of pasture and trees leading

to the Boyne at the listed Bellinter Bridge and said the concept of a substantial concrete

bridge there was repulsive and that it could not be integrated into the landscape. Mr.

mentioned in the EIS. He said the EIS failed to address Dalgan in the socio-economic

section under community facilities, or for its walks and recreational areas or for its

recreational retreat and community support facilities. He said that under Material assets

the enterprise of Dalgan's work was not mentioned and that neither the Route Selection

Report nor the EIS identified the ethos and amenity importance of Dalgan in the local and

wider community and he said that if this had been done they were of the opinion that the

Mr. Oakes said there was a corridor east of Dalgan, which was still on Dalgan land, by

keeping close to the N3 and crossing it by a different Interchange to Blundellstown

located at a point between the rear entrance to Dalgan and the Kilcarn Heights junction.

He said this would cross the Boyne and the rear entrance to Ardsallagh House and the

Cannistown Road at almost 90 degrees where there were no houses and it would still link

into the Kilcarn Interchange. He said they were aware that an alternative route along

those lines had been examined and they were not convinced it could not be made a viable

option. He said that if the route were kept very tight to the N3 when it came over the hill

from Garlow Cross, he felt there was a corridor there and that it should be re-examined.

He said that a resiting of the Interchange would give a more direct access for traffic

coming from Navan and it would link up with the partially completed Navan Eastern

Mr. Oakes referred to the issue of the route passing between the Hills of Tara and Skreen

and said this was against many of the aims in the Meath CDPs of 1994 and 2001 and was

also contrary to the Constraints Reports of January and May 2000. He quoted extensively

from the Constraints Study of May 2000 in relation to the archaeological assessment in

reading extracts from the recommendations at 4.1, 4.2, & 4.3, which essentially stated

the difficulty in suggesting a preferred route in the Dunshaughlin to Navan south section

(as was already referred to in Ms Gowan's cross-examination ). He said they were firmly

convinced the proposed routing of the M3 through this area was unwise and inappropriate

and that there were other suitable routes that needed to be considered. He said the Tara

region was of such importance that it should be preserved and enhanced and this message

was expressed by the CDPs and the Constraints study . He said that Duchas were clearly

misled and that Duchas believed route P was the preferred route and he referred to the

letters to the Ombusman of 28 May and 5 September 2001 in support of this contention.

He said it would be unwise and foolhardy to ignore Duchas' advice and to ignore the

Mr. Oakes said there were a number of areas identified in the 1994 and 2001 CDPs as

areas of high natural beauty, high amenity and rural areas and said that the route

contravened a number of the areas defined in the Hills of Tara and Skreen, Dowdstown,

Preservation Order covering an area in Dowdstown that was a slimmed down version of

what was in the 1989 CDP. He quoted from several sections of the 1994 CDP at 2.3(a) in

Part Two, Development Strategy; 3.1.1 in Part Three, Policy Statement; 3.5.1 Amenity

Areas; 3.5.2 Views and Prospects; and Appendix 1 V26 c and said the motorway route

would conflict with the goals and aims of the CDP and said there were better alternatives.

He quoted from the Council's "Mission Statement" as it appeared in the 2001 CDP which

said in part " -- in partnership with local communities to improve the quality of life of all

Mr. Oakes then quoted extensively from the SPGs at Sections 2.2.2; 2.6.2 & 2.6.5 and

said the emphasis exclusively on road building, with no evidence of planning for the rail

link highlighted, a lack of balance in the pursuit of these objectives. He quoted from

Section 2.7.1 and said that the Scheme Summary Report only quoted one of the three

objectives from that Section " to permit efficient movement of goods and persons" and

said this was a very narrow focus and that single occupant cars did not constitute an

efficient transport of persons. He then quoted from Sections 2.82; 2.8.3; 2.8.4 & 2.8.8

and said the proposed routing was insensitive to the ambience and landscape of Dalgan

Park and the Dowdstown Estate and to the archaeological potential of Tara and not in

accord with the policies in these sections of the SPGs. He quoted from the Conservation

section 3.6.9 of the CDP to support his contention that the idea of a motorway traversing

the Listed Views at VP1, VP27 and VP28 suggested that these were only aspirations

which could be disregarded at will. He quoted from the Recreational and Natural Assets

section 3.6.18 relating to the SRUNAs at 3, 20, 21 & 75 and said the Planners contention

that the amenity was avoided by the road if it did not pass directly through it was missing

Mr. Oakes then referred to the Constraints Report of January 2000 on the Dunshaughlin

to Navan section and drew attention to a number of omissions in section 3.1 and 3.3

which he said understated the estate boundaries and ignored the places of education at

Lismullin, Dalgan Park and Dowdstown. He also referred to section 3.11 and said their

objection to the routing between Tara and Skreen was supported by the Constraints report

findings. He refered to the Navan By-pass Constraints Report of May 2000 and to the

archaeology section in it that dealt with the archaeology from Dunshaughlin North to

Navan South and West and he highlighted the recommendations at 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3 as

supporting their objections to the route selected. He also referred to the section dealing

ecological interest listed in it and said they were appalled at the insensitivity that allowed

the Boyne Bridge to be sited adjacent to two clearly identified areas, namely, Dowdstown

Alan Park then dealt with the second part of the BRA submission which related to the

Route Selection Process and the motorway's impact on Dalgan Park, the Hill of Tara and

the Hill of Skreen. He referred to the NRA's website and the procedure set out there of

He said the processes requiring public consultation from the NRA procedure were the

Corridor Selection process, the Route Selection process and the Emerging Preferred

Route and said that they believed the Council had failed from the outset to comply with

the procedure since there never was any consultation on the issue of the Corridor

Selection. He said the existence of a Corridor Selection Report only came to their

attention during the Hearing and said that this Report did not support the chosen corridor.

Referring to Mr. Guthrie's evidence of a Corridor Selection Report being presented to the

questioned how the document of two volumes they were given during the hearing was

dated October 2001 when it was said to have been presented to the Councillors in 1999.

He then commented on the omission of a mention of the Blue Route passing through the

3 km. exclusion zone of Tara, which it was stated to do at page 6 in vol.1 and suggested

the rating of "neutral" for the Blue corridor in Table CSR 1.6.1 on page 8 of Vol.1 was

not supported by the facts. Mr. Park said that the blue route was significantly understated

by comparison with the orange and green corridors in section 6.1 on archaeology; that

there was no mention of the impact of the Blue route on Dowdstown Estate or House or

on Dalgan Park and its riverside walks in section 6.2 on Built Heritage; and that the cost

for the section between Dunshaughlin to Navan was the greatest for the Blue corridor in

N3/CSR/6.3.1 identified the impact of sensitive locations and that the Blue corridor was

clearly the worst and that in figure CSR/ 6.4.1 on landscape and visual aspects the

measured length of each corridor visible from Tara had the Pink route having no impact,

the Orange and Blue being identical at 3.2 kms and the Green worst at 4.2 kms and he

Mr. Park said it was the Route Selection Process that was their first information about the

Dunshaughlin to Navan and that it was an "upgrading" which he said the dictionary said

meant improving or raising in rank. He said the wording in these notices was misleading

as it said "It was proposed to put these identified route corridors on display" and that the

upgrading was for a completely new off-line road. He said they were shown route options

at the public display on 15 December 1999 and not route corridors as was advertised and

he said they did not know the difference between a corridor selection process and a route

selection process at that time. He said they were invited to make comments on these

proposals and they did that and believed these would be taken on board in a realistic

manner He said that at this display one of their members was told, in response to his

questioning of several routes being very close to the Hill of Tara, that " we could put it on

top of Tara if we thought that was the best option". ( Note-- During his cross-examination

Mr. Park then referred to the Summary Table of the responses received by the Council

and said he had added in a figure for those strongly opposed as a percentage of those who

favoured various options ( Note -- This is the Table referred to in Mr. Park's crossexamination

He said it would make sense to adopt the particular option that had the lowest percentage

of those strongly opposed and that was route F (Pink), but that it was an amalgamation of

the Blue E and D routes by a link from Blundellstown to Dowdstown that was chosen

and he pointed out that this route was not shown in the route options displayed. Mr. Park

said the public perception was that Routes F and E were the best options and D was the

second least desirable option and he said that the question of why one of the most

undesirable routes was chosen had never been satisfactorily answered. He said that this

served to undermine the real meaning of public consultation and referred to their

neighbours in Cannistown getting a letter from Mr. Noel Dempsey T.D. on 25 January

2000, some four weeks before the public consultation process was completed, telling the

Cannistown residents that the road would be going through Cannistown. He said that

demonstrated the point they were making of it being only a lip-service consultation and

that the route was already chosen and the consultative process was to be ignored.

Mr. Park said they considered the EPR under both the Route Selection Report and the

EIS and they had also taken some data from the Assessment Matrix / Scheme Ranking

and from their correspondence and meetings with the council and the Consultants. He

said the significance of impacts was defined in section 1.6 of Vol.2 of the EIS with the

details being given in Table 1.4. and that 5 route options ( Note-- There are 6 listed in

4.2.2) were examined in section 4.2.2 at page 36 but that 10 options were shown in Table

4.2 which followed page 56. He said this Matrix seemed to be based on the Assessment

Matrix/ Scheme Ranking, a copy of which they had got in early 2001, and there were 25

categories for considering each option in that Matrix while this had been reduced to 17 in

Table 4.2 and he said it was not clear why this reduction had been made. He said they

were told of 6 route options at the public consultation which grew to 10 options in the

Assessment Matrix/Scheme Ranking, section 4.3.3 in Vol.2 said that 4 route corridor

options were considered and in Table 4.2 there were 10 routes examined, under eastern

and western alternatives. He said that finally the EPR was Route Blue 2 which was never

offered as an option and they found this to be most confusing and he suggested it was

dishonest that they had never been shown the EPR as an option and thus could not

Mr. Park said that a comparison of the Assessment Matrix/Scheme Ranking with Table

4.2 in Vol.2 showed many of the rankings given to the EPR, Blue 2, were incorrect and in

conflict with the EIS and submissions from several of the consultants. He said that under

"disruption due to construction, which was left out of Table 4.2, the rankings varied from

large positive to large negative and asked how could a construction impact be ever less

than "significantly negative" and " neutral" with respect to Dalgan Park. He said that for

archaeology the rankings were at variance with the Valerie Keeley report which said no

route could be recommended between Tara and Skreen, and asked how there could be

variations between " slightly negative" and largely negative" on the four blue routes on a

common corridor between the two Hills. He said that this impact was reduced in Table

4.2. of Vol.2 and asked why. He said that Mr. Killeen said that the EPR had a "large

negative impact" on the landscape and supported this by references to the CDP but there

was another example of a reduction in impact as between the Assessment Matrix and

Table 4.2 in the landscape and visual section. He said that in the noise and vibration

section there were again rankings from "large negative" to "large positive" impacts and

he asked how it was possible to rate noise pollution as having a large positive impact

which, he said, was the ranking for the EPR as it passed through Dalgan Park and within

100 to 300 metres from 36 houses in the Bellinter area in the Assessment Matrix. He then

referred to the impact of " moderately positive" in table 4.2 of Vol.2 for private

residential properties and said this was inexplicable and inaccurate and referred to the

two houses of Shiela Bradley and Patrick Farrelly that, he said, would be effectively

looking down on them and he said this was another example of a change in rankings

( See verbal submissions from Ms Bradley and Mr. Farrelly at Section 84.1of this Report)

Mr.Park said the range of rankings given to community impact was quite narrow and

ranged from "neutral" to "slightly negative" and that they took exception to the ranking of

"neutral" given to the EPR in both reports as it was unsustainable in the context of

Dalgan Park alone as the impact of the EPR there was enormous and he said it was an

indictment of the Council to allow such a unigue amenity to be vandalised by the scheme.

He said the impact on smaller roads had been described as "slightly positive" and asked

how could a motorway positively impact on a minor road. He said they had "scored" the

assessment Matrix/scheme ranking against Table 4.2 to try to summarise their concerns

in a logical format and the results of this were given in his Brief of Evidence ( A copy of

this is listed at Day 17 in Appendix 4 of this Report). He said that this "scored" ranking

showed that Route Blue 2 was not the preferred route in either instance, being joint

second in the Assessment Matrix and third in Table 4.2 and said that on the basis of either

Table it could be seen that Blue 2 route was not the best choice and he suggested it would

( Note -- Green 3 is first in the Assessment Matrix in the Route Selection Report.with

Blue 2 and 4 equal second. Green 3 is first in Table 4.2, Blue 4 is second and Blue 2

third. The Green routes are west of the N3 and closer to Tara than the Blue routes and

Mr. Park concluded his section of the BRA submission by saying that they considered

there was evidence to show the selection of the EPR was not made by using a fair

analysis of the impacts and benefits and that the public consultation was not properly

fulfilled as the route corridor options were not put to public consultation. He said the

outcome of the public consultation was flawed as it ignored the views of those who

would be impacted on and affected by the route and it seemed that the rankings were

established simply to justify a preselected route. He said the manner in which the

rankings were established was a sham and they undermined the consultative process said

to have been followed in Mr. Guthrie's evidence when it was suggested that adjustments

were made to the route to minimise the impact on the environment and the community

and he said that was not so. He said that the BRA requested that the Council be required

to re-examine the route selection process for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section.

Brendan Magee said that he would deal with Information and the difficulties that

objectors had experienced in trying to extract information from the NRA and the Council

and said that this had previously been raised at the Hearing. He said that while the

Council had denied there were difficulties, most of the objectors held this view. He said

the first hurdle was in knowing what information was available and the second hurdle

Mr. Magee said it was not until they become aware of the existence of the Assessment

Matrix that they found they could ask for specific information and that the Matrix was

only discovered when it was mentioned at a meeting in February 2001 with a member of

the public by the Consultants. He said there had been a meeting between the BRA, Alan

Guthrie and two engineers from the Council in May 2001 to discus this Matrix and that

the BRA were not happy with the responses to their queries as they felt the selection

process was subjective and that it highlighted discrepancies in the rankings so that there

were more grounds for dispute on a broader basis then they had envisaged. He said they

sent a letter to the Council's Design office in June 2001 seeking access to the files and

data used to determine the Matrix Rankings and were offered a 50 page document in July

2001 that was a "Summary of Environmental Impacts and Extracts from Route Selection

Report" dated July 2001 which, he said, was not what they had sought and was later

found to be an edited version of the original Route Selection report with some details

changed. He said that in December 2001 they were told the files were available for

information on archaeology, despite the route being proposed to go through the Tara area.

He said that in January 2002 they sent a further letter to the Design Office with their

queries and requests and pointed out that there was no reference to a Duchas input to the

files they had seen and said that when they phoned the Design Office subsequently to try

to speed up a reply they were told there had been no reference to archaeology in their

June 2001 letter which was what no details on that were supplied. He said they got a

reply on 20 February 2002 saying those files ended in April 2000 and, in response to a

query they had made about the BRA submission, it said that it was not appropriate to

make available submissions received after the EPR was announced. He said that this

letter also said that the Halcrow Barry assessment of the BRA submission could be made

available and he pointed out that this was the same information that they had been

Mr. Magee said this letter of 20 February 2002 also addressed the archaeology aspect and

said that considerable investigation and consideration had been undertaken on the

Archaeological aspects contained within the Constraints Study, Route Selection and the

development of the EPR but he said that the lack of information in the files did not

support this assertion and that they contended that neither did Duchas support it. He said

a further letter was sent on 15 May 2002 to the Design Office saying there must be files

for the post April 2000 period, that they had the consultants reports on archaeology but

had not been given the assessment of these reports and how they affected the decision on

the EPR and that they wanted details of all contacts with Duchas. He said the reply on 4

June 2002 said that all post-April 2000 correspondence on the files was of no relevance

to the decision making process behind the choice of the EPR, and enclosed a single page

note of a meeting between Duchas and Halcrow Barry but did not provide the other

information they were seeking. He said a further letter was sent on 27 May 2002 after the

EIS was published seeking all correspondence, reports, minutes of meetings, etc. relating

to the 10 named consultants for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and that this was

replied to on 1 July 2002 and said that this information had already been supplied to BRA

in the files provided to them in December 2001. He said that following further phone

calls and e-mails in July 2002, copies of which are given in his Brief of Evidence, they

were told the information requested would be made available and that when they visited

the Design Offices on 9 and 13 August 2002 to inspect 19 files of information they found

no reference to any of the main consultants in these files, despite having been told the

details they had sought in May 2002 were in those files. He said that on 16 August, which

was just before the Hearing started, they were told that only 3 out of the 10 named

consultants were involved in the Dunshaughlin to Navan section and he asked how it took

Mr. Magee referred to the two boxes of information given to them during the Hearing by

the Council and the concerns they had previously expressed about the quality of the

information in those boxes. He referred to two specific flies in these, the first being

Correspondence" and it contained mainly weekly reports on ground investigations. He

said the second was SG/NAVA/23 , titled " General Surveys" and contained two sheets

of paper being a copy of an e-mail sent to two separate people. He said they started

seeking information formally on 4 June 2001and that by the middle of the Hearing the

situation had not been resolved. He concluded by saying that this was a grossly unfair

situation as they all had their own jobs to take care of and trying to obtain this

information had taken up an enormous time for their members, and he said that citizens

should be given legal assistance to help them get a fair hearing when their lives were

being severely affected. He said that copies of the letters he had referred to and the

Mr. Oakes said he would make a short concluding statement and said that the Hill of

Tara was one of Ireland's foremost historical and archaeological sites and he asked how

could the Council and the NRA propose to site a motorway anywhere close to it. He said

the location of the Motorway was in direct conflict with the aims of the 1994 and 2001

30000 people enjoyed the recreational amenities annually, and a further 20000 came to

He said the Consultants ignored the aims of the CDPs and the recommendations of the

Constraints Study and they appeared not to be familiar with the special place of Tara in

Irish History. He said the NRA and Council's rationale for building a new motorway was

to ease the country's traffic problems and to cater for future increases but that was

seriously flawed since the major traffic problem was at the Blanchardstown roundabout

where there currently was a two to three mile tailback at morning and evening rush hours.

Dunshaughlin to this bottleneck more quickly and, while he accepted that better roads to

Mr. Oakes said the BRA had put forward an alternative route proposal which was a single

interchange and divide the traffic between three interchanges rather than two as at

present. He said that this would be outlined in more detail by the Meath Road Action

Group (MRAG) but they could not understand why this had not been studied at least. He

said there was also the use of rail as an alternative to the motorway frenzy and that this

would remove traffic from the roads and givc credence to the Development Plan and the

SPGs. He said that the Navan Chamber of Commerce were concerned that the rail link

seemed to have been longfingered and asked if anyone seriously thought the Government

would support a rail system that would, in effect, remove toll payers from a PPP

worth the paper they were written on and that this was a knee jerk reaction to a sudden

increase in traffic to the detriment of clearly thought out plans and overall transport

policies. He said their concerns started off from the prospect of having three major

utilities dumped on them but it grew from that and they became angry because they felt

that due process was not adhered to and that they were not getting a fair crack of the

The Inspector asked if the 22 acre site for the water abstraction site could be identified on

a map and if there had been any decision from the inquiry they had referred to. Mr. Oakes

indicated where the site was on one of the Drainage maps in Vol. 4B and said they had

not heard of any decision, but part of the proposal relating to the treatment plant had been

The Inspector asked where the outfall pipe from the Dunshaughlin Sewerage Works was

to go and Mr. Oakes said the Site for the Plant was above Ambrose Bridge and indicated

the line that the outfall pipe was to follow and said that he thought it had gone to tender.

The Inspector asked about their reference to an alternative corridor to the east of Dalgan

but still in Dalgan lands and their comment of it being looked at and Mr. Guthrie said it

was as Option B3. Mr. Park said they had a document which he handed in ( Note -- This

is included in the BRA written Brief of Evidence listed at Day 17 in Appendix 4 of this

Report) and said their suggestion was to the west of B3, and that he understood that Mr.

Guthrie had walked this at one stage but said that he was not fully sure of Mr. Guthrie's

Peadar Creagh said he was speaking on behalf of MRAG and said that they had decided

to make a short power point presentation outlining the main points of their presentation

since their written submission would take a lengthy period to read out. He said he was not

from Bellinter but lived on another section of the motorway in Raynestown and that his

area had some difficulties with the proposed motorway when it started and they spoke to

other Residents Associations and they found everyone was having the same sort of issues.

