MS2004

everything else links off the Homepage

PART 4

Ms Joyce had previously given evidence as the Project Engineer for the Clonee to

Dunshaughlin to Navan Section to the south-east of Navan and proceeded in a northwesterly

roads, one Regional road (R161 Trim road) one National Secondary road (N51 Athboy

road) and joined the Navan to Kells Section to the north-west of Navan. She said the

Ms Joyce said the Scheme details were shown in Volume 5B and she then gave a detailed

description of the route of the proposed M3 , which is generally set out in Section 12 on

pages 24 and 25 of this Report and is not being repeated in full in this Section. She said

Cannistown road was realigned, as part of the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section, to cross

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

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

existing streams and the drainage design which dictated the extent those levels could be

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

resulting in some local raising of the alignment levels but that the design and location of

the underpasses were generally chosen to minimise the impact of raising the alignment,

where this was feasible. She said the Kilcarn Interchange was located south of Navan

between the Cannistown road and the R161Trim road and this would be a trumpet type

interchange with one bridge and with both north bound and south bound ramps which

would allow for entry and exit to and from the M3 in both directions. She said the Kilcarn

Road would tie-in to the east side of the Interchange and this road linked to the existing

N3 at a new Roundabout on the southern side of Navan near the existing Kilcarn Bridge.

She said the motorway was generally close to existing ground level from the Cannistown

embankment varying from 1.7 metres to 3 metres above ground level through Macetown

Hanlonstown townland where it ran through a 3 metre cutting for some 400 metres. She

said that beyond this cutting the motorway was again on an embankment which rose to

4.9 metres above ground level in as it approached the existing N51 Athboy road in

Boyerstown townland which crossed over the M3 at this point. Ms Joyce said the Athboy

Interchange was located in Boyerstown townland to the west of Navan and to the north of

the existing N51 Athboy road and on embankment some 2 metres above ground level at

this point. She said a new realigned section of the N51 will link from the northern side of

back to the existing N51 at Clarke's Cross Roads. Ms Joyce said the Athboy Interchange

would be a dumbbell type interchange with two roundabouts, one at either side of the

mainline, and a single bridge between these roundabouts. She said this would provide for

traffic movements in all directions and that the dual carriageway link to Navan at the

New Roundabout at Townparks would tie in to the eastern roundabout, with the new

single carriageway link to the Clarke's Cross Roads new Roundabout tying into the

Ms Joyce said that beyond the Interchange the motorway continued north-westwards on

an embankment, of up to 3 metres above ground level in places, before entering a cutting

of up to 3 metres as it approached the Boyerstown road crossing, and continued at ground

level northwards beyond the Boyerstown road crossing until it entered a cutting as it

crossed the Halltown road and continued in cutting of up to 4 metres as it passed under

the Bohermeen road to the west of Ardbraccan Glebe. She said the motorway went onto

embankment of 2 to 3 metres above ground level as it tied in the the Navan to Kells

Ms Joyce said there would be two new significant Roundabout junctions provided, the

new Kilcarn Roundabout on the N3 south of Navan which would be an urban junction

with dedicated left slip lanes to facilitate dominant traffic flows and the Athboy

Roundabout at in Townparks, about 1km. west of Navan Town Centre. She said this was

located at the intersection of the proposed Athboy N51 Realigned road (west), the

existing N51, the proposed Council Inner Relief Road Phase 2B, theTara Mines road,( L-

7418-16) and the link road to Gainstown road and this was also an urban roundabout

which tied the Link road into the existing and proposed local road network. Ms Joyce

also described the two new Link roads from the M3, the Kilcarn road and the Athboy

N51 Realignment. She said the Kilcarn road ran parallel to the Cannistown road from the

Interchange and crossed under the Ballybatter road ( L 8010-0) in a deep cutting and also

under Swan Lane (L 34141-0), which was to become a cul-de-sac with pedestrian traffic

maintained by a footbridge at that point, and tied in to the existing N3 at the New Kilcarn

Roundabout. She said the existing N51 was being realigned from Clarke's Crossroads all

the way into Navan and tied in to the local network at the New Townparks Roundabout.

She said the new Realigned Athboy road would run parallel to the existing N51and

generally ran through farmland with no side road crossings and it was on a 7 metre high

embankment where it crossed over the motorway at the Athboy Interchange. She said the

realigned N51 would be a single carriageway from Clarke's Crossroads to the Interchange

and continued as a dual carriageway from the Interchange to the Townparks Roundabout.