He said they had come to an early conclusion that local issues were best dealt with by

Local Associations but that there was a need for someone else to look at the broader

issues and MRAG became that focus group. He said they had two main areas of focus,

the first being that a level playing field and the same rules should apply to all submissions

and that all Residents Associations, large or small, would get the same fair hearing. He

said their second area was that there had to be another way in Meath with all of the

developments coming up and in this MRAG built on the work done by the BRA. He said

that MRAG was made up of members from all of the Associations along the route of the

M3 and could avail of work each were doing, and that while mainly concerned with the

M3, they had also spoken with people in the Dunboyne Planning Alliance, Ashbourne

Residents Association and the Slane Bridge Association as well. He said that all of the

groups along the M3 route felt the consultation process was not transparent and that their

views and concerns had not been taken into account and said that each group felt they had

difficulty in getting hard information from the NRA/ Council. He said and that while

there was a readiness to answer questions, the answers given were minimal requiring

repeated contact as more information was uncovered. He said the primary purpose in

objecting to the NRA/Council proposal was the affect it would have on the Tara area and

their alternative proposal was put forward to remove the motorway from the Tara area

and because it created a more efficient solution to the traffic congestion currently the

Mr. Creagh said they were not objecting to the construction of a motorway or finding

fault with the various studies in the EIS and said that they supported the CPO process as

it was designed to overcome issues for the common good. He said that it (CPO) was still

fundamentally undemocratic and that because of that certain things had to be done to

overcome the democratic deficit and he outlined these as (1) the proceedings had to be

carried out in a most rigorous manner, (2) all elements had to be fully transparent so that

it was obvious where conclusions came from and (3) that the highest level of integrity

was evident among all concerned -- the Council, their Consultants and the Objectors. He

said that in their view if there was something wrong with one of these conclusions, and

gave as an example the possibility of misinformation, lies, lack of care, dismissal of

contracted professional advice or incompetence being a characteristic of the work, there

could be an effect on the continuation of the M3 project because of this democratic

deficit in the CPO process because of the necessity to be absolutely sure everything was

procedures from early 1998 until the environmental impact commenced were seriously

flawed as they were applied with a lack of diligence and that because of this the EIS

itself, which only addressed the main conclusion, was totally irrelevant. He suggested this

was because the wrong route was chosen and he referred to the enormous complexity the

Council faced in assessing up to 500 individual possible lines between the 5 sections each

with as many as 25 routes and said that these were narrowed down to one without due

diligence and the EPR was arrived at without the diligence that was expected to get down

from those 500. He said that the EIS would not address this problem if it was narrowed

Mr. Creagh said they were going to concentrate on Tara and that everything that applied

to Tara also applied to the other aspects of the Blue route and that he would refer to these

but not put them up on the screen. He said they would concentrate on two main lines, the

P route running east of Skreen and the B route running next to and along the eastern

flanks of Tara. He said they contended that consultation did not happen in the way it

should have, that it was initially a road improvement not a new road, then a dual

carriageway, then a motorway and now tolls. He said there were polls on different routes

for each of the sections which, he said, was a divide and conquer tactic as it pitted one

community against another and he said this was what Mr. Guthrie referred to where he

talked about combining four routes up the middle of Tara andSkereen as if it was all one

corridor. He said the NRA/Council chose a combination of two separate routes from

Dunshaughlin to Navan and that this meant the section joining them was not part of the

process and said that this stretch of about 2.5 kms. was not addressed in the public

consultation or the route selection process and the impact was not known before theEPR

was selected. He asked if it were reasonable to suggest incompetence when a 2.5 km

section was left out and said he would leave it for a decision by others. He referred to the

293 questionaires returned with route F and A the most favoured and asked what was the

point of having a public consultation when the result were blatantly ignored and asked

why were they in the Route Selection Report in the first place if they were being ignored.

Mr. Creagh said that the information flow was critical to the Residents Associations and

Road Group and that the changes in Project Managers in the Council's Design Office,

when the project was going through the most environmentally and archaeologically

sensitive area on Meath, gave the impression of there being no-one in charge. He said

that this resulted in making it impossible, as far as they were concerned, to secure

complete disclosure even through the Freedom of Information Act and he said that Mr.

Magee had earlier detailed the BRA difficulties in trying to get information. He then

referred to the Summary of Environmental Impacts / Extracts from Route Selection

Report of July 2001 that was supplied to the BRA ( Also referred to by Mr. Magee in his

part of the BRA Submission) and he quoted the definitions of "summary" and "extract"

from the Oxford Dictionary which said a summary gave the main points from another

document and that an extract was to copy a page from a book. Mr. Creagh then compared

a number of sections in the Route Selection Report to those in the Summary Report

which, he said, indicated that what appeared in the Summary Report was not an extract in

the terms of the Dictionary definition. One of the examples given was from page 68 of

the Route Selection Report which said -- in overall terms, B4 predominantly moderate

degree, B3 having a greater impact as it crosses from east to west over the River Boyne

through Ardsallagh and Cannistown while the Summary report at page 18 said -- in

overall terms B3 predominantly a moderate degree of impact. He suggested this was not

an extract since it omitted the point of emphasising the greater impact on the Boyne at

Ardsallagh and Cannistown. Another example given was of a sentence on page 72 of the

Route selection Report which said -- the Eastern link is preferable to the western lonk

with its long river valley traverse which was omitted from the Summary Report at page

21. He said the many changes in the summary report made it neither a summary nor an

extract and he asked if this was then blatant misinformation and said that only the

He referred to the letter from the Council Design Office of 20 February 2002 which said

that a list of all changes made to the Route Selection Report between June and September

2001 would not be supplied as this was not relevant and said this was a blatant disregard

for their requests and was an example of lack of care. ( See also Mr. Magee's reference to

this letter in Section 70 of this Report) He then referred to the letters from the

Ombudsman to the BRA following their letters about the involvement of Duchas, which

were detailed in the BRA Submission, and quoted the reference to discussions with

confirmation that Route P was the recommended route in a letter of 5 September 2001.

He then quoted from a from a further letter of 16 January 2002 in which Duchas said that

from their records no correspondence had been received about the M3 and said that

Duchas appeared to be discussing it in September but five months later appeared to have

no record of correspondence about the matter and he wondered what caused this amnesia.

(Note-- This letter of January 2002 was from the Development Applications Section of

Mr. Creagh referred to the archaeology issues covered in the Constraints and route

selection reports in the Tara and Skreen areas and the recommendations made by Ms

Gowan, as quoted in her previous cross-examination, and to the impact of route B on

Tara and with route P being to the east of Skreen. He said that all that was adressed was

for individual routes and said that there were 141 known archaeological sites between

these two Hills and that the EPR went through the highest concentrations of known sites

and that there had been no addressing of the area as a whole. He showed the location of

described as "the centre third" where the highest concentration was. He drew attention to

the Tara Archaeological Report being included in the Navan By-pass Constraints Study

and not being in the Dunshaughlin to Navan study and said the reason for this had not

been explained and he referred to the comment of route P being the least intrusive in the

Study, and of it being the only viable archaeologically route according to Ms Gowan in

He said the same conclusions were reached for Built Heritage, Flora and Fauna and Air

Quality with route P always showing a preference over route B and said this was an

correspondence with the NRA about the exclusion zone around Tara and a letter of 22

aware of a 3 km exclusion zone around Tara and he contrasted that to a reference in the

Agenda for a Co-ordinating Meeting held in the NRA Offices in Dublin on 5 April 2000

which referred to a zone of influence extending approx. 3 kms from Tara ( Copies of both

documents are in MRAG Brief of Evidence). He referred to Ms Gowan's reference to a

1.2 km exclusion zone around Tara in her cross-examination ( See Section 61. 10 of this

Report) and questioned how people were aware of this exclusion zone in April 2000 but

by May 2001 they were no longer aware of it. He said the key question to be answered

was about the EPR going through Tara and said that MRAG felt it was wrong and that

Mr. Creagh said that the alternative proposal by the BRA and MRAG had been presented

to the NRA about a year previously and said this was a logical proposal to ease the

County's traffic problems. He said that at present the N2 was being developed to

Ashbourne and the N3 being developed to Kells and there was a study in progress for

slane Bridge which would By-pass Slane on the N2 as well. He suggested the commuter

towns from Dunshaughlin inwards would quickly absorb the capacity of the Clonee to

M50 section of the M3 and referred to recent housing developments in Ratoath as being a

symptom of what was happening in the areas around Dublin. He said the NRA's current

plans for the N2 and N3 were flawed as the traffic congestion at the N2 and N3 junctions

with the M50 were the cause of 4 to 5 km. tailbacks at peak periods and he showed

photographs taken of what he said were typical traffic volumes. Mr. Creagh said it was

the heavy goods vehicles rather than commuters cars that were clogging up the roads and

suggested many of the industrial parks around the fringes of the M50 were serviced by

"back roads" to get to either the N2 or N3. He also suggested this congestion from HGVs

would increase as the proposed industrial corridor from Navan towards Drogheda in the

He said that the MRAG proposal was to build a new road betwqeen the N2 and N3 which

would serve the entire County and the towns of Navan, Kells, Slane and Ardee with the

existing N2 serving Ashbourne and the existing N3 serving Dunshaughlin but said that

some redevelopment of the N3 from Clonee towards Dunshaughlin would be needed to

service commuters from around Dunshaughlin to prevent them being forced onto this

new route. He said they saw no connections to this new road south of Ashbourne and

Dunshaughlin except for those serving industrial complexes to get HGVs off the minor

roads in trying to reach the N2 and N3. He showed a map of what they intended and said

it was crazy to be building all of these roads like the N2 and M3 and then find a bypass

had to be built around Slane and another bridge over the Boyne. He suggested that, if one

new road midway between the N2 and N3 were built as the MRAG were advocating, that

congestion would disappear from the existing roads and the traffic flow onto the M50

would be spread between three locations rather than on two ass at present and that

commuters from just outside the M50 would be restricted from accessing this new road to

Mr. Creagh said that building the M3 would not solve the access issues for the north of

the County since traffic would divert to the road from elsewhere but said that if their new

road was built it would ease conditions everywhere including that on the Navan to

Drogheda corridor and they thought it would be cheaper to build this than to do work on

the N2 to Ashbourne, the M3 and the Slane by-pass. He said the NRA had said this was

not in accordance with the Roads Needs Study but this was put forward as a departure

from that Study which was now outdated; they said it contravened the NDP and CDP and

MRAG admitted that it did, but said some issues in those were being re-evaluated and

that the CDP was amended for the M3. He said the NRA said a new junction would be

close to the existing junctions on the M50 but the junctions at 9 & 10 and 11 & 12 were

closer, so theirs would be the third closest out of 10 junctions on the M50. Mr. Creagh

said they had submitted this alternative within three months of the EPR being published

and it was rejected on what he described as fatuous grounds and he said a feasibility

study should be undertaken before any real money was spent and before irreparable

mistakes were made by destroying one of the most significant archaeological sites in the

County. He said he would conclude by quoting Minister Seamus Brennan's statement of

being unhappy with the decision he had to make about Carrickmines and his saying that

if they had known then what they now knew, it would not have happened and he repeated

Mr. Creagh handed in a CD of his powerpoint presentation and a number of documents

supporting the MRAG submission. These are listed at Day 17 in Appendix 4 of this

The Inspector referred to his comment of there being no access for commuters south of

Ashbourne and Dunshaughlin and asked how would the obvious congestion at the some

junctions onto the N3 be dealt with. Mr. Creagh acknowledged there were problems at

junctions like Fairyhouse and said that some work would have to be done on the existing

N3 but that a lessor scale motorway would do and said they had concerns that tolling

would keep people from diverting to a tolled motorway and would continue to use the

existing N3 with its inadequate junctions. The Inspector suggested that the Council

should make some inquiries about the work on the junctions on the M50 and specifically

in relation to the proposal for this additional junction as he understood some work was, or

After the BRA and MRAG evidence had concluded the Inspector told Mr. Butler that

there were a number of issues where he wanted the Council to provide some information

on matters that had arisen in cross-examination by BRA and MRAG, and by some others.

He said the first matter was about the Water Rights Abstraction Order referred to and he

associated with this marked on a map that would also have the motorway route on it. He

said the BRA had referred to a 22 acre site which the motorway went through and he

wanted the Council to clarify what was the status of this 22 acre field in relation to the

Sewerage Works near the Ambrose Bridge area and the outfall pipe to the Boyne near the

confluence with the Skane. He wanted both the location of the Sewerage Works and the

He said that there was the transposition of the major and moderate impacts in Table 4.2 in

Volume 2 of the EIS that came up in Mr. Burn's cross-examination and he wanted a

comment from the Council on how relevant that point was to the overall assessment.

He referred to the windspeed issue that arose in Mr. Summers cross-examination and said

the windspeed of 5 metres per second worked out at about 12 mph but he was not aware

what that was in the Beaufort Scale. He said he wanted evidence of what the windspeed

was on that day in November 2000 at Dublin Airport or if the Meteorological Office

could offer a comment on a more appropriate location viv-a-vis Navan, that would do.

He said the last issue was in relation to the discussions about the Navan to Dublin

wanted the locations where the motorway line impacted on the future railway line or was

adjacent to it, marked on a map so it could be seen what was being referred to. He said it

seemed from the minutes of meetings with Iarnrod Eireann that they had concerns about

the rail crossing at Cannistown, even though they had withdrawn their reservations and

then their objection to the CPO, but they had expressed a preference in having the bridges

built as tpart of the motorway. He said he wanted the Council to look at the feasibility of

taking the rail line under the motorway at the Cannistown crossing as an alternative to it

going over the M3. The Inspector said he accepted there could be drainage problems but

these could possibly be dealt with by pumping and said the possibility of a "false bridge"

investigations that were spoken about in the minutes of the meetings with Iarnrod

Mr. McGrath gave a brief introduction to their case and said the over the past two years

vicinity of the Stud and that for the purposes of presenting their case his witnesses would

be referring to the EPR as Route A. He said they had presented two alternatives, Routes

B and C, which were developed by DBFL Consulting Engineers and these were discussed

with the Council in 2001 and they subsequently learned of the existence of "Area 26" an

area of archaeological importance which Routes B and C went through. He said they then

came up with Route D which was the route he would be asking should be recommended

to An Bord as the alternative to the EPR in the vicinity of Gerrardstown House Stud. He

said that routes B and C would be mentioned in evidence but that it was Route D he

would be requesting be adopted. Mr. McGrath then indicated who he would be calling to

Mr. O'Malley said he was the principal of Kiaran O'Malley & Co., Civil Engineering &

Town Planning Consultants, and that for over 35 years he had been working in the private

Mr. O'Malley said the area being acquired in Plot 1056 was small in terms of the overall

stud area but was essential to the stud's business as it contained the most important

breeding paddock which benefited from its proximity to the yard that was an integral part

of the management aspect of the business. He said the proposed routing of the M3 caused

a disproportionate adverse effect on the stud and said there were a number of alternatives

all of which fell within the indicative zone corridor of the motorway devised by the

Council. He said that stud objected to the location of part of the M3 on its lands and to

the constructional and operational impacts on the environment, including the stud in this

receiving environment and they asked An Bord to hold that there were no overriding

archaeological grounds to justify selecting an alignment through their property. He said

there was insufficient archaeological research to justify the Route A alignment over that

of their suggested alternative Route D, which was slightly to the west of route A.

He said there were many factors affecting alignment decisions and while most of these

were addressed in the EIS, they disagreed with the weighting accorded to various

different factors in determining the preferred route. He said the primary factors around

Gerrardstown House Stud included road engineering design criteria, the impact on

properties and the environment and archaeological matters and that he would refer to

Mr. O'Malley said that DBFL Consulting Engineers had prepared three alternatives for

the M3 between chn. 21360 and 21900 and their report was attached to the original

submission and would be given to the Hearing. He said that all of these routes met

acceptable motorway standards and could not be disqualified on road engineering criteria.

He said the route should be moved slightly westwards onto Plot 1057, which was a nonresidential

in the EIS in Appendix C of Vol.4C which stated "stud farms were severely impacted" in

support of this relocation to a less sensitive property. He said the environmental qualities

necessary for a successful stud farm operation were rooted in the soil, the quality of

grass, the protection from encroachment of car fumes, noise, and frequent traffic and said

circumstances than other animal stock. He said the bloodstock industry which included

Gerardstown House stud were rural resources and came within the terms of the objective

in Section 3.6.2 of the CDP 2001 which dealt with "Core Rural Development Objectives"

and he referred to the protection given to the bloodstock industry in the Kildare CDP of

He said that apart from the three occupied residences on the property, two being of 18th

and 19th century origin and both worthy of being protected structures, the impact on the

valuable bloodstock, which he said was a material asset in EIA terms, was materially

more significant that that of a relocation onto Plot 1057 where the owner of that Plot had

indicated no particular objection to such a movement in the route. Mr. O'Malley accepted

such a movement would also affect Plot 1055 and said that plot was already seriously

impacted where Table 10.6 referred to a "major impact and major loss of lands etc" so

that increasing the amount severed would make little real difference. He said there would

be increased compensation to that third party but his submission was that route D exerted

less impact on the environment than Route A and deserved to be substituted for it.

He then referred to the archaeology issues and said the Route D had the greatest overall

advantages of all of the alternatives since it avoided those aspects of potential

archaeological significance and said that there was insufficient data in the EIS to oblige

the Council to pursue any particular route option. He said the harm caused to an existing

known resource of the Stud, when compared to the desire to protect heretofore unknown

development perspective and he referred An Bord to Section E in Vol.4A on Cultural

Heritage and to sections 13.3.1 and 13.3.2 in the Archaeological Section where nothing

was recorded in Garretstown townland in the desktop study. He acknowledged section

13.3.3 produced Areas 25A, 25B & 26 but said their geography was not described in the

EIS even though the EPR affected them. He referred to Ms Gowan's Report which was in

Vol.4C and suggested that the conclusions of that Report were written in what he called

"tentative" language and said the EIS did not advise why the line was moved eastwards

rather than westwards to reduce the potential impact on area 26. He said this was

reinforced by the Council's Design Office letter of 29 April 2002 which stated that a

further archeaeological geophysical a survey would be required to determine the full

Mr. O'Malley said that since their previous submission to An Bord in april, there had

been some changes in emphasis with the route down to A versus D as Mr. McGrath had

stated and that in terms of road geometry he would call them a draw. He said that on

archaeology there was insufficient evidence to prefer A to D. and he said that on the other

issues his Clients had developed the comparable impacts more fully and they would say

the impacts on their land from the lands being taken and severed far outweighed those on

Plot 1057. He concluded his evidence by saying that property was part of the Material

Assets which was part of the receiving environment and that there was a world of

difference between his Clients business and the business on the alternative Route D and

he asked asking the Inspector to recommend option D rather than A, which was the EPR

When a drawing showing Routes A and D was shown on the screen at the Hearing, Mr.

Keane asked if he would accept that Route D went across one of three recognisable

archaeological connection and Mr. O'Malley agreed that it crossed this area. Mr. Keane

suggested that route D involved a very tight radius curve as it approached the Roestown

Overbridge crossing the N3 to bring it back on line for the bridge but Mr. O'Malley said

he believed it did not but that it was the DBFL Engineer who would deal with the road

geometry. Mr. Keane asked if he accepted that the alignment as it presently stood left

both Mr. O'Kane the owner of Plot 1057 and Gerrardstown Stud with almost equal areas

of severed lands and Mr. O'Malley agreed they were roughly the same. Mr. Keane then

asked if he was aware of proposals for a mutual swop of those severed lands which would

restore the integrity of both holdings but Mr. O'Malley said he was not aware of this and

he referred to the fact that this would not deal with the proximity to the yard issue which,

he said, Mr. Bryan would deal with. Mr. Keane asked if he accepted there would be

benefits from Mr. O'Kane's severed land for Gerrardstown and Mr. O'Malley said he

could see where this could make sense but that would be where uniform agricultural land

was involved, whereas in this case it was a stud farm that was being affected. When Mr.