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

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

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

crossed by the M3 such as the Trim Road (R 161), Robinstown Road ( (L 4007-0), N51

Durhamstown Road (L 4005-11). She said Swan Lane would be closed on either side of

the Kilcarn Link road with no direct access to Swan Lane from that Link road and some

ancillary works provided between Swan Lane and the proposed footbridge crossing the

(L 80091-16) would both be made cul-de-sacs on either side of the M3 with a local

diversion on the Gainstown road but that none were required on the Halltown road since

there were no houses on that section. She said there would be some realignment required

on the N3 at the new Kilcarn roundabout and also at the Ballybatter Overbridge( L 8010-

Ms Joyce said that, as well as the two Interchange Overbridges, there would be 7

Overbridges to be constructed on this Section and she listed these as the Trim Road

R161, Robinstown, N51 Athboy, Boyerstown, Bohermeen, Durhamstown and Ballybatter

Accommodation Underpasses, one under the M3 for animals only at chn. 45860, one on

the Kilcarn Link for vehicles and animals at chn.1250 and Two on the Athboy road for

Ms Joyce said the details of the Motorway cross-section had previously been given by

Mr. Guthrie ( See Scetion 17.1. at page 69 of this Report) and she gave the following

details for the other roads in this Section. In the case of the Kilcarn and Athboy Road

dual carriageways the predicted traffic flows for the 2024 "do something tolled" scenario

was 22800 and 33500 AADT respectively and this required a standard dual carriageway

width, the same as that for the proposed M3, to provide for a level of service of "C". In

order to maintain consistency for drivers the section of the realigned single carriageway

N51 between Clarke's Crossroads and the Interchange would use the width of the existing

road and a carriageway width of 7.5 metrres with 2 no. hard shoulders of 3 metres and 2

no. verges of 2 metres was proposed, giving a total width of 15 metres excluding side

slopes. The cross-section of the R161 Trim Road was proposed to be the same as a

separate scheme for improving the Trim Road already prepared by the Council, and this

would use an 8 metre carriageway, 2 no. 0.5 metre hard strips and 2 no. 3 metre verges,

giving an overall width of 15 metres excluding side slopes. The cross-section for County

Roads would use that in Annex A of the NRA Road Geometric Handbook, for nonnational

carriageway and 2 no. 2 metre verges, giving a total width of 10 metres excluding side

slopes and this would apply to all of the county roads to be realigned as part of the

Ms Joyce said the Slip Roads, or ramps, at the Interchanges had their cross-sections

defined in the NRA document DMRB TD 27/00 and she gave the details as follows. For

all of the Athboy and for the northbound merge and southbound diverge lanes at Kilcarn

there would be a 4 metre carriageway with a 0.5 metre offside hard strip and a 1 metre

near strip with 2 no. 3 metre verges outside the strips. For the Kilcarn two lane

northbound diverge there would be 2 no. 3 metre carriageways with the same widths of

southbound merge there would be 2 no. 3.65 metre carriageways with the same widths of

excavated, of which up to 89000 cu. metres could be unsuitable, and this would have to

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

a deficit of fill material requiring the importation of some 785000 cu. metres into the site.

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

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

She said that the Navan By-pass Section crossed land that was mainly flat or gently

undulating and lay for the most part within the Boyne Catchment, and the River Boyne

was joined at Navan by the River Kells-Blackwater which rose north of Bailieboro.

She said the route crossed numerous drainage ditches and some small tributaries of both

Rivers. She said their preliminary drainage design indicated the following general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said the first Public Consultation Meeting was held in Ardboyne Hotel, Navan on 24,

25 & 28 February 2000, with drawings showing 8 possible route corridors and known

constraints on display and that a presentation was made to the Meath County Council

Meeting was held in Ardboyne Hotel, Navan on 22 & 23 May 2000 and in the Headfort

Arms Hotel, Kells on 24 & 25 May 2000 and that this second Public Consultation was a

meetings the emerging preferred routes were presented, the likely impacts identified, the

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

the scheme development at that time. She said the meetings had been advertised in local

papers, on local radio and at Parish Churches, with leaflets also distributed and that about

2200 people attended the two consultation meetings. She said that after the second Public