Keane suggested the quality of lands in the severed area in Plot 1057 would match the

quality at the western side of Gerardstown, Mr. O'Malley said that was not his territory.

Mr. McGrath intervened and said that his clear instructions were that there had been no

such negotiations between the landowners for such a swop, but he accepted this was

Mr. Kauntze said he was a retired Racehorse Trainer and had been involved in training,

breeding and rearing bloodstock for 44 years and was now a Consultant in matters of

equine compensation. He said that one of his major clients as a Racehorse Trainer was

the late Mrs.Patricia Hanson who owned the Gerrardstown House Stud and that he had

trained for her for some 20 years and became well-acquainted with the property and said

that the present owner had purchased the property from Mrs. Hanson's executors in 1997

and had up graded the facilities for breeding foals and yearlings for sale at auction as a

commercial operation. Mr. Kauntze referred to the importance of the bloodstock industry

to the Irish economy and said the impact of the motorway by the EPR was severe but this

could be reduced to major or even moderate with a slight change to the positioning of the

route. He said the landtake of 8.5 actres and severance of 6.1 acres gfor a total of almost

15 acres might seem small in the context of the overall area of the property but its

He said the Hearing had heard Mr. Osbourne describe "winter paddocks" and he outlined

three reasons for every major stud farm having what it regarded as its winter paddock are.

He said that these paddocks would be in the driest part of the farm, so that young stock

were not up to their knees in mud in the normal Irish climate with little or no feeding on

wet ground, and said these same paddocks would be given a rest from stock during the

spring and summer until other parts of the farm became too wet for stock in the late

autumn. He said these paddocks had to be near the stud buildings such as the stabling and

administration area to reduce the amount of walking bringing stock in at night or during

poor weather as walking increase stress on the horses and required extra labour to look

after them. He said this meant that the proposed route being along where the paddocks

were at present made the stabling and offices in the wrong place when the replacement

paddocks would have to be elsewhere and he said this also applied to the section of land

Mr. Keane referred to as it was further away from the stabling. He said the third thing

needed was shelter and that normally the winter paddocks were the most sheltered in the

farm, as it was the months of January, February and March that were the most important

in the life of a thoroughbred with mares foaling, and yearlings entering a very important

Mr. Kauntze said the shelter belts in Gerardstown were over 100 years old and a lot of

these would be lost if the preferred route went in as it was proposed whereas route D

would only take off a fraction of them and he said it would take a very long time to

replace these 100 year old shelter belts and he doubted this could be done. He said it

would be disastrous for Gerrardstown to lose their winter paddocks and that it would take

at least 10 to 12 years of hard work to try to relocate and develop them elsewhere on the

farm and referred to Mr. Osbourne not committing himself to a time scale as being

evidence of how difficult he knew this was to do. He said that only 135 acres out of the

195 acres in Gerrardstown was suitable for bloodstock and that only 30 to 35 acres was

suitable for winter paddocks and he pointed out the difficulties of moving the winter

difficulties these, as well as those from the road itself, would cause the stud. He referred

in particular to the construction difficulties from machinery noise and dust and expressed

strong concerns about the effects of dust on horses's lungs from eating dusty grass in the

paddocks adjacent to where construction was taking place and said this would make areas

He acknowledged that the proposed road was going to be in a 7 metre cutting and that

this would reduce the impact somewhat but pointed out the route D would be behind

existing shelter belts and said these would be very beneficial in reducing the impact

during construction as they would screen the dust and be a permanent barrier to prevent

horses from escaping. He said temporary fencing was unsatisfactory since contractors did

not always respect this and left gates open with consequential stress on brood-mares as

they approached their foaling dates. Mr. Kauntze said he considered the impact of the

present route for the motorway on Gerrardstown stud as being very severe and said that

the alternative route being put forward only involved moving the route a few hundred

yards to the west. He concluded by saying that the owner of Gerrardstown Stud was not

asking the Council to stop proceeding with the motorway but was asking that the route be

moved a small amount which would mean so much to the viability of the stud farm.

Mr.Keane then submitted a copies of undertakings relating to rectification works given

by the Council to property owners on the Dunsany Road, near Dunshaughlin, in relation

to the possible effects of the excavation for the road on the zone of influence of their

private water supply wells, arising from the Inspector's query on this matter and

following from Mr. Tom Byrne's cross-examinations and the Verbal Submission of Mr.

McKillen on Day 6 ( See Sections 35.2, 41 & 48.1of this Report) ( Note -- Copies of

Mr. Bryan said he had a Degree in Agricultural Science from UCD and had started a

Consultancy in Crop Production after qualifying in 1975 and had worked extensively on

stud farms since 1983 and had worked with many of the top stud farms in Ireland,

England, France and Germany over the past 20 years. He said that after the 15 acres was

taken from Gerrardstown House Stud for the motorway, there would be about 140 acres

left there suitable for bloodstock production with the stud paddocks consisting of a heavy

clay soil that produced excellent grass for horses. He said this type of soil had a delicate

balance of minerals for the production of grass for horses and these transferred from the

soil to the herbage and that the very successful studs of North Kildare and County Meath

were based on similar soils which was the basis for their success. He said there were 14

mares at present at Gerrardstown and with the foals and yearlings of those mares carried

on the stud and he said that with some horses in training there as well, the majority of the

paddocks were in use at any given time due to the number of horses on the lands.

He said that from a bloodstock viewpoint a mare, foal and yearling required 10 acres of

land and that if the motorway land was taken the stud could not function in its present

form, as it was stocked to its maximum at present. He referred to the need to walk horses

twice daily from the yard to the winter paddocks and said that if these were further away

there would be extra labour involved. He said the present winter paddocks were situated

along the proposed route for the motorway, with the summer paddocks at the other end of

the farm, and said that if the new road was constructed then the yard, which was built to

service the winter paddocks, would be in the wrong place. He said the road would have a

devastating effect on the operation of the stud farm as it would remove the invaluable

shelter belt which acted as a barrier to wind and rain and he handed in photographs

showing the shelter belts at present.( Note-- These are included in his Brief of Evidence

as listed at Day 21 in Appendix 4 of this Report). He said the water table would be

lowered which would upset the delicate mineral balance in the herbage; most of the

winter paddocks would be lost forever and the stud forced to use less suitable summer

paddocks in the winter, with consquential extra labour needed to walk the horses from the

Mr. Bryan said planning permission for a new barn had already been refused due to its

proximity of the yard to the motorway route curtailing possible expansion of the stud ;

that the severed lands would become useless to the stud due to their shape and lack of

adjoining the road not being capable of being grazed as the shelter belts would be

removed exposing grazing horses to heavy machinery and with dust blowing onto the

paddocks affecting the horses health and the palatability of the herbage. He referred to

the effects of dust of the herbage on its mineral content and the possibility of blasting and

He then referred to Route D as the alternative route and said its impact on the stud farm

would be less since the existing shelter belts would be maintained; the paddocks could be

used during construction and dust deposition greatly reduced; the winter paddocks would

remain intact and that this route would only impact on the southwest corner with little of

the good grazing would be removed. He concluded by saying that the stud was presently

an excellent working unit and the construction of the road as proposed would reduce the

land area, destroy the winter paddocks and reduce the chances of producing top class

Mr. McGrath asked him to deal with the issue raised by Mr. Keane about a "land swop"

between two triangular pieces of land one owned by Mr. O'Kane and the other by the

Stud and Mr. Bryan confirmed he had heard nothing about this and did not consider the

swop would compensate the Stud for the severed lands, saying that a triangular piece of

land was dangerous for horses, as you did not fence into a wedge and allow horses to run

in to an area where there was no exit and he said Mr. Osbourne had accepted this earlier

in the Hearing. Mr. McGrath then referred to a number of triangular areas in the

Gerrardstown Stud lands and asked Mr. Bryan if these would be suitable as paddocks but

Mr. Bryan maintained these would be not be suited since the fences could not be built

without having triangular areas which, he said, were unacceptable on a stud farm. Mr

Bryan confirmed that the land being spoken of as a "swop" could neither compensate for

comment on the shelter available on the proposed "swop" land and Mr. Bryan described

the being some limited trees and hedging in part of it but said most had no shelter and

that part of it was dipped down quite fast and was inclined to be wet in one corner. Asked

about a 40 acre field at the southern end of the farm, Mr. Bryan said it was not suited for

bloodstock as it was too low-lying and was all bog land and said it would be wrong to

Mr. Keane referred to his statement of the top corner of the field in Mr. O'Kane's lands in

Garetstown being wet because it was low-lying and said that from the drawing of the

road it was clear that the ground there was high and continued to rise through the land

and he pointed to this on the screen at the Hearing in Drawing 3.2 in Vol.4B of the EIS.

Mr. Bryan disagreed with this interpretation and when Mr. Keane referred to there being

a significant rise at chn.21750 with the land plateauing beyond this and continuing to rise

to chn.22750, he again disagreed and said that if one stood in the field and looked at it the

land did not rise, but he accepted that it might rise on the drawing and said the stud fields

past the "Gerrardstown" sign on the drawing dropped down towards the bottom ditch.

Mr. Keane then suggested that the problems with triangular corners could be overcome

by "rounding" the fencing at these corners but Mr. Bryan said this would use up lot of

ground in the field. Mr. Keane then referred him to a field in the Stud farm which he had

earlier identified as being used for a summer paddock which had a triangular corner on

the map and when Mr. Bryan said that corner was fenced around, Mr. Keane pointed to

several other similar fields, he replied that those were not as long and narrow as the

O'Kane field. A discussion the followed about what might be done to maintain some of

the shelter by removing parts of the fences on these "swop" lands with Mr. Bryan

maintaining that shelter would not be restored for 10 to 12 years. Mr. Keane suggested

that it would make more sense from an overall viewpoint to engage in a "land swop" with

Mr. O'Kane rather than to keep the severed land as the access being provided would

make for a long trip from the stud in going around on the road to it. Mr. Bryan accepted it

might make sense but said he did not think it was as simple as was being suggested to

Mr. McGrath asked if what Mr.Keane was proposing would be used as summer o winter

paddocks and when Mr. Bryan said it would be used as summer paddocks, he asked if

that would compensate the Stud for the loss of the winter paddocks but Mr. Bryan said it

would not since the yard would still be too far away and he said several parts of the

hedging, not just one piece, would have to be taken out to give space for horses to gallop

about the field and said that would reduce the shelter significantly. Mr. McGrath repeated

there was no evidence of this proposal being a feasible one. The Inspector said to Mr.

Keane that the drawings in Vol. 4B of the EIS did not indicate that either of the triangular

lands he was referring to were in the CPO and Mr. Keane confirmed they were not . He

Engineers, Dublin and that they had initially prepared a Report assessing the then

emerging preferred route, Route A, and giving an outline of two alternatives, Roiutes B

and C, which was submitted to the Council's Design Office in April 2001 and he said

these were discussed with the Council in May 2001 ( Note -- Since these alternatives

were superceded by Route D, as Mr. McGrath explained in his opening remarks, the

details are not being outlined in this Report. A copy of the details was included with the

original objection by Gerrardstown Stud to An Bord ). He said that in January 2002 they

prepared alternative Route D to avoid the then identified potential archaeological site of

Area 26, which was revealed by the Council's geophysical survey, and said that by using

tighter radii of about 1500 metres they were able to avoid impacting the proposed

Roestown Overbridge crossing the N3. He said that the alternative Route D used three

curves of 1500, 2880 & 1500 metres radii between chn.20950 and 23000 to achieve a

Gerrardstown Stud lands at the south-western corner with almost no severance being

caused. He said the vertical alignment for Route D was similar to the of Route A being in

a cutting that avoided Area 26 even with the sideslopes. He said they had submitted a

Drawing, No. 203, to the Council in February 2002 and discussed it with them on 13

February 2002 from which some revisions were needed to provide improved stopping

sight distances and said that they had prepared a Revised Drawing in April 2002, which

included for stopping sight distance by central reservation widening, to accompany the

Mr. Horgan said that the key points in their alternative Route D were that the extent of

the skew crossing of the N3 remained the same as for Route A; the area of landtake for

both routes was essentially the same with land for the access road included; no new fields

were affected by route D and while the impact on fields F3, F4 & F5 was increased, the

impact there was already major in the EIS and the holding was non-residential; the degree

of impact of Gerrardstown was reduced significantly with no severance which eliminated

the necessity for a 4.5 km detour to access the severed lands from Route A and that the

requirement for an additional landtake to provide for screen planting in Route A would be

significantly reduced since Route D would leave most of the existing hedgerow intact.

Mr. Horgan said that all of their alternatives, B, C &D, were within the 500 metre wide

reservation for preliminary design shown on the N3 Consultation document of July 2000.

He said that while Route A might be the more favourable in a purely road design context,

as it had a lessor degree of curvature, route D was a valid and viable geometric

alternative that used the geometric constraints established elsewhere along the route and

it should be viewed as such in an effort to minimise the impact on Gerrardstown stud.

Mr. McGrath asked him if Route D was the optimum route and Mr. Horgan replied that

Route A was the preferable route from a purely roads aspect but that Route D was a

viable alternative and that it met all of the required parameters. He acknowledged they

were using close to the minimum allowable radius of 1440 metres but said that 30% of

explain to the Inspector, using the Drawing, the differences between Routes A and D and

without knowing about Area 26 so they picked up about that constraint and that of the

skew on the Overbridge later. He said that rather than using a 3000 metre curve as on

Route A they used two reverse curves of 1500 metres to kick it off-line when departing

from the Overbridge and a 3000 metre curve next to area 26 and then used a 1500 metre

curve to kick it back on line. He said they used a similar vertical alignment to the existing

route to assess the sideslopes when passing Area 26. ( Note -- He handed in some larger

scale drawings of the alternatives, all of which were included with his Brief of Evidence

Horgan agreed but only on a purely roads outlook, asked if Route D involved three

curves, two being the bare minimum, rather than the one on Route A and Mr. Horgan

embankments but Mr. Horgan thought that would be balanced by less land needed for

screen planting with Route A. Mr. Keane suggested that the severance in Plot 1057 by

Route D would be about 8 hectares and Mr. Horgan accepted that, but said Route A was

already imposing a significant severance there. Mr. Keane said that Route D went

through the three physical features on the ground, crossing totally over two of these and

taking about two-thirds of the other and again Mr. Horgan agreed. Mr. Keane suggested

Route D also impinged on Area 26 but Mr. Horgan, while accepting it did, said Route A

Mr. Keane suggested there was a house near field F2 where noise from Route D would be

more than from Route A but Mr. Horgan thought the background noise from the existing

N3 would also be significant there while agree3uing Route D was nearer to it the route a.

Mr. Horgan also agreed that Route D was closer to three other houses on the other side of

the N3 than Route A but also said the background noise there would be significant.

Asked if Route A would be preferable from a noise aspect on terms of neighbouring

houses, Mr. Horgan agreed but said he thought that it was not insurmountable to mitigate

for noise from Route D and said that there was adequate land for noise barriers if needed

Dr. Mandal said he had a PhD in geo-archaeology from TCD, he had 11 years experience

archaeological consultancy founded in 1997. He said his Company had been retained by

archaeology and that their report was compiled by himself and his partner, Finola

He said the primary aim of the report was to assess the impact of Route D on the three

features and to compare the impact of the EPR, Route A, on the known archaeological

Area 26 and this included a review of the existing documentation and reports including

the RMP, cartographic and historical research and a field assessment. He said that

Margaret Gowan's EIS report based on the geophysical survey by GSP concluded that

Area 26 was one of seven areas deemed to be of major archaeological interest and that

Area 26 should be avoided by the road. He said when CRDS examined the area there was

no surface remains visible when they assessed it. He said that Dr. Kilfeather noted the

three features during her field survey for the EIS and deemed them to be tree rings or

landscape features rather than archaeological features. He said the CRDS assessment was

He said Feature 1 was an overgrown rectangular area defined by a deep wide flatbottomed

visible on early OS maps remaining; Feature 2 was a small rise in topography that was

mirrored on the adjacent field to the south and was heavily overgrown with nettles and

some large trees and Feature 3 was a loosely defined tree ring of mature trees. He said

that Area 26 was a known area of archaeological significance and that a significant

portion of Area 26 would be impacted by Route A. He said the three features were not

deemed to be of archaeological significance even though they occur on early OS maps;

that Duchas had surveyed them and had not noted them as sites in the RMP and Margaret

Gowan had noted them in her field survey as probably landscape features. He said CRDS

considered them to be garden or landscape features and outlined their reasons for this

opinion and he concluded by saying that the impact of Route A on Area 26 would be

Mr. McGrath asked him to explain the differences in impact on Area 26 by both Routes

and Dr. Mandal referred to a map shown on the screen at the Hearing, which was in more

detail than the map in Figure 1 in his brief of evidence, said Route A was significantly

closer to Area 26 than Routre D would be but said it would not be possible to make a fair

comparison without a geophysical survey of Route D. Mr. McGrath drew attention to the

location of the cutting just to the south of Area 26 and asked what effect that would have

on archaeological remains there. Dr. Mandal said he would be more concerned about the

geophysics being an indicator of more material occurring in that area than of the actual

cut area into that portion of Area 26. Mr. McGrath asked was he suggesting that there

might be other associated finds outside the area that could be impacted by Route A and

Dr. Mandal replied that geophysics was an indicator of archaeological activity and the

heavy signals in that area indicated there could be material occurring in a wider area but

Mr. McGrath asked if he had any comments about the advisability of partial excavation

of archaeological remains and Dr. Mandal said it was best practice to avoid disturbing

then where they were known to exist or preservation in-situ and that the next best was full

excavation which was preservation by record. Mr. McGrath asked if the fact that a

geophysical survey was done for the full length of Route A was any guarantee of no

further finds being found along Route A. Dr. Mandal replied that geophysics was a good

indicator but the fact nothing was found did not mean no features were there. He said that

no matter where the road went it was likely that in an archaeologically rich area some

archaeological terms there was any reason for rejecting Route D and Dr. Mandal said that

there was no reason to prefer Route A over Route D on archaeological grounds since

those three features were not deemed to be archaeological features. Mr. McGrath asked

for his comments on Area 26 and Dr. Mandal said that in his opinion based on the

Mr. Keane asked if his primary degree was in Geology and when Dr. Mandal confirmed

this and said his PhD was in geo-archaeology, Mr. Keane asked if he was aware that Niall

Flanagan had previously been advising Gerrarsdstown stud on the archaeological aspects

of the road and alternatives and had expressed the view that the Council Route was the

best from an archaeological aspect but Dr. Mandal said he was not aware of that.

Mr.Keane asked if he had advised Gerrardstown that a geophysical survey would be

needed along Route D and Dr. Mandal replied that he had previously said such a survey

would be necessary before a direct comparison between the two routes could be made but

he had not advised his Clients to arrange this. Mr. Keane asked how then could he make

a comparison in the absence of such survey but Dr. Mandal said he could do so on the

evidence available to him at present. Mr. Keane suggested that it was known what sites

were along Route A from the Council's geophysical survey but no-one knew what was

geophysics was a good indicator, you could not assume that everything was identified

Mr. Keane suggested that Route D would obliterate three other areas which might be of

archaeological importance but Dr. Mandal said that neither Duchas or Margaret Gowan

had deemed them to be of archaeological significance, while he accepted that without

further testing they could not be confirmed not to be archaeological. Asked if these

features were tested by his Clients, Dr. Mandal said they had not been tested. Mr. Keane

then suggested these features appeared on the 1837 OS map and were very old and could

be there for long before that and that as some of them were D-shaped that indicated a

ditch may have gone through a circular shape. Dr. Mandal replied that he considered

them to be part of a wider domain of sets of garden landscape features and probably 19th

century. A discussion followed on these features, whether they could or could not be

archaeologically related or garden features and the need for test trenching to establish

what they were or contained. Mr. Keane suggested that Route D would destroy what Dr.

Mandal accepted might contain archaeological remains while the EPR did not go through

them but Dr. Mandal replied that Route A (EPR) went through known archaeological

Mr. Keane asked if he had seen a map showing the detail of the land take for Route D and

when Dr.Mandal replied that he had been given one by Arthur Cox then suggested Mr.