Consultation the drawings were put on display in the County Library for a further 4

weeks and during this period Council's Design Team took written submissions and met

corridor/route options had been identified for the Navan By-pass Section, taking into

account the constraints identified in the Constraints Study, and said that four of these

routes were each on the east and west of Navan. She gave a brief description of each of

these routes as given in the Brochure used in the February 2000 Consultation ( Note -- a

copy of this was handed in to the Hearing on Day 18 and is listed in Appendix 4 of this

Report.) Ms Joyce described how each of the 8 routes was examined under engineering,

environmental, social and economic factors to identify a preferred route and she

concluded that Route A, the Purple route, was the preferred option for the reasons which

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

the reasons for selecting the Purple Route are also given in Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.4 and 4.4.4

at pages 37-39, 44 and 50 in Vol.2 of the EIS and are not repeated in this Report.

residents in the Ardbraccan area which was where the Navan By-pass and the Navan to

Kells Sections interfaced and that at a meeting on 12 July 2000 the Council requested the

Consultants to undertake a a further study of this interface area to establish the optimum

line for the EPR there. Ms Joyce said that initially 4 route corridors were considered as

alternative options to the EPR in the Ardbraccan area and 3 other lines presented by the

public were then developed into a further 7 routes and also compared to the EPR. Ms

Joyce said that a total of 12 posssible routes were considered for the Ardbraccan interface

MD1 Route -- this was a route submitted by a landowner, Margaret Donaghy, in a verbal

Ms Joyce said that having assessed these options Route A was still the preferred route

and served the National road traffic demand with the least overall environmental impact

*This route impacted significantly less on residential buildings with only 5 buildings

*This route did not directly impact on any known NHAs or known archaeological sites

with most other routes impacting on known possible archaeological sites even if these

*This route had no impact on identified habitats for flora or fauna while some others had.

This route did not directly affect any known Historical or Architectural sites while some

*This route required a maximum of 4 bridges, or one less than most other routes.

*The construction costs, impact on 20 farms and design standards for Route A were

Ms Joyce then described the Route options considered for the N51 Athboy Road Link

where 5 options were examined all traversing the farmland to the north of the existing

N51 to meet the constraints dictated largely by the need to tie into the existing and

proposed local road network and to the Interchange on the M3; the proximity of Housing

Development and Farm severeance; condition of existing road network and that no direct

access was to be permitted to the Link road. She said each route was examined under

engineering, environmental, social and economic factors to identify a preferred route and

she concluded that Route 3 was the preferred option, for the reasons which she outlined.

The principal reason for selecting this route for the Link road were that it had the least

favourable in terms of farm severance than the other routes. Ms Joyce concluded that, on

balance, Route 3 was the preferred route for the Athboy Link road to Navan from the Bypass.

Ms Joyce said that 5 options were examined for the Kilcarn Link all of which generally

were parallel to the Cannistown road with 3 options crossing the Ballybatter road and 3

crossing the Cannistown road (i.e. one crossing both). She said 3 options crossed Swan

Lane, one crossed the Boyne requiring a significant bridge and another option used a

considered. She said the built- up nature and steep topography south of Navan made all

options difficult and the constraints were the urban nature and proximity to South Navan

and River Boyne; topography; condition of existing road network and no direct access to

Ms Joyce said each route was examined under engineering, environmental, social and

economic factors to identify a preferred route and she concluded that Route 4 was the

preferred option for the reasons which she outlined. The principal reason was that it had

the least farm severance impacts and it was one of three that had the second least number

of houses close to it, the route with the least houses directly impacted on Boyne Hill

House a house of Historical significance and in other respects it was similar to the other

options. Ms Joyce concluded that on balance Route 4 was the preferred route for the Link

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

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

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

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

Scheme. Ms Joyce then listed 17 revisions or amendments they had made to the Scheme

as a consequence of this review. These are all listed in Section 1.2 of Vol.5A of the EIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

significantly alter the impacts identified for the Tolled Scheme. She said, however, that a

noise barrier some 1.5 metres high would be required on the Athboy road near the

Ms Joyce said that there were 28 Public Rights of Way and 4 Private rights of Way to be

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

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

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

Scheme. She said that the landtake required for the Navan By-pass Section was some

132.4 Hectares of which some 58.3 Hectares were required for the actual Motorway with

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

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

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

Ms Joyce said she had prepared a folder that contained their response both to the original

objections that had been made and to supplementary objections submitted during the