Horgan had agreed both Routes had similar impacts on Area 26. Dr. Mandal said he

assumed Mr. Horgan knew where the road was going but unless the width of landtake for

D was the same as for A, which was not clear since the cutting depth of D was not

known, he could not say what the relative impact would be. Mr. Keane asked if he would

accept that when Mr. Horgan was confirming the effect on Area 26 would be the same

from A and D he had the expertise in relation to his road design and Dr. Mandal asked if

Area 26 referred to the limit of the geophysics or the archaeological features. Mr. Keane

said the extent of the landtake was shown for Route A but only the centreline was shown

for Route D and Dr. Mandal replied that based on the information he had, Route D did

Evidence which compared Routes D and A and asked him if that indicated a differential

in the extent of the incursion into Area 26 as between both routes and, having correlated

that map to the map being shown on the screen at the Hearing. Dr. Mandal said that

based on the DBFL map 203, the impact of Route A was far more significant than Route

D in terms of what was shown by geophysics within Area 26 and he confirmed that he

had seen this DBFL map previously, as he had been given it by Arthur Cox & Co. and

Mr. McGrath said that the proposal for Route D by Gerrardstown House Stud obviously

impacted on other landowners and they had endeavoured to ascertain what would be the

Mr.McGrath referred to a letter they had received from MacBride Conaghan solicitors on

behalf of Mr. O'Kane in which he gave consent to the mpotorway being moved closer to

his property as in Route D. He said that Gerrardstown House Stud had then approached

the other owners and following discussions had written to each of them setting out their

proposal for Route D. He said that they had received written responses confirming their

consent from Jones Lang LaSalle on behalf of JS Lister Ltd. for Plot 1057 and from

Gaynor Corr and Associates on behalf of Michael O'Brien for Plot 1053, Dermot Carty

He said the remaining landowner was a company called Newland Properties Ltd. who

objecting to Route D. He said they had sent a letter to Newland Properties advising of

Gerrardstown's intention to present their proposal for Route D to the Hearing on 22

October 2002 and inviting them to attend and make their objections known there. He then

read a FAX from Newland Properties signed by Frank Reynolds as Managing Director

which said in part " -- I wish to advise that it is not correct to state that we have objected

to your proposal. --- what I did say was that we would have to consider our position

carefully before reaching any decision --- ". Mr. McGrath said they had again asked

Newland Properties to confirm their view and that they had neither replied nor attended.

He said that five out of the six landowners that would be affected by Route D had

confirmed in writing they had no objection to it. He said the sixth had written stating it

was not making an objection but was considering its position and that all of the

correspondence about this aspect was in the File of Briefs of Evidence which he was

handing into the Hearing. ( Note -- This is listed at Day 21 in Appendix 4 of this Report)

Note -- Mr. McGrath made his closing submission after his cross-examination of Mr.

Guthrie and Ms Courtney, the direct evidence for Gerrardstown having preceded this.

Mr. McGrath said that while other objectors might have attacked the Scheme in a much

broader sense, his Clients were putting forward a modification to the Scheme which

involved moving the road approximately 200 metres which was a minor modification in

the scale of the Scheme as a whole. He said that in putting forward this modification and

suggested alternative it was important to realise the impact that the road as proposed

would have on his Client's property, Gerrardstown House Stud. He referred to the

evidence given by M/s Kauntze and Bryan of it being a commercial enterprise which was

accepted by Mr. Osbourne and to the evidence of the impact which the road would have

both on a permanent and constructional basis with the loss of their 15 acres of winter

paddocks and he emphasised the importance of that 15 acres to the Stud out of their 160

Mr. McGrath referred to the possibility of a swop between the Stud and Mr. O'Kane's

severed land which Mr. Keane had pursued with several witnesses and said this was both

a simplistic evaluation and a misapprehension of the impact of the road on the stud farm.

He said this misapprehension had informed the entire process since the Council had been

operating from day one that taking land from a stud farm was the same as taking it from

an ordinary farm and that it was perfectly permissible to swop parcels of land around. He

said the evidence was that such was not the case and that it would not compensate the

He referred to the route selection process that Mr. Guthrie had outlined and said it was

clear from the evidence that there was not a rough sharing of the burden as there was a

grossly disproportionate impact on the stud land when compared to that on the nonresidential

their archaeologists but the Council only gave a cursory consideration to the viable

alternatives which his Client's Consultants had come up with, and he said that despite all

of the serious representations made by his Clients, the Council made no attempt to

engage with his Client's Consultants and to realistically evaluate the proposals. He said

that a route had been selected and there was a timetable in place and that was not going to

Mr. McGrath then outlined why Route D should recommend itself to An Bord and said

Gerrardstown House Stud was a successful commercial stud and a substantial enterprise

where the owner had made a significant investment in the last number of years, which

Mr. Osbourne had accepted. He said there would be short-term impacts from dust, noise

etc in the construction phase which would sterilise a sizeable area of the land and that

there would be a very significant long-term effect from the loss of the winter paddocks.

He said the Council, despite what they stated about taking into account the impact on

landowners, had failed to adequately consider the impact on the stud in selecting the

consideration to the viable alternatives put forward to them. He said that a point had now

been reached where the stud farm trenchantly opposed the siting of this road on their land

and six landowners, of whom five had expressed a written opinion of no objection with

the sixth considering their position, with an alternative route available for the road.

Mr. McGrath then dealt with the reasons put forward why Route D should not be selected

and said that while he did not particularly like it Mr. Guthrie had accepted it was a viable

engineering design alternative and that it met the criteria used elsewhere on the scheme.

He said that he did not think there was any disagreement about the archaeological impact

with Route A impacting on Area 26 to some degree whereas Route D did not. He said

that the three upstanding features were probably garden or landscape features and were

only possibly of archaeological importance but that had not been tested for. He said that

there was insufficient evidence to reject Route D on archaeological terms since it had no

impact on Area 26 and its impact on the three features could not be quantified but it

He referred to the noise issue on adjoining houses as having been emphasisied and said

they accepted the noise levels at house F2/P9 would be elevated but said this could be

mitigated successfully. He said the adjoining landowners were not objecting to route D

and that this was an important factor in a Scheme like the M3 and he submitted it was

preferable to site a road on land where there was no objection as opposed to land whewre

the owner had strong objections. Mr. McGrath then referred to the provisions of Section

49(3) of the roads act 1993 dealing with the compulsory acquisition of lands and said that

what he was proposing was a modification and that this was a modification thatb should

Mr. McGrath then drew a distinction between the provisions of Section 49 of the Roads

Act 1993 and those of the Third Schedule to the Housing Act 1966 and referred to the use

of the CPO powers in the Housing Act 1966. He then handed in an extract from the Third

Schedule of Housing Act 1966 ( Listed at Day 21 in Appendix 4 of this Report) and

quoted from Section 5 (3) (a) which said that an Order shall not authorise the Housing

Authority to acquire compulsorily any land which the relevant CPO would not have

authorised them to so acquire if it had been confirmed without modification and he said

that was the foundation for the rule where you could not bring land into a CPO that was

outside the CPO land. Mr.McGrath said that it was very important that there was no

equivalent prohibition in the Roads Act 1993 because, he said, that the legislature must

have been aware of the provisions of the Housing Act 1966 when drawing up the Roads

Act 1993 about the prohibition on bringing land outside the CPO within the terms of the

Order and yet made no such prohibition in the 1993 Act. Mr. McGrath submitted that, on

that basis, there was nothing to stop the Inspector from recommending to An Bord that

Route D should be adopted as a modification to the scheme. He submitted that every

affected landowner had been notified of the CPO, that they all had plot numbers and that

five of them had indicated they had no objection, with the sixth considering their position

but not having actually objected at the Hearing, so that there was no impediment in terms

of natural justice to stop such a recommendation. Mr. McGrath concluded his submission

by requesting his costs on behalf of his Client and the Inspector said he would note that

request but said the issue of costs was not a matter to be dealt with in his Report and said

that a separate application would have to be made to An Bord regarding that issue.

Mr.Bergin said that Tara Stud had an extensive land holding at Clowanstown which the

proposed motorway seriously reduced and in part it eliminated the use of some remaining

lands for stud farm purposes. He said that the layout and fencing of a stud farm took

many years to provide and was an expensive undertaking and that any alteration would

severely reduce the capacity of the stud to operate and that the disturbances caused from

the construction works, with dust and noise, would have an adverse impact on the horses

and would remove the tranquillity essential when receiving clients in the equine industry.

He said that many of the fields adjacent to the motorway route could not be used to graze

young horses during the period of the construction and said that it would be essential that

embankments were provided where the motorway was at or above ground level to reduce

He compared the Tara Stud to the situation in the National Stud in Kildare with the

Kildare By-pass where he said it took 15 years to conclude negotiations which involved

the re-organisation of the internal layout and management of the stud to facilitate the final

road layout. He said that the accommodation works at the National Stud included a high

earth mound heavily planted on top, with agreement on all of those works being reached

between the Kildare Council and the National Stud before the Inquiry where the stud

supported the Council's proposals. He said there were many similarities between Tara

Stud and the National Stud with both studs using ground water extensively for water and

he noted that there were reports of problems with ground water levels at the Kildare

situation even though the motorway was not yet completed. He said that Tara Stud

depended on ground water from wells on their property and that any interference with

this by the road construction would have serious consequences for the Stud's operation.

Mr. Bergin said the design and of the scheme of accommodation works should not be left

to a private contractor or be left to him to maintain the water supply and his Clients

expected the Council to ensure the necessary steps were taken to guarantee the continued

viability of Tara Stud with responsibility for the scheme remaining with the Council. He

said that Tara stud required specific proposals for accommodation works and said these

should have been discussed and agreed by now due to the time span necessary for their

Mr. Lumley said that apart from its statutory role An Taisce had a direct interest in the

proposal as An Taisce was the navigation authority for the River Boyne as the owner of

the navigation rights on the Boyne as far as Navan and the Boyne was traversed by the

proposed motorway. He said he himself was very familiar with the area through his many

visits to archaeological sites and to country houses and vernacular farmhouses, which he

Mr. Lumley said the process being followed was a sequential one with the terms of the

EIA Directive of 1985 as amended in 1997 being first applied which required that

adequate data of the project be provided; that that data be available for proper appraisal

by the relevant statutory authorities or expert witnesses which are putting forward that

data and that the justification for the project and consideration of alternatives, which

might render the need for the project void, must first be addressed before any potential

consideration be carried out of the need for the development. He said it was only after

that sequence had been carried out and properly completed in accordance with the EU

Directive that the issue of the appropriateness of recommending the confirmation of the

CPO and the issue of environmental mitigation or conditions of mitigation can be

addressed. He said this placed an enormous weight on the credibility and integrity of the

Council and other statutory authorities and the professional consultants who had

Mr. Lumley said he proposed to address specifically a number of the cultural heritage

issues that were raised by this project and the manner in which they complied first with

the EIA Directive and other relevant international conventions, directives and national

legislation and then, by way of example, to raise particular cases relative to the proposed

He said there was no directive covering archaeology but there was a European Treaty, the

Valletta Convention of 1992 which Ireland signed in 1997 and he said he would be

supplying a copy of that Convention to the Inspector ( Note -- No copy was submitted to

the Hearing either before it closed or afterwards). He referred to the aims of the

Convention as a means of protecting archaeological heritage and the measures to be put

in place to achieve those aims and specifically referred to Article 5, sub-section 3 which

set out the provision to ensure EIAs and resulting decisions involved full consideration of

archaeological sites and their settings. He said that the Council had delegated its

archaeological section of the EIS which, he said, was the normal practice for Local

Authorities who had no archaeological staff of their own. He said the information

provided in the EIS by Margaret Gowan & Co. followed the standard procedure being

applied by Local Authorities, the NRA and by Developers in the private sector when

putting forward schemes with an archaeological content and was based on archival

research, documentary searches and a photographic and general walkover with the data

from this being provided in the EIS and he said it was not clear if anyone did walk over

He referred to the use of the SMR and RMP under the National Monuments Act 1994 in

the Constraints and Route Selection stages and suggested that by a site being delineated

and given a record number it did not mean there might not be other significant areas

outside that site which had a huge archaeological significance. He said there were many

subterranean features or earthworks that had been ploughed over or covered over the

centuries and might not have been identified from above ground to be recorded or

registered. He said there was now a much wider concept to be considered which reflected

the broadening of archaeology to the concept of the archaeological landscape which was

the wider archaeological or human sites in the landscape in terms of its road system and

field sub-divisions as a human creation over thousands of years. He said that in that

context each individual archaeological site such as a ringfort, earthwork of church site,

could not be separated from the wider human created landscape to which it related.

Mr. Lumley said that one could not look at the Hill of Tara in isolation and the Hill must

be viewed in its context to the surrounding landscape, to the parallel relationship it had

with the Hill of Skreen opposite it and to th inevitability of there being other

archaeological sites in between them. He said it was clear there were more sites in the

Tara area than were noted in the SMP and RMP and he referred to the Lismullin area as

an example and, pointing to an aerial photograph, he said Lismullin had been identified

as a monastic site and that the aerial photographs supplied with the data showed a

significant potential archaeological zone in Lismullin that extended beyond any area

identified in either the archaeological appraisal provided with the EIS or in the SMR.

He said this raised a fundamental flaw in the way archaeology was being dealt with on

major projects in Ireland and not only on road projects. He referred to the Carrickmines

Castle situation on the South-Eastern Motorway in Dublin where, he said, data available

in 1983 had not been made available or was not raised at the Oral Hearing in 1998 and

that Hearing had only the benefit of the sort of desktop information provided at this M3

Hearing, when the identified zone of Carrickmines was much smaller than had now been

identified. He pointed to the monastic site at Lismullin and said the mound features and

earthworks were part of an area of much larger significance that could have been altered

and adapted in the Bronze Age or the Iron Age or associated with a later monastic site.

He said that while a general site area had been identified for that monastic site, there was

no on-site data provided and he said that was the flaw in the whole process any time a

motorway was run across the countryside. He said all of the desktop studies were of no

use when there was no geophysical data or trial trenching to establish the potential nature

complaint to the European Commission on grounds of breach of ther EIA Directive and

he handed in a copy of the response to that complaint dated 10 October 2002 from the EC

Directorate-General Environment and addressed to Mr. Ian Lumley. Mr. Sweetman asked

him to read this letter into the record but the Inspector said that it was not necessary for

him to read it when he was handing in a copy but he could summarise the main points he

wished to raise. Mr. Lumley then referred to issues raised by the Commission with the

Irish authorities in response to complaint P2002/4957 made by An Taisce and said that if

there was a deficiency in the information at the application stage this then had knock-on

effects in rendering any decision made on mitigation flawed, since one could not mitigate

an environmental impact if you did not know what that impact was to start with. He

archaeological digging and appraisal only commenced after the contract was commenced.

He said the Commission was now requesting details of the impact in the light of current

knowledge and had asked that expert comments from Duchas and the National Museum

He said he was raising the Carrickmines issue to avoid a similar situation arising in the

case of the M3 project, if it were to proceed on the basis of the current information

Carrickmines type sites in the path of the motorway which had not been subjected to any

Mr. Lumley said there was a second difficulty imposed regarding Ireland's compliance

resources to adequately implement the Valletta Convention. He said that most of Duchas'

staff were involved in the licensing function and could not monitor or inspect excavations

and he refered to an incident involving an excavation on the Gas pipeline in Meath where

an early Christian burial site was hit by an excavator because, he said, the archaelogical

monitoring meant to be provided was not provided and he referred to Margaret Gowan &

Co. as being the Archeaological Consultant involved in this incident and said a similar

incident happened previously in 1998 where Margaret Gowan & Co were also involved.

He also criticised Duchas for the required monitoring inspection not having taken place at

the most recent incident and went on to refer to the inadequacy of resources given to

Duchas being confirmed by the chief archaeologist at a conference in October 2002 in

Holywood, Co. Down. He expressed surprise that there was no representative of Duchas

at the Hearing and said he had not seen any copy of a submission by Duchas to the

He said that given the multiple deficiency in competence, the lack of assessment, the lack

of an adequate regime in Ireland to deal with our international archaeological obligations

and that it was Tara that was being dealt with, this represented a very serious deficiency

on behalf of Duchas and must warrant extreme caution when considering a proposal

where the baseline data was so manifestly inadequate. He said the Inspector had the

option of recommending to an Bord that the element of the EIA relative to archaeology

was deficient and not compliant with the EU Directive and could lead both An Bord and

the Council and all other parties involved into a Carrickmines situation in the future. He

suggested the way to obviate this was to have the EIS re-submitted with a proper prior

archaeological asessment of what the actual on-the-ground impact of the project was

going to be not only on sites such as Lismullin but also on its wider impact which, he

said, had not been properly addressed in any analysis presented to them on the wider

Mr. Lumley said he would now deal with the architectural heritage issue where the

relevant international convention was the Granada Convention of 1985 which was only

ratified by Ireland in 1995 and the enabling legislation put in place through the Planning

2000. He said there was a fundamental difficulty with the legislation since it was flawed

on a national basis and in breach of the Granada Convention and he said that An Taisce

function of scheduling buildings and sites as protected structures had been devolved to

individual Local authorities instead of a proper national register being prepared. He said

that Meath had produced a Development Plan which came into force in 2000 just after

the 1999 Act and just before the 2000 Act came into force. He said that an examination of

the buildings along and adjacent to the area affected by the motorway indicated that

Meath did not have an adequate list of protected structures within its functional area.

acknowledging that Margaret Gowan had reported Lismullin as being of architectural

significance and he said he could not establish the listing of Dowdstown House, which he

described as one of the most significant 19th century buildings even with some 20th

inexplicable. He referred to the thatched Post Office of Tara as being a case where An

Taisce had made repeated representations to the Council which failed to take any action

in what was now the dereliction of one of the most important and historic thatched

buildings within its area of jurisdiction. He said that the Council might well point out that

it had inadequate resources and he sympathised with them over this since resource

Conventions with the provision of the necessary resources. He said there was a more

serious issue which went much further and affected the competence of the Council in the

Mr. Lumley said Meath County Council was presenting this application as the Planning

Authority for County Meath but the Council were not complying with their statutory

function as a Planning Authority not only in regard to architectural heritage but also in

applications within its functional area. He then stated the Council were not complying

with Articles 27 and 32 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 and was

outlining the requirements of these Articles when Mr. Keane intervened and said that he

had waited to see what relevance this had to Mr. Lumley's presentation and could not see

Mr. Keane said that the proposal was being put forward by the Council not as the

Planning Authority but as the Roads Authority for Co. Meath and the number of days for

publication of planning applications was of no relevance to the motorway proposal. Mr.

Lumley replied that he woyuld be demonstrating that the Council by its failure to exercise

its statutory responsibility as a Planning Authority was rending potentially void all

planning applications and decisions made by the Council, since the new legislation was

implemented. Mr. Keane said that Mr. Lumley's reply confirmed the irrelevance of the

issue he was making and that this was a Hearing into a proposal by a Road Authority and

not an Inquiry into a Planning Authority. Mr. Sweetman intervened to say the Planning

Authority was giving evidence at the Hearing and the Inspector commented that Mr.