Hearing and she said a copy of those responses had been posted out to all of the

individuals concerned at least two weeks previously. She then handed in a copy of the

folder of these responses to the Inspector . Mr Keane asked her to also hand in the folder

of resonses made to the supplementary objections received during the Hearing for the

Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section (Note -- These Folders are listed at Day 16 in Appendix

The Inspector asked if a Map showing the alternative routes suggested by the public in

the Ardbraccan area as referred to in her evidence be handed in and Ms Joycc said she

would provide this. ( Note -- This was included with the Constraints and Route Selection

Study documents for the Navan By-pass handed in by Ms Joyce on Day 20 as listed in

The Inspector also asked Mr. Keane to arrange for the submission of a summation of the

total areas of land being acquired in the CPO and this was handed in on Day 28 as listed

in Appendix 4 of this report. Mr. Keane then handed in a copy of the accident data on the

N3 as previously requested by the Inspector from Mr. Guthrie (See Section 19.9) and

detail's of the water levels in Seamus Farrelly's well on the Hill of Skryne as referred to in

86. 2. Susan Joyce cross-examined by Sean Carty, Cannistown, Navan -- Plot 1136 :

Interchange (Kilcarn) which was elevated 8 metres above the ground and with cars

traveling uphill to the overbridge there would be a lot of gear changing and a lot of noise

and there was no noise mitigation there that he could see. Ms Joyce said there were two

places in the EIS that dealt with his area, the first being Table 4.6 in Vol.5A at page 78

and then in Figure 4.1.1 and that the impact was severe in the EIS with the existing noise

being 46 dB and this was predicted to increase to 62dB in 2004 and to 66dB in 2024. She

accepted the jump was significant but said it was below the cut-off of 68dB which was

why there was no mitigation because that was only put in when the noise exceeded 68dB.

Mr. Carty said he worked in Tara Mines and that for most of the time there he wore

eareplugs and earmuffs and his garden was the place he relaxed in when he came home

Ms Joyce acknowledged his situation and agreed she would not like to have to wear

earmuffs at home and said the noise would be similar to that in a busy office if he took

this from Plate 4.1 in Vol.5A. She said she knew this was not much consolation for him

but said that when the prediction did not reach 68dB the practice was to provide no

mitigation and that while the increase was large, it was still below 68dB. Mr. Carty asked

if the cost of putting in banks to reduce the noise would be expensive and Ms Joyce said

she did not have a figure on that but if it had to be done it would be expensive as the

material would have to be brought into the site since they were short of material already.

Mr. Carty said the figures predicted were hypothetical and there was no-one coming to

check them and Ms Joyce said she had double-checked the figures and the 46dB was

what would be expected in a quiet rural area like his and that while the increase from 46

The Inspector commented that the issue of noise was likely to be raised again by Mr.

Macken as he would returning the following day and he had raised the Outer Ring Road

decision by An Bord on a noise restriction and when Mr. Butler said they now had a copy

of that decision and would be dealing with it, the Inspector said that he would be asking

for evidence of a written confirmation from the NRA indicating the statutory provisions

under which they were relying on the use of 68dB and that he was signalling this now.

Cannistown Residents Association were represented by Manus Tiernan, their Chairman,

and Jim McIntyre, a Committee member, and Mr. Tiernan said they represented an area

of between 150 and 200 households that was in the area between the Dunshaughlin to

documents to see how they would be affected. He said they had been in consultation with

the Council through the design stages and had a number of meetings with them. He said

Williamstown, or Bawn as it was known, and they had the Bective GAA football club

and the local school in their area. He said they still had a number of questions regarding

the impact of the motorway on their Community as some of their members felt some

questions had not been satisfactorily answered and said these generally related to the

construction stage, to the Noise issue and the Directive issued by the EU on 25 June

2002, the effects on Amenities in the area, Drainage impacts from the Williamstown

Interchange and Road Lighting effects, concerns about the cul-de-sacs at Ardsallagh and

Cannistown Roads and the need for footpaths. He said the Residents Asociation felt some

of the details in the EIS on habitats was inadequate from the Foot and Mouth restrictions

preventing surveys and wanted to know if these had been rectified since the restrictions

precedence in putting corrective measures in place to safeguard the health and well-being

of the Community since the motorway and link roads would be there for generations to

(Note -- As some of the queries relate to issues that were in both Sections, Alan Guthrie

Mr. Tiernan asked if there would be a temporary closure of roads in the Cannistown area

during the construction of the motorway. Mr.Guthrie explained that the Cannistown Road

was being realigned off-line so that there would not be a formal road closure but there

would be some disruption while both ends were being tied-in the the new section,. Asked

if this applied to the Ardsallagh and Botharalainnn roads as well. Mr. Guthrie said the

same situation applied to the Ardsallagh Road and Ms Joyce, having established that the

Botharalainn road was also the Balreask road, said that road would have to be closed

during the construction of the Kilcarn Link Overbridge on that road since it was an online

construction due to the houses adjacent to it. Asked for the timescale of the closure,

Ms Joyce said that it would be about nine months and that the existing local network

would have to be used as diversionary routes, with both the Trim and Cannistown Roads

being available. Mr. Tiernan asked what level of machinery would be used with the

construction of the Interchange, a cutting and two overbridges in the area and Ms Joyce

said she expected they were worried about construction traffic on the local roads and said

there would not be any since the Contractor would be limited to using National and

Regional roads which would be the N3 and the Trim road so that it was likely he would

start with the Kilcarn Link earthworks to create an access into the Section and she gave

Mr. Tiernan asked where would the Contractors get their water from and if the Residents

could be assured their water and power mains would not be affected. Ms Joyce replied

that the Contractor would be obliged to keep services going at all times and he would be

expected to give notice of the periods where re-connections were being done when short

stages of disruptions to supplies might arise. Regarding the supply of bulk water for dust

suppression or other purposes, when Mr. McIntyre expressed concern that this might be

taken from the mains system, which suffered from low pressure in the Summer, the

Inspector intervened and said he would see it as being unusual for a contractor to use a

mains supply to fill tankers and said the more usual source for this was from the nearest

river or stream. When Mr. McIntyre asked for an assurance of this water not coming from

the public supply, Ms Joyce replied that it was highly unlikely to be taken from that

supply and the Inspector repeated that a contractor was not going to take it from a public

main when he would have to pay for it and that he would go to the nearest stream to fill

Mr. Tiernan asked if access would be maintained into their area for local businesses, the

school and emergency services and when Ms Joyce said the Contractor would have to

maintain access but that there would be some diversions with the Ballybatter Road

Botharalainn Road and asked how would they have to travel when theat road would be

closed for nine months. Ms Joyce said they had considered the inconvenience which

would arise but there were major constraints in trying to do an off-line solution with the

deep cutting for the Link road, the railway bridge they had to preserve and with the

houses on both sides of the road. She said the Link was very significant for Navan in

overall terms with the traffic demand requiring two lanes in each direction and the

significant flow of traffic from Navan to Dublin requiring the link to be as close to Navan

as was possible and that all of this made the closure for nine months the best option in a

difficult decision. Asked if she was aware that traffic coming from Trim and going to

Dublin used the Botharalainn road, Ms Joyce acknowledged it was used as a "rat-run" at

present and said their traffic counts showed most of the traffic on the Trim Road was

McIntyre asked where the counts were taken and when Ms Joyce said it was an outbound

survey and south of Balreask crossroads, he said that did not address their concerns since

roundabouts on the by-pass. Ms Joyce suggested he was saying there were two choices

for that traffic of either going on the Cannistown road or staying on theTrim road and

crossing from Balreask to the Ballybatter road and she said that if the Ballybatter road

were closed, more were likely to use the Cannistown road. Mr. Tiernan pointed out that

the school was located at the junction of the Cannistown and Ardsallagh roads and that

the morning time had school traffic clashing with work related traffic and asked if they

Ms Joyce replied that they had not assessed that risk but they knew there would be

diversions onto both theTrim and Cannistown roads once Ballybatter was closed and said

that there was no other feasible solution to the short term closure. She felt that once the

Interchange was in place that Dublin bound traffic would find its way onto that and move

off the Cannistown road and she repeated the constraints they had faced with a 10 metre

cutting to be crossed and the railway bridge and corridor to be preserved and said that if

they could have left the road open they would have done so, as they had been able to do

in almost every other crossing. Mr. McIntyre said they accepted it was not feasible to

leave the road open but their concerns were of what was being put in place as an

alternative to accommodate morning time traffic. He pointed out how a three minute

drive to school in the morning could now become a 45 minute drive and he described

how this could happen and said his question was directed more at the County Council

rather than to the Consultants as it related to the planning of traffic management of Navan

for a nine moth period at least. Ms Joyce said she could see where he was coming from

but that the traffic figures for Ballybatter were not that large and, while it would create

local inconvenience, she felt that with signs it should be possible to adequately divert the