Lumley was making a point, that he had said it would take about one hour for his

presentation and he had taken up more than half that time so far and that he ( Inspector)

Mr. Lumley then said that the Council's failure to comply with these Regulations had

implications for architectural heritage which was why it was relevant, apart from its

general function as a Planning and Road Authority, because by not publishing the lists as

required by Articles 27 and 32 the public were not being adequately alerted to the making

of planning applications affecting buildings, curtilages or sites that might have

implications for protected structures or those that should have been listed as protected

structures. He said that the failure also meant people were being precluded from

appealing to An Bord Pleanala since the late publication meant the potential appellant

might not be able to avail of certain rights under Section 37 of the Planning Act. He said

that all of this meant the Council had neither an adequate listing system in place to

protect the architectural heritage within its functional area but it was not administering

the planning system which was in place to ensure the rights of those who wanted to make

comments and appeal were properly maintained. He said that An Taisce had already

pointed out to the Council and the Department of the Environment by letter of 25 July

2002 that rendering those rights void also effectively rendered void the determination of

all applications and decisions made by the Council, as well as showing, in one other area,

He then referred to landscape protection and said there was no actual European Treaty for

this as yet but the was a draft landscape convention being adjudicated on by the Council

of Europe. He said the Department of the Environment had provided draft guidelines for

Planning Authorities in June 2000 which coincided with the publication of the Meath

CDP which did not allow for them to be incorporated into that CDP. He said these draft

guidelines contained a number of provisions that were also in the draft European

guidelines and they set up a key concept of landscape character assessment and the

identification of landscape character zones in different parts of a Local Authority area. He

submitted there was a serious deficiency in the landscape appraisal presented in the EIS

regarding landscape assessment, landscape character appraisal and addressing the wider

schemes seemed to have a curious view of limiting the landscape impact to the immediate

impact along the road route, without assessing the landscape impact of the quarrying and

extraction sites from which the thousands of tonnes of material would have to come for

this road project. He said the project data for this road did not identify the relevant

He said there was a wider impact than landscape and this was the spatial impact which

had not been addressed in the EIS. He said the justification for the motorway was to

increase vehicle capacity and to reduce travel time between the Dublin area and Kells and

to provide relief in Navan and Kells and said this could be done by quite separate

measures. He said there had been no assessment of the effects of reducing travel time

between any two urban areas, or between the metropolitan and rural countryside areas

had on the increase in the toleration ratio and level by which housing development and

commuter housing might be deemed appropriate in the wider hinterland. He said it was

understandable that the spatial planning impact of dispersed commuter development had

not been adequately addressed since the Council, while within the area of the SPGs, did

not appear to take those guidelines seriously and he referred to the judgement given by

Mr. Justice Quirke when giving his decision on the case taken against the Council

Mr. Lumley said that a motorway was being cut into the Greater Dublin Area without

having any appropriate strategy to prevent it from being saturated by cars from the carborne

Cavan and he said that was an essentially flawed strategy. He said that there would be

impacts in making a large area of Cavan more attractive to car-borne commuting than at

present which would defeat the strategic objective the motorway was to serve and it

would have a direct spatial planing and landscape impact on Cavan which already had

applications. He said he had questioned the competence of Meath in planning matters and

said he wanted to put on the record that there were other issues about the competence of

Cavan County Council regarding the exercise of its statutory powers under the Planning

and Development Act 2000 but, because these were the subject of legal proceedings

between An Taisce and that Council, he would not go any further than that but said he

wanted to put the Inspector on notice of this at this Hearing. The Inspector commented

that Cavan County Council were not a party to the CPO and that he had made his point.

Mr. Lumley replied that a part of the new road actually ran over the boundary at the Elliot

Business Park and said that the road would have a landscape impact on Cavan since it

was adjacent to the boundary. He said that there were a wide range of trans-boundary

He said that he had been concerned about the amount of detail he had heard about smallscale

engineering issues regarding local impacts on individual property owners and while

he had sympathy for these individuals, he said there were other issues that had to be

considered before any individual impact. He said that the adequacy of the EIS, the

credibility of the data and the credibility and integrity of the various Authorities and

parties putting forth that data had to be asesssed as being adequate and he said that only

then did the next stage kick in of considering if the the project was justified or not. He

said that if it was considered that the scheme was justified and the CPO confirmed, then

mitigation of the environmental impacts was considered and, to do this, one must have

Mr. Lumley submitted that the Inspector was not in a position to do any of those things

within a whole range of areas and, particularly, in the areas of archaeological and

architectural heritage and landscape where, he said, the necessary baseline data and

appraisal, appraisal information and relevant technical and other impact information had

not been provided in the EIS or in large part by the Council or their expert witnesses who

appeared at the Hearing. He concluded by saying that to proceed on the basis of such

inaccurate a range of data meant that the impact of the Scheme could not be adequately

Mr. Keane referred to his reference of being unsure if the route had been walked over by

the archaeologists and when Mr. Lumley replied that there was a reference but that it was

not obvious from the data produced, Mr. Keane suggested that he had read of there being

a walkover carried out but appeared to be doubting what he had read. Mr. Lumley then

said that he had stated the archaeological sites which could be potentially impacted had

not been adequately assessed and examined by the archaeologists but Mr. Keane said that

was not what he had said in relation to the walking over. When Mr. Lumley replied that

there was no indication, the Inspector intervened and said he had got the impression from

what Mr. Lumley had said that it had not been walked over and when Mr. Lumley said

there was no evidence of this, Mr. Keane said the evidence was that people said they did

Archaeological Consultants had been responsible for monitoring the gas pipeline where

Mr. Keane referred to his comments about the Dunshaughlin to Navan section as having

the area with the most potential archaeology and that he had suggested a proper survey

should have included a geophysical survey and asked if he was aware that a geophysical

survey had been carried out of that entire section. When Mr. Lumley replied by asking

that it be pointed out where that was available in the EIS, Mr. Keane suggested that he

was not aware of this and that his evidence and criticism was based on his belief that a

geophysical survey had not been carried out. Mr. Lumley replied that he had stated no

geophysical survey had been carried out of the motorway route and Mr. Keane referred

him to page 166 of Vol.4A where it was stated that " it was proposed to undertake a

questions, the Inspector intervened and said that he had made a number of statements and

that he had been put forward as a witness by Mr. Sweetman and that Mr. Keane was

Mr. Keane then asked if he had read pages 166 and 167 and the following pages in

Vol.4A of the EIS and when Mr. Lumley said that he had examined the EIS but could

find no geophysical survey for the route in the material supplied, Mr. Keane referred him

"Geophysical Survey" and when Mr. Keane asked if he had read that section Mr. Lumley

said that he had been looking for the data from the geophysical survey. Mr. Keane

repeated his question on if he had read that section and when Mr. Lumley replied that it

was a reference to the geophysical survey, the Inspector again intervened and asked Mr.

Lumley to read Paragraph 13.2.3 from pages 166 & 167 in full to the Hearing. When he

had read this Mr. Keane asked if he was questioning that a survey had been carried out

because he had not seen the specific results and Mr. Lumley replied that he was asking

Mr. Keane asked if he had read Table 13.1 in Vol.4A and when Mr. Lumley said that he

had, Mr. Keane took him through the details on page 181 in the third column under a

identification was from the geophysical survey and Mr. Keane referred him to the

archaeological report by Margaret Gowan in Appendix E of Vol. 4C and asked if he had

read this. When Mr. Lumley said that he had, Mr. Keane asked how, in the context of the

details in Volumes 4A and 4C, he could have stated to the Hearing that this section

should have had a geophysical survey carried out without being aware that one had been

undertaken. Mr. Lumley replied that the survey data had not been provided and when Mr.

Keane said he had said it should have been carried out, Mr. Lumley said there was only

an interpretation of geophysical data. Mr. Keane reminded him that that was not what he

had said, that he did not say "they should have given the geophysical data" or "they

should not have interpreted it for us" and he commented that the EIS was meant to

explain for a layperson what the effects were and said that Mr. Lumley had stated that

Mr. Lumley said that what had been provided was data which purported to be based on a

geophysical survey but that the actual survey data on which that was produced was not

available. The Inspector asked if he had sought that data and Mr. Lumley replied that he

would have expected Duchas to be present at the Hearing and to be asking that question.

Mr. Keane said that Mr. Lumley was the expert from An Taisce giving evidence that

criticised the absence of a geophysical survey and suggested that if he had read Volumes

4A, 4C and 6C he would have clearly seen the references to a geophysical survey having

ben carried out and he suggested that either he had not read them or did not read them in

sufficient detail. He asked if Mr. Lumley was suggesting that the clear statements of

Margaret Gowan to the Hearing of the geophysical survey being carried out were lies and

when Mr. Lumley said that what was available was interpretative information on the

geophysical survey, Mr. Keane said that did not answer the question why he intimated to

the Hearing that no geophysical survey had been carried out and again asked why he did

Mr. Sweetman intervened and said that Mr. Lumley had stated quite clearly that there

was no evidence of the data relevant to the geophysical survey and when Mr. Keane said

that was not all Mr. Lumley had said, Mr. Sweetman said that firstly he said there was no

evidence but had mistaken "the geophysical survey" for "the data" and said that Mr.

Lumley was quite entitled to question the honesty of Margaret Gowan when her evidence

to this Hearing was considered. The Inspector intervened and said to Mr. Swetman that

the particular issue raised by Mr. Lumley about Ms Gowan, who was not present on this

Day, had been challenged and answered by her at an earlier part of the Hearing. Mr.

Sweetman replied that he was being misquoted and said that it was Michael O'Donnell

who had asked Margaret Gowan if she had anything to do with Carrickmines Castle and

she had said no and that he himself had asked if she was the Consultant for Bord Gais

who was supposed to have done the investigation on Carrickmines Castle and she had

said yes. The Inspector remarked that it was about Bord Gais she was challenged and Mr.

Sweetman replied that Micheal O'Donnell had asked specifically about Carrickmines

Mr. Keane remarked that Mr. Sweetman had tried to delay the answer and asked Mr.

Lumley if he wished to answer the question he had asked of him. Mr.Lumley said his

point was that what was in the EIS was interpretive data which purported to be based on a

geophysical survey but no actual data had been made available in the EIS documents. Mr.

Keane said he still had not answered the question asked of him and when Mr. Lumley

said that he had given his answer, Mr. Keane repeated his earlier comments about the

reading of the EIS and said he was telling the Hearing one thing while at the same time

saying he knew clearly from the documents that the survey had been carried out and he

Inspector said that was not quite the impression that had been given. Following some

further comments by Mr. Sweetman, the Inspector said that Mr. Lumley had indicated he

would take about one hour for his presentation and this had now taken far longer and he

had already indicated a time for another person who had been waiting at the Hearing.

continued on another day, Mr. Keane said that it was clear he was not going to get an

answer and in those circumstances he had no further questions for Mr. Lumley and that it

submission to the Hearing and that this would be in two parts, the first setting out their

concerns which were mainly general due to the length of the motorway and the second

set out some general observations, criticisms and suggestions relating to facilitating

public participation in the EIA procedure for major developments, such as in the M3

She said their concerns relating to the Cultural Heritage were in five parts, the first being

the motorway traversing an "archaeologically sensitive landscape", with the M3 being

one of four new motorways either being planned or under construction in Co. Meath, an

area noted both nationally and internationally for the richness of its archaeological,

historical and wider cultural heritage. She said almost 2000 field monuments had already

been documented in Co. Meath and the number and variety of sites and monuments being

discovered and identified was growing yearly, with the recent archaeological excavations

along the route of the M1 confirming that the visible archaeology was only a small part of

Meath's archaeology. She quoted from Professor George Eogan's description of his visit

to the excavations along a 12 mile stretch of the M1 between Monasterboice and the

River Nanny as revealing an astonishing archaeological array or a multi-layered carpet

with each carpet representing a successive stage of human endeavour and achievement

and that it could hardly have anticipated so much of prehistory and history lay invisible

under these rich agricultural lands. Ms Clancy referred to the Discovery Program's

settlement and activity there over thousands of years, showing these to be part of a much

wider hinterland than previously understood. She said that any major development such

as a motorway must have significant and longlasting effects on the cultural heritage but 4

motorways located so close together in such an archaeologically sensitive landscape

She said the EIS failed to give an overall assessment of the impact of the M3 as it only

considered the M3 and did not take account of the other roads, particularly the M1 and

M2. She said they felt the EIS was flawed as it did not give a full assessment of the

impact on the archaeology and cultural heritage and, with the M2 and M3 being so close

together, the planning of one must have affected the route selection of the other. She said

it was clear that archaeology was not the dominant consideration in the choice of the

preferred route and the overall context should have been taken into account in the EIS.

She said the Society was not opposed to road developments or motorways per se, but they

questioned the need for 4 motorways running through Meath, which was not addressed in

the EIS, and felt that the M2 and M3 could have been combined, at least in part, and this

would minimise the effects on the archaeological and historical heritage. Ms Clancy said

the original brief for the entire project was flawed as it only related to road development

with no provision for alternative approaches to commuting and traffic problems such as

the re-opening of the Navan to Dublin rail link. She said this would have less of an

impact on archaeology and the landscape than constructing 2 motorways and would be

less damaging to the overall environment and said this lack in the brief was also lacking

Ms Clancy said their second concern was the lack of a full archaeological investigation of

each of the alternative routes considered since the EIS was notably lacking in the

archaeological implications considered in these alternatives. She asked were there

archaeological reports available for the alternative routes and if the archaeological

Consultants for the EIS were asked to state their opinions on the preferred route vis-�-vis

She said the Society's third concern was the apparent consideration of "cultural heritage"

in the EIS as being only about "archaeology" and " buildings" which they believed was

far too limited. She said the term "cultural heritage" should have been given itswider

meaning to take in archaeology, architecture, local history, folklore, art, ritual etc. and

should have included archaeological sites, monuments, features and artifacts, buildings,

structures and features of interest, place names, old field and road names, trees, bushes

etc. which might have been part of ritual or traditional customs. She said the Society

believed the EIS should include a comprehensive detailing of all cultural aspects directly

or indirectly affected by the motorway and this would include mapping and recording all

Ms Clancy said their fourth concern was that the Non-Technical summary in section 5.4

on Cultural Heritage failed to give a clear and concise summary of the likely impacts to

explain the salient issues to the general public. She said that for the scale of the

development the EIS summary was very short and inadequate and while it recognised the

chosen route ran through an archaeologically sensitive landscape, it seriously understated

the potential effects. She said the summary was misleading in its references to avoiding

the main area of significance around the Hill of Tara since the Discovery Program had

demonstrated the hinterland of Tara extended far beyond the Hill itself. She said that only

measures for the preconstruction phase, with nothing said about measures to be taken if

She said their fifth concern was about the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section, since it ran

between the Hills of Tara and Skryne which was acknowledged to be one of the richest

and best known archaeological landscapes in Europe and, while the entire route was of

great archaeological and cultural significance, the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section was

unique in those terms and she again referred to the work of the Discovery Program. She

said the Society recognised the difficulties of route selection and accepted that a number

of routes were considered but they questioned why the M3 had to pass through this rich

archaeological landscape and to come close to Tara when it could have by-passed Skryne

and Navan on the east. She said the Society felt the only reason for this change to come

back across the N3 at Blundellstown was to ensure a westerly route around Navan and to

avoid the issue of whether the proposed M2 was required or not, and said that an easterly

M3 with a reopened railline and no development of the M2 would be less disruptive of

the archaeological and cultural heritage. She asked if there had been any consultation

with members of the Discovery Program either at route selection stage or for the EIS

Ms Clancy said that if the M3 was allowed to proceed along the preferred route there

should be strict conditions applied to better protect the cultural heritage and to mitigate

the direct and indirect effects of the construction and operation of the motorway. She said

that in addition to the various reports in the EIS and to any recommendations from

(1) Sufficient funds and time allocated for thorough archaeological investigations along

surveying, aerial photography, mapping and recording of features, place and field

names etc., test trenching, and full archaeological excavation where required and that

allocation to be over and above what would normally be provided for as this was such

(2) Provision for continuous archaeological monitoring at top-soil stripping with

sufficient time and funds for investigating , recording and excavating where new

(3) Provision to be made for altering the route of the motorway if a major discovery came

archaeological teams along the route and for the appointment of a research director to

(5) Information on all archaeological investigations and discoveries to be made available

to Duchas, the National museum, Local Archaeological and Historical Societies and

Archaeological and Historical Societies, An Taisce and the general Public on all

(7) Provision for the permanent public display of archaeological finds at a suitable Meath

(8) Provision for publication of detailed reports of al archaeological investigations and

excavations along the route since archaeological excavation associated with road

Ms Clancy said the Society echoed Dr. George Eogan's call for an integrated approach to

motorway schemes with all components, archaeology, civil engineering and earth moving

as all part of a unified whole working for the common good. She said they welcomed the

archaeological investigations and surveys already undertaken and the appointment of the

Project Archaeologist to oversee all aspects and stages of the Scheme who, she said, had

given great co-operation and assistance to their Society, to other local historical societies

and to the general public. She said they looked forward to continuing discussions and

exchanges of information with the Project Archaeologist, the Council, the NRA and the

Archaeological Companies who would be involved in the proposed road development.

Ms Clancy said there were a number of supplementary matters the Society wished to

draw to the Inspector's attention relating to the EIA procedure and the Oral Hearing

which related mainly to the involvement of the Public. She said the EU introduced the

EIA procedure to provide for the public description, examination and assessment of

major development projects and that third parties had a statutory right to lodge objections

to and comment on the EIS but this depended on access to information, to expertise and

Ms Clancy said that major developments, such as the M3, impact in a wide variety of

ways on local people and the local environment and that if public involvement and a

proper assessment is to be made the EIA procedure, then all relevant information

including initial planning and route selection reports etc. should be made available for

inspection as well as the EIS. She said that in practice voluntary groups and individuals

usually have to find out for themselves what information to ask for and are sometimes

denied information simply because they did not ask for it by the correct title and she said

this was against the spirit of the Directive. She said full information was essential for the

assessment and this should not be withheld for bureaucratic or technical reasons. She said

there should be greater time allowed for public inspection of an EIS and related

documents to facilitate the widest possible consultation and EISs for large developments

like motorways should be available at a wider number of outlets and should be published

on the Internet and they asked that the Inspector should consider including this

suggestion for legislative reform in his Report. She said the costs of purchasing the EISs

should not be prohibitive and that a photocopied format could be provided at cheaper

rates. She said there had been errors found in the CDs initially available and this format

Ms Clancy said there was no provision in the EIA legislation for professional or financial

assistance to third parties in exercising their statutory rights to object or make

submissions and that resulted in an imbalance where large developments like the M3

were proposed since individuals and voluntary groups had to rely on their own resources

to inspect all aspects of the documentation, including expert reports, make submissions

on the information available and all of this within a narrow time frame. She compared the

expense this imposed on small voluntary groups and individuals to that for the developer

who had access to salaried staff, professional expertise and legal advice and said this was

not conducive to a full assessment of the likely effects on the environment. Ms Clsancy

said the Society asked the Inspector to consider including in his Report some suggestions

for legislative reform to help in mitigating this imbalance in future proposals which

would lead to a fairer and more co-operative approach in resolving difficulties with major

Ms Clancy concluded her submission by saying that, in common with others in Meath,

considered that a venue in Meath would have better facilitated people most affected by

the Motorway in attending to either listen to the proceedings or to make a submission.

Some time subsequent to Ms Clancy's presentation Mr. Butler for the Council informed

the Inspector, and the Hearing, that he was putting it on the record the Council were

giving the commitment sought by Ms Clancy for sufficient funds and time to be given for

a thorough archaeological investigation on all sections of the proposed Motorway before

any construction work commenced and that this included for test trenching and full

excavation where that was required. The Inspector noted that this commitment was made.

asked to be facilitated in making his submission in the context of his commitments as a

previously been Director of the Discovery Program's Tara Survey and that the Discovery

Program was still actively involved in the study of Tara in collaboration with his

Department in UCG. He said that he was also Director of a multi-disciplinary research

project on the Blackwater Valley which was also affected by the proposed motorway but

archaeological and historical landscape of Tara in the Navan to Dunshaughlin Section.

He said he was there as an archaeologist with a special interest in the Hill of Tara and his

objective was to safeguard the integrity of the archaeological landscape which was under

a serious threat from the proposal. He said he was also representing the views of the

Council of the Discovery Program as a member of that Council nominated to do so.

archaeological complexes in Ireland and that it commanded a place on the world stage

and, as a major cultural and heritage resource, it was only beginning to be developed and

exploited as such a resource. He said the Discovery Program's on-going analysis of Tara

was contributing to this and it was recognised internationally as one of the most fruitful

and technically innovative research initiatives in Europe today and had attracted

considerable interest from around the world, and he said that the way it was managed

would become the yardstick by which our reputation as guardians of cultural heritage

He said that the Hill of Tara represented the ritual and political core of a far larger

territory or landscape and could not be treated in isolation from this broader landscape as

that would divorce it from its cultural and geographical context. He said people did not

generally live on Tara but they buried their dead there and built temples there and lived in

the immediate hinterland in the shadow of their sacred mountain. He said that was why

archaeologists and historians were concerned about any developments within the vicinity

of Tara, with all of their researches pointing to the valley between Tara and Skreen as an

spectactularly corroborated in the geophysical survey carried out as part of the EIS.

archaeological significance was the remains of a 15th century church and that while it was

probable that most of the monuments were from the prehistoric period of 4000 BC to 500

AD, the coming of Christianity or the Anglo-Normans did not mark the end of Tara. He

said that Tara dominated documentary sources from Early Medieval Ireland, which was

why the proposition in Section 4, sub-section 4.1 of Vol.4 in the EIS that the monuments

directly threatened by the motorway were not of prehistoric date was fundamentally

flawed. He said these were all related to Tara including the potentially medieval ones and

that some of these monuments had been identified by the geophysical survey. He said

that Tara hugely important and its dominance of any discussion of the archaeology and

history of the areas at the expense of Skreen which, he said, was also an important

archaeological complex particularly from the medieval period which the remains there

testified to. He said there was a significant corpus of scholarly publications on Skreen

and this should not be thought of only as an exercise in protecting the archaeological

landscape of Tara but also that of Skreen, which included the valley in question.

Mr. Newman said that all of these observations were common currency in archaeology

and said this was reflected in the care which went into the preparation of this section of

the EIS which itself reflected the standing of Tara and the associated research in the

archaeological profession. He said it was then not surprising that from the very outset this

route was identified as the least desirable from an archaeological viewpoint, since the

attrition rate on the archaeological heritage would be far higher than for any of the other

Archaeological Consultants involved in the route selection process and that it was

He said that the use of geophysical prospection techniques was a novel aspect of this EIA

and was a welcome and appropriate development and said the results were spectacular

and more than justified the expenditure of time and money. He said they proved the

surveyed with such results appearing at regular intervals and suggested that by not doing

so the EIS fell short of the amount of preparatory research expended for the proposed

He said that geophysical prospection had become a routine procedure in site investigation

in Ireland following principally from its successful application on the Hill of Tara by the

geophysical survey between Tara and Skreen had been carried out in "scan" mode which

technique was standard but had its limitations. He said from their experience in Tara and

Rathcroghan, apart from significantly anomalous readings which were relatively highly

magnetic like those in the EIS survey, most archaeological features had low magnetic

presences and were detected at very low ranges which were not going to prompt a full

survey, if recorded in scan mode. He said these would be indistinguishable from normal

background noise or variation recorded and that this meant only the "loudest" anomalies

had been recorded in the EIS survey. He said that while therc was nothing wrong with the

geophysical that had been carried out, it would be erroneous to think that it gave a full

picture and he said it only confirmed the great density of monuments in this area but

Mr. Newman said we should remind ourselves that not all archaeological features had a

detectable geophysical presence and that resistivity surveying, which could not be used in

scan mode as such, was capable of adding significantly to the corpus of monuments in

this area. He said that he had been consistently referring to "monuments" to describe

these sites to rid people of the common misconception that monuments recorded by

ephemeral and quickly resolved, as this was not the case. He said that the NRA need

hardly be reminded of the huge scale of some archaeological remains lurking below the

placid surfaces of Irish pastures and said that, if the motorway went ahead, the

archaeological dimension of this Section would be hugely expensive in terms of time and

money. He said the geophysics had given more information about the tip of the iceberg,

archaeological sites occurred in a much tighter range than could be detected in scan

mode. He said that the geophysics was simply saying that there was going to be trouble,

rather than saying that the decks had been cleared and lots of archaeological sites had

been found. He said that every field between Dunshaughlin and Navan was going to be

chock-a-block with archaeological sites and that anyone who doubted this had only to

archaeological sites found in the immediate vicinity of the tailing ponds in their efforts to

suggested that he was the only "objector" who had actually seen the images as they had

not been included in the EIS. He said that giving interpretative drawings without having

the images alongside them, as was done in the EIS, was not the industry standard and said

he had not encountered such a situation previously. He referred to his reference in his

submission to An Bord of raising this issue with the NRA Archaeologist and expressed

his surprise at having received a copy of the Geophysical Report from the Council's

Roads Design Office shortly after making that submission as he had not asked for the

Report, nor had it been offered to him at his previous discussion with the Archaeologist.

He said that it appeared that no-one who had purchased the EIS from the Council had

been told the Geophysical Report could also be purchased and he suggested that if he

was a conspiracy theorist, he might have concluded that the geophysical evidence was

part-buried because it proved the enormity of the archaeological dimension of this section

of the motorway. He said that while the interpretative drawings were good, the data

images were absolutely necessary and their absence compromised the archaeological

Mr. Newman said that the detailed geophysical survey was carried out at 31 points

between Dunshaughlin and Navan and that the results were spectacular with the greyscale

images being very clear. He said that the classification and dating of monuments on

the basis of geophysical images was not an exact science and said that the concensus of

his colleagues in UCG to whom he showed them was that none were susceptible to close

dating and that they could come from virtually any period. He said that the only certainty

was that they were there, they were big and complex and that they obviously had a

relationship with Tara as prehistoric temenos, Early Medieval inauguration site or

working in the British Museum who specialised on archaeological monuments of Roman

Britain as he(Mr. Newman) had reason to believe that temples of Roman type were in

Ireland. He said this colleague had replied that it could easily be such a monument and

moated site of medieval date. He said that was also a possibility but that it would not be

known until the sites were excavated and he asked what would the NRA do in the middle

of the scheme when they started to excavate and found they were excavating the only

archaeological imperative began with preservation, not with just excavating individual

sites and reducing them to paper archives.He said that in considering the archaeological

landscape of Tara we had reached that point of convergence between moral and cultural

imperatives that required Tara to be preserved and understood in recognition of the

central role it had played, and continued to play, in forging this nation's cultural identity.

Fr. Pat Raleigh asked about the geophysical images and their absence from the EIS. Mr.

Newman explained what they represented and used the analogy of X-rays to say that

some degree of expertise was required to read what was there and said that the images

were assessed by an archaeologist or geophysicist who would make an interpretation of

the image. He said that typically in archaeology if they were publishing an account of a

accompanying it would be the interpretation and he said this allowed the audience to look

at them and make their own assessment of the raw data. Fr. Raleigh asked for his views

on the idea of building a motorway in the valley between the Hills of Tara and Skreen,

suggesting this was an act of desecration. Mr. Newman agreed that it was but said that

what was being dealt with was an archaeological landscape that stretched for some miles

in each direction and that he was not proposing that all development cease in order to

preserve the integrity of an archaeological landscape. He said that putting a motorway

that close to what would be the core of that landscape was effectively cutting it in two,

and would be also destroying dozens of archaeological sites in doing so. He referred to

the debate that went on about the pro's and con's of upgrading the A1 as it passed

Stonehenge and said he felt that a good case could have been made to have covered the

entire route from Dunshaughlin to Navan in a full survey mode, using more than one

modality of geophysics and said that would only have confirmed there were even more

monuments there and would confirm that an archaeological landscape was being cleaved

Margaret Kerrigan asked him to comment on the possible qualification of the Tara area

Archaeological Heritage and Mr. Newman said that we had reached a point where almost

any archaeological site could be protected by resolution once the information had been

extracted from it but he thought that there needed to be further thinking than that since

excavation was a systematic dismantling of a site which could not be replicated. He said

that sometimes a line needed to be drawn that the archaeological imperative was not

being satisfactorily addressed through excavation and that preservation was what was

After Ms Kerrigan's question had been answered, the Inspector said he would only permit

questions to be asked by those whose names he had recorded as objectors being present at

Claire Oakes referred to the Code of Practice between Duchas and the NRA and asked if

he considered the motorway between the Hills of Tara and Skreen would prove to be

value for money for the NRA in terms of the archaeological input which would have to

take place there. Mr. Newman said that was difficult to answer since she was asking him

to guesstimate the likely costs involved in resolving the archaeological components of

this motorway and he could not give such a figure. He referred to the NRA experience's

elsewhere and specifically to Carrickmines and said that enormously complex sites would

take an awful lot of time to resolve, a lot of people and consequently a lot of money.

submission to the Hearing, asked what consultation had there been with Discovery

Program about the planning of the motorway and if he thought that the number of sites

along this Section as compared to those found on the M1 Scheme. Mr. Newman said that

archaeological attrition or otherwise of the motorway but said that a lot of their

information was already in the public domain in various publications. He suggested that

therc would be more sites found on the M3 compared to the M1 and said that any route

out of Dunshaughlin would be full of sites, since the kings of Brega, who would be

invested on the Hill of Tara, resided at Dunshaughlin. He said that it was not about

counting up numbers of monuments but was of assessing whether driving a motorway

through the middle of theTara area was good or bad and he suggested that there were

constructed and Mr. Newman said that was a very difficult one to answer because it

depended on what was interpreted to be an archaeological site and what was known about

it. He referred to the location of the proposed motorway in relation to Rath Lugh which

he said was some 17 metres away from the motorway with the promontory fort being

some 15 to 20 metres above the motorway and explained, in detail, what was involved in

an "earthwork" and the potential affects of major road construction excavation work in

the vicinity of such earthworks. He summarised his reply by saying that the motorway

was designed to skirt between the extant monuments between Tara and Skreen and that

this in a way flew in the face of what he had explained about the "halo" of archaeological

Tommy Hamill referred to Sites 1 and 2 of SMR Sheet 38 north of Dunshaughlin where

he said there was an enclosure and field system that people in the Council's Project office

had said to him were very common and he said it was included in the EIS as being a

ploughed out area and not of significance and asked for his comments on that. Mr.

Newman replied that he was not familiar with that particular site but that it must be some

sort of ringfort that was being referred to and that these were relatively common in the

countryside, while those with field enclosures were less common. He said that was not

what he had come to the Hearing to talk about and that it was about the ensemble of sites

associated with the Hills of Tara and Skreen that together created the archaeological

landscape that was worth protecting. Mr. Hamill said he wanted to draw attention to the

Fr. Pat Raleigh thanked Mr. Newman for his comments about the importance of Tara

and asked if he might say something about the history of the River Boyne which flowed

passed the lower part of Dalgan Park where a huge bridge was going to be built over the

Boyne. Mr. Newman said the Boyne to the west of Tara probably marked the de facto

limit of the landscape of Tara up until the Iron Age at least and that the Boyne, while not

an archaeological feature, was a very important natural feature which he said he

suspected the OPW, in declaring the Boyne Valley as a Heritage Park, would include the

Note -- On Day 25 the Council handed in a written response from Margaret Gowan to

Conor Newman's submission and this is listed in Appendix 4 of this Report. A summary

Ms Gowan said that the EIS sought to outline the impact of the proposal on the status of

Tara as an archaeological complex and that the EIS had not suggested the monuments

threatened by the motorway were not of prehistoric date or that they were not connected

to Tara, referring to Section 13.1 in support of this. She said that the EIS referred to the

Hill of Skreen as being largely medieval in date and that in Section 13.3.2 in discussing

finds from the region, it was stated that the objects from Tara and Skreen indicated a

broadly similar record to the monuments with later prehistoric objects complimenting the

extraordinary complex on monuments in the area. She said the EIS stated that the valley

important hinterland producing artefacts dating to throughout the prehistoric period.

Ms Gowan took issue with Mr. Newman's statement that the route was identified was the

least desirable and that the attrition rate on the archaeological heritage would be far

greater here than on any other route and she summarised details if possible affected

monument locations from the Route Selection Report from which the emerging preferred

route became a combination of routes D and E which, she stressed, limited the number of

Ms Gowan said the aim of geophysical survey was to provide definition on the potential

existence of major sites, or groups of important archaeological features, without surface

expression along the route and said that the survey not only identified sites but also

defined their nature and extent with the areas of geophysical anomalies and potential

archaeological origin shown in Figures 13.1.1 to 13.1.3 in the EIS. She said that in her

Brief of Evidence seven of the identified areas were described as being definitely of

archaeological origin and that all of these areas were detailed in the EIS and that Area 18,

a ring barrow enclosure, had been avoided with the central or core area of Area 26 largely

Ms Gowan said that it was important to note that, while accepting the valley was "chocka-

obvious archaeological features along the preferred route between Tara and Skreen,

Areas 18 & 19, and, while two additional sites, 16 & 17, did not yield evidence of

obvious sites, the anomalies detected were suggestive of a possible archaeological

presence in both areas. She said they were recorded for that reason and for more focussed

archaeological assessment by test excavation well in advance of construction. She said

that clearly they might not have the full picture as the GSB report stated that any

interpretation was based purely on the basis of the survey results, which could be

interpretation as a suggestion but that it would be incorrect to say that only the loudest

Ms Gowan responded to Mr. Newman's statement that not all archaeological features had

detectable presences by saying that usually applied in the alluvial, gley or coarse mineral

soils but those soils were minimal in this location and she described the main soils as

mostly grey brown podzolics. She said that doing a resistance survey as Mr. Newman

suggested would not have been worthwhile since the ground was considerably wet at the

time and that there were no clear areas of disturbance worthy of detailed resistance

survey. She acknowledged that, in spite of the high level of definition achieved, it could

not be suggested the other sections of the road were completely devoid of archaeological

potential and said there was now a very greatly reduced risk of unexpected negative

impact on unknown archaeological sites. She said this was stated in the EIS and in her

evidence and they had not suggested, as Mr. Newman put it, that the geophysical survey

She said that the Project Archaeologist had shown and explained the geophysical results

to all interested parties and said her own office had phoned Mr. Newman and invited him

to review the results and the detailed background material. She said the EIS had a full

section explaining in detail the results of the survey and said that suggesting the

geophysical evidence had been part buried was misleading. She outlined the results from

the 32 locations surveyed with 7 containing clear and definitive areas of archaeological

Ms Gowan said that avoidance and preservation in-situ were always the favoured and

preferred option and that they had stated in the EIS if sites could not be avoided, then

excavation would be necessary and that that was a costly and time consuming venture.

She said with the definition now provided and with the whole EIS process both the

Council and NRA were well aware of the potential cost and time implications. Shc said

that having completed the geophysics at this early stage, they had a greater understanding

of the archeaological potential of the landscape and could resource the funds, time and

staff to ensure timely excavation and recording took place. She said that the Project

Archaeologist had been appointed to ensure that proper significance was given to the

standards outlined in the Code of Practice and that all EIA recommendations were in

She also commented on the queries raised in questions to Mr. Newman and said that it

was world wide experience that development could not always proceed without some

appropriate mitigation strategies could be devised where avoidance was not possible. She

said that the Discovery Program had been formally contacted and that Dr. Kilfeather had

brought all of her files to a meeting with Dr. Grogan in July 2000 when all route options

had been analysed with him. She said it was not true to say the preferred route would

affect more sites since that could only be stated when a similar investigation had been

Note -- On Day 28 as the Hearing was nearing its close, a FAX was received by the

submission of 31 October 2002, summarised in Section 82.2 above. This FAX is listed in

Appendix 4 of this Report. A summary of the main points in his response is given below.

Mr. Newman said he had not accused the EIS of undervaluing the importance of theTara

archaeological component of the EIS had failed to convey to the executive of the

Council/NRA the magnitude of the impact of the road on the archaeological landscape

and said that it had not been adequately stated that this was an integrated landscape. He

quoted from the 1994 CDP recommendation to protect the archaeological dimension of

that landscape from interference with its site or setting and character to support this

Mr. Newman said he stood over his statement about the monuments being stated to be not

of prehistoric date and of not being connected to Tara and said he had quoted from the

Brief of Evidence of August 2002 given to him by the Council, which he understood had

referred to his original objection to An Bord Pleanala. He said the section quoted from

read " Most of the sites approached by the route appear to be later in date than the great

prehistoric complex on Tara. No sites related to the Tara complex will suffer any physical

impact and the route lies approx. 1.5 km from the eastern limit of the protected zone

around Tara". He said this was both factually incorrect because all sites in this area were

in some way related to Tara, and indeed Skreen, and it sought to disassociate the affected

monuments from the "great prehistoric complex on Tara". He said most sites were not

susceptible to close or in some cases even general dating and that saying they were later

Mr. Newman said references in the EIS and ancillary documentation to the "inner" and

"outer zones" from his 1997 book on Tara were unrelated to the so-called "protected

zone" and they were related to the budget and time management constraints of the Tara

survey and he regretted that they were now being used in the way they had been. He said

that the results from the geophysical survey were not known during the Route Selection

process and that the results had increased the number of known sites that would be

Mr. Newman said that he had checked with the CEO of the Discovery Program and was

told that they had no record of a formal approach by Margaret Gowan & Associates and

techniques used and said that her references to the lack of alluvium might be applicable

to the overall length of that section of motorway, but was not true for the area between

Baronstown and Blundellstown which, he said, was physically between Tara and Skreen

Mr. Newman maintained that the geophysical data images should have been in the EIS

and repeated his statement that providing interpretive drawings was inadequate, since it

removed the possibility on independent assessment. He expanded on his reasons by using

the interpretative drawings for area 19 as an example and said no-one could make a guess

at what they represented, whereas analysis of data images allowed for proper independent

Mr. Newman said he had been invited by Mary Deevy, the Project Archaeologist, to view

the geophysical images at the Council Offices after he had queried their absence from the

EIS and said that, while appreciative of the offer, this was not an adequate substitute for

their omission from the EIS, a point which he had discussed with her at the time. He said

that Margaret Gowan had met him at a meeting of the Discovery Program on 24/07/01

where she had invited him to view the geophysical images at her offices, and that it was

not as she had said that she had phoned him. He said that pressure of time and work had

prevented him from taking up her invitation then and he had looked forward to seeing

Note --- On 26 September 2002, a FAX was received by An Bord Pleanala from Patrick

J.Farrell & Co., Solicitors, acting on behalf of the Lismullin Educational Foundation Ltd.

who owned the Lismullin Conference Centre adjacent to the proposed Dunshaughlin to

Navan section, in which they sought to be represented at the Hearing saying that they had

become aware, belatedly, of the effect the road would have on their premises. Mr. Farrell

attended at the Hearing on its resumption on Day 14 when the Inspector ruled that the

Centre could make a verbal submission only, but could not cross-examine witnesses or

present evidence as such. Subsequently the Centre indicated that Mr. O'Donnell would

Mr. O'Donnell said the Lismullin House and lands of about 20 acres were acquired by the

Tara Trust in 1963 and had been used since then for residential, educational, and

conference facilities a where a variety of courses in spiritual and personal development

copurses on philosophical and ethical issues. He said that in 2000, so that the facility

could be expanded and redeveloped, the Lismullin Educational Foundation Ltd. was

formed and that a major re-development of the Centre, costing � 10M and for which

planning Permission was granted by the Council, had been undertaken with facilities for a

Conference Center and a Hospitality Services building that accommodated 72 people

with other rooms that could cater for up to 100 people. He described the extent of courses

apprenticeship and qualification schemes, and said that there were 10 administrative and

catering people living permanently on the premises in the southeastern part of the facility.

He described the range of activities and courses in the Centre and said that it was in use

Mr. O'Donnell said there were three separate types of activity in the Centre, the

Residential part, the Educational part and the Retreat part and said that each of these

required a quiet and peaceful environment and said that was critical to these type of

activities. He said that was why the location was chosen and that an additional area of 50

acres was purchased in 2000 to provide 70 acres around the Centre to give adequate

space and to protect the environs of the facility to ensure that the level of peace and quiet

was maintained for their activities. He submitted that the very existence of the Centre as

a non-profit making charitable institution and as a retreat centre, educational and

residential was threatened by the proposed motorway. He said the Council themselves

recognised that since they had referred to the impacts in their own submissions. He said

Lismullin Centre, which was noted as Location 36, where the low baseline level meant

the impact would be major significant negative, but with the property benefiting from

minor significant positive impacts on the N3 facing elevations. He said that his Clients

were concerned that the EIS did not recognise the range of activities carried out within

the Lisnmullin Centre, which, he said, was something he had also referred to for Dalgan

Park and he said that without considering the range of activities then the impacts on the

Mr. O'Donnell then described the design of the road in the vicinity of Lismullin Centre

and said that the road ran along the full extent of the property and was very close to it and

that it effectively wound its way around the Centre. He said that the road as up to 5

metres above the surrounding ground for significant lengths which would cause a noise

nuisance during the operation of the road, and said that while it was in a cutting for

another part, the construction of that would mean lots of noise would be generated by the

excavations. He referred to a nearby overbridge (Note -- This is the bridge referred to by

Ms Sandra Ryan, Plot 1083) as being another source of noise during its construction.