Mr. Tiernan said their concerns were for the safety of their children at the school and that

if traffic was increased there should be a traffic management plan in place and said that as

there were no evidence of this in the EIS they were looking for assurances this plan

would be in place if traffic was going to be diverted into their area. Ms Joyce said her

colleague had pointed out that the Contractor might use the Trim road as a diversion

during construction and they could look at that and also because the Trim link road had to

be built in advance there was a possibility of phasing this as a diversion for the

Ballybatter traffic and said she would look at this in more detail. The Inspector

intervened and said since this traffic was for a rush hour period only and probably all

one-way there was also a possibility of a temporary diversion road being put into the

fields on the town side of the Ballybatter road and to take the traffic around the bridge

site while it was being built. He said he accepted this would need filling to be put in there

and that traffic lights might be needed and it would not be to geometric standards but it

highlighted difficulties with retaining walls and the objection by Balreask House who

possible solutions, the Inspector said that it seemed traffic management arrangements

needed to be looked at by the Local Authority and the Contractor and Ms Joyce said she

would consider the points raised and come back at a later stage ( Note -- Ms Joyce

handed in her comments on the Ballybatter traffic management /diversion arrangements

Mr. Tiernan asked if there were proposals for a compound for construction vehicles in the

Cannistown road area and how much fill was needed and where would it come from. Mr.

Guthrie said there were no identified areas for construction plant compounds within the

scope of the EIS and it was up to the Contractor to make his own arrangements within the

limits of the CPO and said that if he wished to go elsewhere he would have to make a

perivate arrangement with land owners. Asked if blasting or piling had been identified,

Mr. Guthrie said they had not identified any rock south of the Cannistown road so

blasting was not anticipated but there would be piling for the foundations of the

Cannistown and Ardsallagh Bridges. Mr. Tiernan asked about vibration studies on the

effects of piling and Ms Joyce quoted from section 4.12 of Vol.3A on page 99 about

vibration impacts and said the same comments applied for each section and said that there

were "peak particle velocity" guidelines in Table 4.10 which would be the limiting

factors for vibration effects and Mr. Guthrie stated these would be monitored by the

Council supervisory team. Ms Joyce then gave details of the quantities of filling, which

were given in her Brief of Evidence, and said that the location of borrow pits and disposal

sites would be the responsibility of the Contractor and subject to the relevant legislative

requirements. Mr. McIntyre said he presumed this issue had been discussed previously

and the Inspector said that it had and that both sides of the argument had been put

forward and that An Bord would make its ruling on whether the EIS was adequate or not

Mr. McIntyre then asked if the Consultants were familiar with EU Directive 2002/49/EC

issued on 24 June 2002 and when Ms Joyce asked if that was a noise directive and Mr.

McIntyre said it was, she said she would like if their noise expert would deal, with that

question and Mr. Keane said that Mr. Dilworth could be made available later on that day

if necessary but would be at the Hearing on the following day anyway. Following some

discussion on his availability, the Inspector said he could raise their concerns and then it

Mr. McIntyre said that he would be making a personal submission at a later stage and

said the Association's concerns were that the noise levels of 68 decibels being used in the

design of the motorway were the highest in Europe at present and only the UK and

Greece had levels similar to Ireland. He quoted figures from Austria of 60 in daytime and

50 at night; from Denmark and Finland of 55 day and 45/50 at night; Germany of 59 day

and 49 night; the Netherlands 55 day and 45 night; Portugal 65 day and 55 night; Sweden

55 and the UK 68. He said he understood the Directive suggested certain measures had to

be put in place over the next number of years that would reduce the Ireland/UK/Greece

levels to a more reasonable EU average and he suggested that the Countries which were

now 45, 50, 55 would not be increasing their levels. When Mr.McIntyre asked if that was

their understanding Ms Joyce said she thought Chris Dilworth would be best placed to

answer that query and the Inspector said he recalled Mr. Dilworth saying there was a

Directive coming which signaled the start of harmonisation and he should be able to

elaborate. Mr. McIntyre said that from his background noise was a sensitive issue and

that the June Directive would cost aviation authorities and airline operators a lot of

Directive. He said we were members of the EU for 30 years now and were going to spend

a lot of money on this motorway and suggested that, rather than waiting to be told in a

few years time to improve the mitigation measures now being put in, we should be

anticipating what would be required to get us compliant with the EU average. He said he

was not saying that we should go down to levels of 45 or 50 but we should pick the

average and build the motorways and slip roads to be compliant with the EU average and

Mr. Tiernan asked what mitigation measures were being proposed at the Interchange and

slip roads as there were a lot of houses nearby. Ms Joyce explained that while the EIS

acknowledged the noise impact from the Interchange was severe, since the predicted

level was below 68dB no mitigation measures were being installed there and she referred

to Table 4.6 and Figure 4.1.1 and station points 29 and 2. A discussion followed with Mr.