Mr. O'Donnell then referred to a report prepared by Mr. Searson on the noise impacts.

( Note -- A copy of this is included with Mr. Searson's other reports and listed at Day 22

( Listed at Day 25 in Appendix 4 of this Report) and summarised Mr. Searson's findings.

He said that Mr. Searson had said that levels of 30dB(A) would be required in the

bedrooms at night with in-rooms levels of 35db(A) during daytime and that the LAFmax

should not exceed 45dB(A) during nighttime. Mr. Searson had stated the background

levels were very good and would meet a standard of about 30dB(A) but that the measured

levels from Table 4.3 inVol.4A of the EIS for Site 5, which was at Lismullin, were taken

some 50 metres from the front of Lismullin on the existing N3 side, which he did not

consider an appropriate location since the new road was on the opposite side of the

Centre. Mr. Searson had obtained a reading of 46dB(A) LAeq at 4 metres from the main

11.49 am in ideal weather. Mr. Searson said that the predicted levels for receivers 35 and

37 at east and west of Lismullin from page 68 of the EIS was 50 dB (A) in both cases,

with these being stated as a severe negative impact. Mr. Searson said that no mitigation

measures were provided for any of the locations around Lismullin House, those being

locations 34, 35, 36 & 37 on Figure 4.2.3 and that these were described as not being

habitable buildings. Mr. O'Donnell said he found it extraordinary that the Council did

not seek to mitigate the noise impacts on the Centre, given the type of activites carried

on there and he said they should have located the road further away from the Centre,

which would have reduced the noise or, alternatively, acquired more land to introduce

Mr. O'Donnell said there was also a significant landscape impact and his Clients had

commissioned a report from Mitchell & Associates, Architects and Landscape Architects,

whose Report he handed in to the Hearing, ( Note -- Listed at day 25 in Appendix 4 of

this Report) and he said they found the landscape and visual impacts to be very severe.

He said they referred to Section 5.4.1 of the Landscape section in Vol.4A of the EIS and

said it was unfortunate that no rating was given there for Lismullin House, while ratings

were given for a bungalow at P59 and a house at P60 both being described as major and

moderate respectively, with no recognition of the Centre being severely impacted in the

EIS. He said that Mitchells had noted that Lismullin was recognised as a building of

architectural, artistic and historic interest in Chapter 14 of the EIS but noted that it had

not been assessed as the protected structure that it was and Mr. O'Donnell recalled that

Mr. O'Sullivan had said he was not aware that it was so listed and he suggested the

assessment made was not the appropriate one in those circumstances. He said that

Mitchells had said that a clear description of Lismullin House and its business was given

in Section 14.3 with a consideration of the impact in Table 14.1 but that gave a cursory

view of its setting not being impaired. He said that Mitchells, having examined the

landscaping measures proposed in section 5.6.8 of the landscape and visual section, said

these made no reference to Lismullin House for specific measures and they considered

that the measures proposed at Figure 5.1.7, SLM 8 and at Table 5.7 would do little to

planting for severed lands to the east of the motorway, and along the embankment

between chn. 29200 and 29500 and again at 29550 to29 650, there was no planting from

28600 to 29000 where the motorway would be on fill to a height of 5 metres above

ground level and they said that would be visible at several points from the grounds of

Lismullin. He said that Mitchells considered a detailed assessment of Lismullin was

required with specific landscape measures prepared to effectively screen the motorway

Mr. O'Donnell said that it was clear there had been a complete failure by the Council to

engage with Lismullin, particularly in its architectural context, and with the range of uses

within the Centre which required a particular visual and landscape context within which

fundamental issues for Lismullin. He expressed his surprise at this extraordinary lack of

provision for such an important centre as Lismullin House and submitted that the Council

Lismullin, if the Scheme were to be approved. He said that was the minimum that was

constructed so close to Lismullin because that was incompatible with the nature and use

of the Centre. Mr. O'Donnell concluded his submission by saying that (a) the road should

not be confirmed in this location but (b) if it were to be located there, then a detailed

comprehensive noise mitigation and landscaping scheme should be prepared to fully

mitigate the impact of the motorway on Lismullin to allow it to continue operating as it

did at present. He said that as it was a non-profit making charitable institution, then it

Ms Hennessey had purchased this house two years previously and was aware a motorway

constructed behind the house while the Overbridge was being constructed and this was

the cause of most of her objections. ( Note -- the house is located where the M3 would

cross over the N3 at Cooksland, north of Dunshaughlin. No land is being acquired from

The temporary road would be constructed only 8 metres from the back wall of her house

and would be carrying all the present N3 traffic and the impacts of vibration, noise and

lights would be unacceptable. She wanted the road moved so it was at least 20 metres

from her back wall and a solid timber hoarding at least 3 metres high to be erected along

the house side of the road and extended at least 4 metres beyond her property boundaries.

Ms Hennessey also had concerns about the 8 metre height of the M3 above the existing

road as her house would be overlooked by traffic and she would suffer from increased

noise and light pollution from this. She wanted the level reduced by at least 2 metres and

adequate landscaping on the embankments to screen her property from noise and light

pollution. She was concerned by the effects of drainage run-off and also about what

would happen on all of the Council land surrounding her property after the bridge was

The Inspector asked the Council to give her a copy of their response to her earlier

objection and when Mr. Walsh asked if they could talk to the Council about the issues,

Ms Bradley's submission was made on Day 6 and she said the motorway would have a

devastating impact on her as the motorway was almost on top of her house and the

diverted minor road was at her back door. She said that if her well source, which was

traced to behind the M3 was destroyed there was no mains supply nearby and that the

River Skane flooded in winter and summer and the two roads being constructed would

not allow the river to spread over its banks and flow away naturally as at present. She

said her privacy would be gone where she had lived for 19 years with roads to the east,

She said that at present her neighbours passed up and down and kept an eye on her house

when she was working but this road was to be cul-de-saced and she would be more prone

to burglars and probably unwanted visitors using the waste space. She had concerns about

pollution and noise and said her property would be devalued considerably. She concluded

by saying there was a black spot in the valley where the motorway was to be built from

the summer fog that regularly occurred, which she felt would cause accidents on the road.

Mr. Farrelly made their submission on Day 6 and said they lived next to Ms Bradley

which they had bought 4 years ago and his engineer was told by the Council that there

He said the road would come within 100 metres of their property and be very close to the

back of their house where a bridge would cross the motorway which would cause their

house to be surrounded by roads with the motorway looking down onto the rear of their

house giving them no privacy as the change in the existing road would mean the road

passed their garden at a height of over 7 metres. He said that at present his house had no

garden to the front as it was on the road side and their only privacy was in their back

garden but his house would be "turned around" by the roads and they would have no

Mr. Bradley included photographs of their house with a number showing the extent of the

flooding which took place in June 2002 and said that if the road had been in place the

flooding would have been much worse and they were concerned their house would be

flooded if the motorway scheme went ahead as there had been four floods in the last three

years both winter and summer. He said he had contacted the NRA office in Navan earlier

in this year when the Skane had flooded into the area where the proposed secondary road

He expressed concerns about their well, security, the cul-de-sacing, lighting and what

would be done about the river flooding all of which had been outlined in his previous

objection to An Bord. He asked if the secondary road could be moved further back and

wanted details of the fencing to the motorway and the cut and fill proposed there.

The Inspector said he could come back when evidence for the Dunshaughlin Section was

being discussed and cross-examine the witnesses if he wished to do so and asked the

Council to make whatever responses they had prepared available now to Mr.Farrelly and

Mr. Farrelly made his submission on Day 13 and said the National Roads Needs Study in

1998 had suggested the existing N3 be upgraded in 6 sections, including a Dunshaughlin

By-pass, at a total cost of �156M or � 200M and the Government suggested Motorways

be built from Dublin in 1999 because of the economic boom. He said the NRA were told

to build the motorway to replace the N3 and the public were told the money was in place

to do this and the public were only informed on need to know basis as to how and when

progress would be made, which was an arrogant approach. He said there had been no

Blanchardstown By-pass; the number of new houses and industrial units likely to be built

in the area in the next 5/10 years; the number of new employees likely to use the new

road over the next 5/10 years. He said there had been no discussions about Park and Ride

facilities and he doubted the reprecussions of Navan becoming a city had been discussed

He said the NRA decided to incorporate the Dunshaughlin By-pass in their 5 Section

Scheme while anyone travelling from Kells to Clonee realised the only bottleneck was in

Dunshaughlin, and he said if there was a By-pass for Dunshaughlin at present there

would be need to build a Motorway. He said the vast majority of people using the N3

towards Dublin in the morning did so because there was no adequate public transport

system and as it would take over 20 years to provide even a minimum train facility, he

said this should be started now and this would be a better solution for future generations

than motorways. He said those people heading into Dublin in 2002 joined a traffic jam

that started at Mulhuddart and that traffic coming from Ratoath, Dunboyune, Kilbride,

Clonee and Trim would not get access to the M3 since this traffic would have already

Mr. Farrelly said the new cost of building the M3 had reached �460M or � 585M in 2000

and as the Government said the costs of road building had doubled since 2000, the cost

was now almost � 1Bn. He said the government and NRA said the M3 would not proceed

unless it was tolled and the question was who would finance the M3, how much would

the tolls be and how many cars would use it when present information suggested the road

was not a financially economic proposition and would never be built. He said that if they

were to plan for the future generations, there must be answers to these questions before

decisions were taken and he suggested there were no satisfactory answers for this project.

Mr. Farrelly said that from an archaeological, cultural and historical viewpoint a 4 lane

motorway should not have been considered for the valley between the Hills ofTara and

Skryne. He referred to the reputed cost of � 6M of 100 archaeologists working at

Carrickmines on the M50 over a 2 year period and suggested that it would cost � 24M for

200 working on the site between these Hills over a 4 year period. He said the Discovery

Program had, over a 10 year period, unearthed 55 monuments on the Tara hilltop to add

surrounding the existing hilltop mounds that was 270 metres in diameter and as large as

Croke Park. He said the continuing geophysical survey had found new monuments of

Tara and referred to the 1997 excavations that established Rath na Ri as being one of the

He referred to his previous objection to An Bord and to the extracts from the EIS at

Section 13.5 of Vol.4A on mitigation measures where he had quoted from the first two

paragraphs ( See page 177 of Vol. 4A of the EIS ) and he criticised Ms Gowan's response

to those objections included with the Council's responses to his objections to An Bord.

He said her response was typical of all the Council's correspondence on this issue, which

diminished the emphasis in the EIS by saying " the area through which the motorway will

be placed is important from an historical and archaeological perspective" while in the EIS

it was stated " the new route for the N3 runs through one of the richest archaeological

landscapes in Ireland". He also criticised Ms Gowan for re-quoting the EIS report that

referred to the historic nature of the valley for several thousand years and said she was

suggesting this as a reason for building a motorway. He said Ms Gowan did not dispute

the reference in Section 13.3.2 to the valley between Tara and Skryne being "clearly an

important hinterland producing artifacts dating to throughout the prehistoric period" ( See

He then referred to Section 8.4 on impacts of Development and the statement about the

results of a well survey where 23 wells were identified and that disruption to the well

supply could be caused by cuttings excavated nearby ( See pages 138/139 inVol.4A of

the EIS ). Mr. Farrelly said the reason these houses had wells was because the Council

failed to bring a water supply up to them on the Hill of Skryne and he was not satisfied

that householders should now have to pay to have their wells deepened, nor was he

satisfied with the Council's response to his objection on this matter. He took issue with

the suggestion the Council might provide a permanent water supply instead of deepening

wells as they had not been able to provide such a supply previously and he sought to be

compensated for any disruption to his water supply. He also suggested that every other

resident whose water supply was affected by the construction of the road should be

compensated whether they had objected or not, and said it was difficult for people to

know if their water supply would be affected by earthworks half a mile away and 500 feet

Mr. Farrelly said that Section 7 on the Aquatic Environment when referring to the River

Skane made no mention that previous examinations of the Skane had revealed hot springs

only found in one other part of the Country, and said that Mr. Daly, in his response, had

He concluded his submission by saying the motorway should not go ahead on economic

grounds because the Country did not have the money; because it did not link in with the

planning of the Blanchardstown area and because it did not address any public transport

solutions. He said that if it did go ahead, then it should not be within 5 miles of the Hill of

Ms. Oakes made their submission on Day 17 and said they had lived in Bellinter for over

30 years which was a quiet pastoral area close to the Hill of Tara and the River Boyne

motorway through this area showed a total disregard for the attributes that made it so

She said they objected to its proximity to their house as the motorway would be within

300 of 36 houses over a distance of 3 kms. and that 9 of these would be within 100

metres, 22 within 200 metres and 5 within 300 metres and said that the level of intrusion

was without precedence in a rural area and contrary to the EU Directives on EIA which

put people first. She said the motorway would pass within 200 metres of their home and

it would completely alter the character of the neighbourhood where they hoped to live out

the rest of their lives. She said the EIS looked at the impact on their home under various

headings and the deterioration in their living environment was acute and the overall

impact was something no outsider could ever assess as it was the difference between

living in a quiet rural scenic area and the reality of a constant roar of traffic from the

motorway drowning out the birdsong. She said they were in a dilemma between losing

the peaceful environment or, if they decided to sell, being unable to do so due to

Ms Oakes referred to the areas of Tara/Dowdstown/Bellinter/Ardsallagh/Cannistown

being recognised in the CDPs as areas of high natural beauty and high amenity and said

the route through Dalgan Park was particularly insensitive and inappropriate and she gave

details of the amenity riverside and woodland walks provided by the Columbans and of

the courses, retreats and other facilities availed of by so many people in Dalgan and

Dowdstown House and said these aspects were not even mentioned in the EIS. She said

archaeological heritage and questioned the concept of a motorway running through the

Tara/Skreen valley. She referred to the Discovery Program's researches from 1992 and to

Constraints Study rating three fields between Garlow Cross and Bellinter as being of high

archaeological interest which were not mentioned in the EIS and that the 1999 EIR on

the proposed Water Abstraction Unit had identified anomalies in the area through which

the motorway would run. She said that Tara, Skreen and the surrounding areas were the

most important archaeological areas in the Country and that the EIS saying in mitigation

that identified sites were avoided was missing the point that once the landscape, which

was the setting for Tara, was destroyed, Tara itself was destroyed. She said it was

unthinkable that a State body should envisage ploughing a motorway through this historic

Ms Oakes said they could not understand why there was no research into providing a rail

link to Dublin from Navan as this would be much cheaper than a motorway and have a

compatible transport systems. She referred to the production of the Constraints document

Selection followed the Constraints document. She ended their submission by quoting

from the Mission Statement in the Meath CDP "--in partnership with local communities

to improve the quality of life and living envirionment of all of our citizens " and said that,

with a new sewerage plant, a proposed motorway and the prospect of a massive water

treatment and abstraction plant, it was hard to reconcile the Mission Statement with the

their representative on the MRAG and lived in the Bellinter area for 12 years having

moved there from an estate in Navan. He said he supported all of the objections put

forward by the BRA and MRAG to the destruction of the Tara and Skreen area and the

spoiling of the Dalgan Park amenity. He said that as a commuter to Dublin he supported

the MRAG alternative route proposal since the M3 would only result in greater traffic

congestion into Dublin and he would also support a rail service between Navan and

He said he had moved to Bellinter because of it being a beautiful peaceful area away

from main roads and traffic and because of the amenities in Dalgan Park, which offered

his family a safe place to walk. He said his involvement with this issue for more than two

years was driven by the view he had from his front door and he showed a picture of the

pastureland which he said he would lose if the motorway went ahead and be confronted

with a much different view and he showed a picture of a heavily trafficced road. He said

the motorway would be about 100 metres from his property and that they would have to

Mr.Magee said that the Council in their Development Plans had designated the area at

their houses as an area of High Natural Beauty and High Amenity and stated that only in

exceptional circumstances would developments be permitted in such areas and then only

when it could be effectively integrated into the landscape with a minimal degree of visual

or other environmental impact and he asked how could a motorway be integrated with a

minimal degree of impact. He concluded by saying that he and his family chose to live in

thisarea because of its amenity value and the price they paid for their property reflected

this amenity value and said that now the Council and the NRA were going to impose a

Mr. Barber made his submission on Day 17 of the Hearing and said his house was listed

as Plot 88 in the EIS where it had been given a severe rating for visual impact and was in

a row of 15 houses which ran parallel to the proposed M3 and that if the road went ahead

it would be less than 150 metres away from his front door. He said he understood there

was no precedent in Ireland for situating a motorway so close to a group of houses. He

said the first announcement of plans for the N3 was for a dual carriageway, then it

became a motorway and then it was to be tolled and he objected to this type of deception

and suggested that that was the plan all along but only revealed in small doses. He also

objected to the divide and conquer method used to choose an EPR which succeded in

what was intended by splitting communities, so that those who escaped failed to question

the viability of the proposal. He objected to the way the public consultation process was

Mr. Barber objected to the use of Dalgan Park as a route for the Motorway where it

would destroy the wonderful amenities given free of charge by the Columbans to the

people of Meath when there were no other facilities like it in the Navan area and he

questioned how the EIS could be seen as an accurate study when it only referred to

Dalgan as a former seminary and a retirement home for priests and failed to mention the

facilities offered there to the people. He referred to the rich archaeology in the area

between Navan and Dunshaughlin and said that building a motorway between the Hill of

Tara and the Hill of Skreen would squander this heritage for future generations. He said

he had a map of the 147 known archaeological monuments in the area and that to avoid

some of them the designers had to create a wormlike road but some would still be

bulldozed. He referred to the Carrickmines issue and the archaeologists being told to

finish work as it was costing too much and the bulldozers would then move in. He said an

eminent archaeologist thought finds in the Tara/ Skreen area would rival Newgrange and

that an alternative route should be sought where there was much less danger of damaging

recommendation for a dual carriageway and said he had never seen traffic jams north of

Kells when he travelled to Carnaross almost daily. He suggested the N3 roundabouts on

the Dublin approach would not be able to handle the traffic flows they were expected to

take and said that it would be more sensible to re-establish the rail link between Navan

and Dublin which would be safer, cheaper and less wasteful of prime land and would

also reduce the greenhouse emissions that were already above the Kyoto limits. Mr.

Barber also objected to the PPP involvement in building motorways where the Public

took the risk and the Private took the profit and said the proposal to toll the motorway

would lead to additional congestion on existing country roads by traffic avoiding toll

Their submission was made to the Hearing on Day 18 by Mr. Hamill and he said their

objections were mainly environmental and that he had attached information from reliable

Mr. Hamill referred to the wording in the advertisement for the initial public consultation

improvement" and he attached examples of this in appendices 1 & 2. He said that only

120 attended the first display and he suggested this was because of the small size of the

advertisement and said that the public preference was for Routes A and F. He said that

subsequently a hybrid route, made up of parts of Routes D and E and 2.3 km long, was

inserted as the EPR and that this 2.3 km. section was either 13% of the original lengh of

17.75 kms or 15% of the length of 15.5 kms. given by Mr. Guthrie in cross-examination

and that this new section was shown in appendix 3. He said they contended the public

consultation was flawed and invalid since the incorrect description was given as a

realignment/ improvement of the N3 when it was a new motorway; that a completetly

new route was produced by manipulating two distinctly separate routes and by the

inclusion of two spurious routes in the original consultation, as admitted by the project

consideration that it deserved as it would avoid destroying a unique environment of

National and European importance and would save costs by combining the proposed M2

Mr. Hamill said he had sought information relating to archaeological aspects under the

Freedom of Information Act and was told it would cost �495 to meet his requests and

said that, as his appeal was rejected, in effect he was denied the information he had

sought and this correspondence was in appendix 5. He said he then corresponded with

Duchas, without much success until he invoked the Freedom of Informatiuon Act when

he was shown a file at the Dublin offices of Duchas, which only contained letters from

the BRA and some private people in the Tara/Skreen area. He said the Duchas person

who presented the file indicated that route P was the preferred route and he asked if

Duchas thought the P route, which was east of Skreen and originally recommended by

Duchas, was the preferred route. He said the Duchas correspondence was in appendix 6.

Mr. Hamill said he was also disappointed with the manner in which replies to opinions he

expressed at the technical public consultation were standardised to " that is a matter of

He then referred to the heritage of the Tara, Skreen and Dowdstown/Dalgan area and

quoted the dictionary definitions of "heritage" to support his contention that these were

areas of exceptional scenic interest. He described the usage made of the extensive

walkways which would be destroyed by the motorway, as it would isolate Dalgan from

the area to the west of the road and those who wished to approach Dalgan by foot and he

described how the motorway would add up to 700 metres in each direction to their own

walk from their house to the Park. He said the viability of the various buildings used for

conferences, retreats and courses would be affected, as would the pitches used for Gaelic

and Soccer training and matches and said that the well maintained farm would be affected

by the loss of a substantial acreage. He described the history of the 12th century parish

church, now in ruins with its ancient burial ground, which stood some 500 metres from

the M3 within the farmland and said the consultant's response was silence to this being

pointed out at the initial public consultation, and that again at the Navan display there

was a similar silence. He said that the Gate lodge at Ardsallagh was a listed building and

was neither derelict nor unoccupied as stated by Mr. Harold O'Sullivan and that details of

Mr. Hamill quoted the Mission Statement of the Department of the Arts, Heritage,

Gaeltacht and the Islands, which he said he had taken from the 2000/2001 041 phone

book, since that Department did not know what the statement was when he had phoned

them and asked for it. He said it was missing from the 2003 phone book and he included

Department, whose Mission Statement he quoted, did not appear to have exerted any

important or effective influence on the preferred route that had materialiscd, and he said

one could think that the route emerged with the collaboration of this Department, using

He said the EPR skirted two sides of the Hill of Tara and was only 1.2 km. from the

northern edge of complex ME 031-033 which contained 73 recorded sites, with a further

recently identified site from the Discovery program, which the Prehistoric Society

newsletter had described as astonishing, listed in appendix 8. He said the route was about

840 metres from the Hill of Skreen. He said that in the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section

there were 12 more listed sites within 400 metres, 7 within 400 and 700metres and 4

within 600 and 800 metres of the route and these were in appendix 9A. He said two of

these sites, ME 038-001 and ME 038-002 wouyld be destroyed and this was in appendix

10. He said 32 additional sites were identified in the geophysical survey with 7 of these

stated to be of high archaeological significance and he included further details in

appendices 9A & 9B. He said the Interchange at Dillons Bridge ( Blundellstown) would

metres from the edge of Tara's core area. Mr. Hamill said this Interchange would be

clearly seen from the area of the Hill which was part of the Visitors Centre despite this

being denied by a member of the project team previously, and he said all this was

detailed in appendices 9A & 11. He said that he had included extracts from the EPA's

"Archaeological Features at Risk 2001" in appendix 12B and said these showed that

14.3% of surviving sites were destroyed in an 8 year period between 1987 and 1995 and

said that when this was combined with previously destroyed sites it increased to 33%. He

said he had included extracts from the Summer 2000 issue of Archaeology Ireland in

appendix 13A which referred to the serious rate of destruction of sites and said the

interpretation and dissemination of excavation data with the data collected not being

filed and made available. Mr. Hamill said that while this was a general article, the

experience of Wood Quay and Carrickmines showed the problems with excavation were

referring to extracts from Conor Newman's Archaeological Survey of Tara which the

appendix 14B. He said there had been damage inflicted on the Hill of Tara around 1900

when a search was made there for the Ark of the Covenant by non-nationals and he said it

was perverse that in 2002 the Hill of Tara and its setting was again threatened, but this

Mr. Hamill then referred to the responses made by the Roads Design Office to his

submissions to An Bord in April 2002 which he had recently received. ( The Inspector

said he need not read out his original submissions. The numbers refer to the points in his

He said that in response (1) while it might be technically correct to say that the route did

not direcctly impact on the walks, the noise and fumes would affect the walkers and no

mitigation could maintain the peace and tranquility or the visual amenity there. He said it

was not correct to say the walks were mainly between the Skane river and the existing N3

since substantial lengths were along both the Skane and Boyne rivers and in fields that

would be severed by the motorway and said that the noise at the Boyne crossing could

not be attenuated. He said that for response (2) they had more than a neighbourly concern

since they knew the Columbans did not want their lands to be compulsorily acquired and

he said that he had copies of maps from 1657 which showed a house on the lands. To

response (3) he said that Mr. Guthrie had agreed in cross-examination noise would

increase at Dowdstown House and it was not correct for Mr. Summers to claim a noise

benefit at the College. He said the trees attenuated the noise from the existing N3 at

present and the new road would be to the south and west of the building where the

prevailing winds would assist transmission and that the unsuitable conditions in which

the noise was taken had overtaken the response. He noted that in response (4) the

significance and that the preferred route from an archaeological perspective was east of

Skreen but he did not agree that preserving the site by record was appropriate since the

site in this case was the entire Tara/Skreen valley. He referred to giving details of a

previous geophysical survey of site 4 to one of the archaeological sub-contractors on 22

November 2000 and said the site northeast of Bellinter bridge he had referred to was

actually site 4. He said he presumed the 2 km. in response (6) was measured from the

motorway to some point on the Hill of Tara but he contended the Hill of Tara should be

regarded as ME 038- 033 and that measurements should be taken from the defined edge

of this. He said that if that was done the distance from the motorway was 1.5 km to the

east and 1.2 km to the northeast. He said they did not accept the project teams statement

about noise because of high traffic speeds and future higher volumes on the motorway.

He said that the correspondence referred to by the project team in response (7) was

included in appendix 5 of his submission and he said that it was not made clear at the

public consultation that the lines on the map were route corridors having a width of 500

metres and said the lines should have been 9 mm wide instead of 1 mm if that was the

case. He considered the "connection" between corridors D and E at Blundellstown was a

contravened by this. He also considered the team distorted the position in responding to

environment. He was obliged to receive details of meetings with Iarnrod Eireann in

response (8) but felt that, with the proximity of houses in the area of the proposed rail

crossing and the length of embankments required, the rail link would not become a reality

if the crossing was not constructed in conjunction with the road. Mr. Hamill handed in a

file which contained his Brief of Evidence and the various appendices of supporting

The Inspector asked him to indicate on a map the additional 700 metre round journey he

had referred to and Mr. Hamill explained that they normally walked along the Bellinter

road to the crossroads, turned left and entered Dalgan Park by the Gate lodge at the

bridge and when the motorway would be in place they would have to continue on past the

cross to Ambrose bridge and then along the new road and the overbridge and then turn

back to reach the Gate lodge. Mr. Hamill also told the Inspector that their house was the

The Inspector asked Mr. Butler to have a copy of the Brochure used in the second public

consultation handed in, saying he already had several copies of the Brochure from the

first one and Ms Joyce then handed in a copy of the second brochure. This is listed at

Ms Crickley made her submission to the Hearing on Day 19 and said she was speaking

on behalf of her mother who lived in the bungalow described as "P 17" in Table 5.4 on

Ms Crickley said her mother, who was 84, lived on her own in Brick since her father had

died in 2001and that they had lived there all of their lives. She said her father who was an

environmentalist and had planted many of the trees that would disappear with the

development. She said that the points she had raised in her written submission about the

selection of the Blue Route 2 were ones she had discussed with her father on many

occasions and they could not then see a need to object since there was a need for some

sort of By-pass of Dunshaughlin. Ms Crickley said that she felt the Blue Route 2 had

been moved significantly and that no convincing rationale had been given for the

realignment of the L 5012 and said the degree of visual and environmental impact on her

mother and her neighbours had not been seriously taken into consideration. She had also

raised questions about the disturbance to her mother and her neighbours during the

Ms Crickley acknowledged the written responses she had received but considered that the

consultation with affected land owners should have been extended to include residents

nearby who did not own land crossed by the route, such as her mother, as they would also

be affected by the route but were not regarded as being a priority for attention. She said

some of the moves taken to minimise the impact on Tara Stud significantly worsened the

impact on her mother's residence and on those of her neighbours and necessitated the

further realignment of the L 5012 which was admitted to run in close proximity to her

mother's residence. She said that the new route would worsen, rather than lessen, the

visual impact for those living on the Trevet Road and pointed out that there was no

residence on the property of Tara Stud that was visually impacted by the route. She said

she had concerns about how the EPR moved to the final route in that the consultations

should be pro-active and available to all citizens equally to protect their rights and she

contended that did not happen in this case and that, while it might seem to be a

Ms Crickley said she had major concerns about air, noise and vibration issues and that it

was not clear if there was a minimum separation distance in open countryside between a

dwelling and the proposed motorway and asked if the noise at her mother's house would

be increased by the relative height of the motorway. She said the Council said the noise at

a nearby house would be 66dB and as this house was 143 metres from the road and her

mother's was 300 metres distant, she asked if the noise at her mothers would be halved

and mentioned 38dB as being the recommended level for bedroom and that her mother's

bedroom faced the motorway. She suggested the residents of Co. Meath deserved at least

the same as in South Co. Dublin in relation to noise levels. She said that there had been a

reference earlier in the Hearing of construction traffic not being given access along the L

5012 and asked if that could be reinforced and that they be given assurances how that

would be enforced, and particularly on secondary contractors. Ms Crickley concluded by

saying it was important that the needs and rights of those who might not be able to attend

the Hearing and who did not own property but who would be substantially affected by the

motorway were taken into consideration, alongside all of the other considerations that

In response to a query by the Inspector she confirmed that her mother lived in the house

This was submitted on Day 11 by Mr. Carty who objected to the proximity of the M3 to

their property where they kept thoroughbred horses and said that the noise, light and air

pollution would prevent him from keeping these horses in the future as thoroughbreds

were highly strung and the noise and car lights would cause them to run unnecessarily

and damage themselves. He said that it was vital there be adequate screening as the road

would be 4 metres above ground level and that more screening than that proposed for the

He said the road from Trevet to Skryne, which was to be realigned, was very narrow and

not suited for heavy traffic and that dust and grime would be deposited on their house and

garden and that there would be a disused section left which would need to be blocked off

( See also objection by M/s Gaynor Corr on their behalf. Note -- Their objection was

They objected to the proximity of the M3 to their house located on the Skryne road

between the Trevet road junction and Skryne Church, the first house from the junction.

They wanted trees and more landscaping provided along the M3 on the section to the

south of the Collierstown O/B to reduce the noise impact and visual disturbance for

nearby residents. They also wanted a footpath provided on the Collierstowm O/B for

Their original objections to the CPO related to noise abatement, screening and planting,

drainage issues, potential illegal parking, the procedures followed by the Council, the

inadequacy of the EIS and some general issues but their main concern was with the

Council's proposal to build an elevated overbridge across the motorway on the road

The Meehan's farm is mainly a dairy enterprise with the motorway coming very close to

the milking parlour and farmyard. Mrs Meehan suffers from medical conditions that

require long term treatment and medication and she feared she would become a prisoner

in her house due to the elevated nature of the overbridge, which would be the only access

and the Council's proposals for their access were a source of extreme distress to Mrs.

Meehan who felt the Council had not taken account of her medical condition in the

relocate their house to the north of the overbridge if the M3 scheme proceded and they

said their existing house would become valueless being on a cul-de-sac and because Mrs.

Meehan could no longer live there. They wanted the scheme re-designed to give them an

alternative access that was acceptable to them and a commitment from the Council to

give full compensation for relocating their house and for the disturbance this would

Their submission was handed in to the Hearing on Day 17 and in it they said that they

had chosen to live on the Bellinter Road in 1975 because of the quiet rural ambience and

its proximity to the amenities provided in Dalgan Park and that the impact of high noise

levels from traffic, the severe visual impact and airbourne pollution from the motorway

would destroy that ambience entirely and forever. They referred to the high amenity

value of the area which the Council were aware of, having met stiff opposition to the

proposed siting of the water treatment plant and from the report they subsequently

commissioned. They said the proposal was flawed since it was originally advertised as

being for a proposed "upgrading" of the N3 which was misleading, as there was nothing

in the notices to suggest that it was intended to build a motorway through lands in the

Dalgan Park area, so close to Tara and parallel to all of their houses in Bellinter.

They said the baseline noise survey was not representative of the noise level at their

house or at any other houses in their area since monitoring was only carried out at one

location over a 24 hour period on the entire stretch from Dunshaughlin to Navan and for

only short periods of less than 30 minutes at other locations and that there had been no

noise surveys on the Bellinter Road area. they also criticised the lack of predictions of

what types of construction plant would be used or of what construction noise levels

would be. They referred to the fact of their area being named in the CDPs as an area to be

protected from development damaging to the landscape and character and said they

believed that a motorway and a giant concrete bridge over the Boyne at Bellinter Bridge

could not be constructed without creating a major detrimental effect on the landscape,

They said the rationale for building the M3 to ease the traffic problems in Meath was

roundabout which the motorway would only bring people to faster and would increase

the tailbacks there. They referred to the Council's Mission Statement and said if this had

any meaning the Council would reconsider the route put forward and examine seriously

the alternatives put forward including the provision of a railway between Navan and

Dublin. They said the impact of the motorway would be extremely severe and would

greatly impair their present quality of life and would seriously devalue their home.

Their submission was handed into the Hearing on Day 17 and they said they supported all

of the objections made by the BRA and Dalgan Park and that they found the responses of

4/9/02 from the Consultants to their objections did not adequately address their concerns.

They said the Consultants assessment of the impact of the motorway on Dalgan and

Dowdstown was totally inadequate and said that no serious attempt had been made to

understand what went on inside the complex or the effect the motorway would have on

these activities. They said people would not choose to walk in proximity to a motorway

with all of the noise, air pollution and visual disruption that would follow from its

construction as the motorway would be clearly visible from the paths and roads within

the Estate. They referred to the absence of a noise survey on the Bellinter Road and were

annoyed at the use of 68dB as the threshold and that the tests were unsupervised when

being done. They said the motorway would create severe air pollution problems rather

than the slight pollution as the EIS stated and said their house was 213 metres from the

motorway in what was pastureland at present, whereas Mr. Crawford thought it was 96

metres away when he said the impact was slight. They disagreed with the Project Team's

response about their concerns of traffic increases and said that they had chosen to live in

a quiet rural area whereas people living in Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells had chosen to

They said the screen of trees in front of their house was bare of leaves for six months of

the year and that the motorway would create a severe visual impact on their property and

outside the central core of Dalgan Park and said the parkland extended to the edge of the

demesne with large trees with Dutch Elm disease having to be felled some years ago in

the area where the motorway would go. They also criticised Mr. Burns response that the

crossing of the Boyne would be minimal in intrusion but that it would impinge on

Bellinter Bridge and they pointed to the new bridge being 3 metres higher than Bellinter

Bridge and asked how that could be a minimal intrusion. They also disagreed wuith his

response of the landscape impact being minor and not widely visible and said it would be

They said the valley between Tara and Skreen could never be considered suitable for a

motorway because of the archaeological sensitivity of the landscape and that Conor

Newman had said that valley had the densest concentration of known monuments and

should be avoided as a matter of principle and that Ms Gowan had admitted she would

not put the road there. They said the people who knew and cared about the area should be

listened to and that better options were available and said that bad decisions had been

affected by Plot 1101 in the CPO and that he had a number of general and specific points

Mr. Park said that the provision of an upgraded road was long overdue and he welcomed

it and said it was of paramount importance that the best-informed and most rational

decision was made in determining where the road was to be constructed as that decision

would live into the future and said he believed some of the decision-making was flawed

and that we would live to regret it. He said the need for a motorway per-se had not been

justified and that the original dual carriageway would have met all foreseeable needs at

lessor cost. He said he was objecting most strongly to the routing of the motorway

through Dalgan Park where it would inflict irreparable damage to what that stood for to

the local community and objecting to the routing through the Tara/Skryne landscape

where it would destroy a unique part of Irish Archaeology, Culture and Mythology and

deny future development of one of our most priceless sites of huge interest to visitors

He said that the CPO effects had a nuisance value but that he had no objections to the

works provided they were subject to normal safeguards to his property and he attached a

list of the items that he required to be detailed in any agreement between himself and the

He said that he was a walker who enjoyed the peace and tranquillity of Dalgan Park and

was in full support of the Columban Father's submissions and that he was a member of

the BRA and also supported the BRA and the MRAG submissions. He said there were a

number of complementary issues which he wanted to highlight and these dealt with

aspects of the Route Selection process used to select the EPR relating to the Corridor

He said the NRA website described the procedure to be followed in establishing a

suitable route in a series of steps and that public consultation was required for the

Corridor Selection process and the Route Selection process and an EPR from these last

two processes. Mr. Park then went through the manner in which the number of options

and categories examined seemed to have varied from the 5 categories as defined in

paragraph 1.6 on page 4 of Vol.2 of the EIS and the 5 route options described in Table

1.4 on page 10 and at paragraph 4.2.2 on page 36, both in Vol.2, through 10 possible

options shown in Table 4.2 and he referred to the 25 categories in the Assessment Matrix/

Scheme Ranking which the BRA obtained in 2001 being reduced to 17 in Table 4.2 in

Vol.2 of the EIS and said it was unclear why this reduction was made. He said that in the

Public Consultation they were told of 6 route options and that this grew to 10 in the

Assessment Matrix but they were told of 5 options examined in paragraph 4.3.3 of Vol.2

and there were 10 options listed in Table 4.2 of Vol.2. He said that at the end of all of that

they were never shown the Blue Route 2 or the EPR as an option and that this was

Selection Report and compared the rankings given in that to those given in Table 4.2 in

Vol.2 of the EIS and questioned why the basis for some of these rankings or impacts and

asked why there appeared to be changes as between those in the Matrix and those in the

EIS. (Note --The details he raised are those previously raised in the BRA submission at

Section 70 in this Report) He said that it seemed to him the rankings had been established

purely to justify a pre-selected route and that they were not used to give a fair analysis to

determine the best route option and that this gave a lie to Mr. Guthrie's assertion that

adjystments to the route had been made to minimise the impact of the scheme on the

Mr. Park said that the whole idea of routing the EPR through the Hill of Tara and Skryne

area was quite contrary to the stated intentions of the Council in the 2001 CDP and he

quoted from sections 3.6.15; 2.8.8 and 2.8.4 in support of this. He said everyone could se

what had been achieved at Newgrange with the Bru na Boinne Visitor Centre and he

hoped they could see similar sensitive developments at Tara and he said that putting a

motorway through the middle of one of Ireland's most important historical sites would

effectively scupper that possibility. He asked that the Council be requested to re-examine

the Route Selection process for the Dunshaughlin to Navan section and to re-evaluate

their route proposal through the historic Tara/ Skryne area to avoid what would be seen in

The Council's responses to the objections to the Motorway Order are all contained in

Two Folders, marked "F" and "G", Folder F containing the responses to Plots 1052 to

relating to the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section are in Folder "H" and are for submissions

5002 to 5084. These refer, generally, to nos. 4 & 5 and nos. 21 to 47 as given in the List

The format of the Council's responses to the various objectors and submissions is similar

to that given in the responses read by Ms Joyce to the Hearing and as detailed in Section

25.1 of this Report and, in general, set out on a point by point basis the Council's

responses to the various matters raised by the objector and included, where appropriate

and suitably referenced, comments by the authors of the reports in the EIS which dealt

with the matters raised. The Council's responses, in general, also referred to issues that

related to accommodation works, boundary treatments, maintenance of services etc as

matters to be dealt with at detailed design stage by the Contractor, or as matters to be

discussed with the Council at a later stage in the event of the proposal being approved by

Two further Folders of responses, "I"&"J" also relate to the Dunshaughlin to Navan

Section. Folder I refers to Plots 1052 to 1144 and is a "duplicate" of Folders F & G, while

Folders F, G and H and their duplicates were handed in on Day 13, as listed in Appendix

Having regard to the format of these responses being generally similar to that given

previously in Section 25 of this Report, I do not consider it necessary to summarise the

Council's responses for the other objections or submissions. The details in the objections/

submissions, and in the Council's responses thereto, were all taken into account when