McIntyre on the possibility of mitigation if different standards were to be applied and Ms

Joyce accepted it would be possible to put in noise screens but said she could not say to

what level a reduction could be achieved as that would be Chris Dilworth's area. She did

point out that there was extensive landscape screening at SLM 1 on Figure 5.1.4 and in

Table 5.5 in Vol.5A at Kilcarn Interchange. Mr. Guthrie said there were a series of noise

barrriers varying in height for 1.5 to 3.5 metres running from east to west as the old

Cannistown Road was crossed to give protection to the properties there, which he

indicated on the screen at the Hearing, and Mr. Tiernan asked about the length involved

and Mr.Guthrie said that the bunding was about 250 metre long from Cannistown road

towards the interchange and Ms Joyce said there was no bunding beyond that since the

noise levels were not predicted to exceed 68dB. Asked if there was screen planting Ms

Mr. Tiernan referred to the amenities in their area like the Bective GAA club, Tara Golf

interfered with during construction. Mr. Guthrie said that one of the reasons for the offline

construction of the realigned Cannistown road was to maintain local access during

the construction phase and that other for some disruption during the tie-ins there would

be access at all times to the football pitch and he said there would be a new footpath

along the full length of the realigned road. Mr. Tiernan asked if the footpath would be

extended to the school but Mr. Guthrie said that was outside the limit of their works and

was something they should raise with the Council. Mr. Tiernan suggested that this should

be done, as there would be more traffic and with the closure of the Botharalainn road but

Mr.Tiernan referred to the drainage from the Interchange area and asked how this would

be dealt with as it was on a well-known wetland. Ms Joyce said that all of the motorway

drainage would drain to a pond that was located in the centre of the Interchange at the

attempted to balance between the visual impact by keeping the road as low as poossible

and yet keep it high enough to be able to drain it and the concerns to have it moved away

from the football pitch and Cannistown so the pond acted as a sump for the Interchange

loop road and ramps and the motorway to the north with the road to the south going into

the Dunshaughlin to Navan drainage system. Asked where the water in the attenuation

pond went to, Ms Joyce said it stayed in the pond and said that David Wilson, their

construction work and Ms Joyce said that where there was direct impact the tanks and

precolation areas would be re-located but otherwise there should be no effect on the

operation of these septic tanks. Mr. McIntyre asked if the construction of the Kilcarn

Link and the motorway would affect the level of the water table and Ms Joyce said it

should not but that she would have to check the borehole results before giving an

absolute clearance and said that from memory there was only one location on this Section

where there could be an impact on the water table and that was at the northern end. She

said they had identified what might be regarded as high risk areas for wells and they

would be monitored on an on-going basis and said that if there were impacts, the wells

Mr. McIntyre asked if there would be an independent arbitrator to resolve any problems

the residents had with the construction works. Ms Joyce explained how there would be a

liaison person who would be available to the public as their point of contact for

complaints and problems and that the Resident Engineering staff would also be checking

the contractor against the contract conditions and said there would not be an arbitrator as

such. Mr. Tiernan asked about the proposals to stop illegal parking and dumping on cul642

de-sacs and Mr.Guthrie said that any redundant road surfaces would be ripped up and

topsoiled and returned to the local land owner unless they were neeeded for access as had

earlier been stated. Mr. Tiernan asked what type of fencing would there be on the

overbridges and Mr. Guthrie said there would be parapets which would be 1.5 metres

investigation of habitats and said that there was very little mention of the likes of

Cannistown. Mr. Guthrie said there had been surveys by their flora and fauna expert and

he had identified bats and badger locations and felt the other species would have been

generally dealt with and said that as they were not protected species they would not

necessarily be mentioned in detail in the EIS. When Mr. Tiernan suggested the survey

was incomplete due to foot and mouth restrictions, Mr. Guthrie said that surveys werc

done on the disused farm buildings at the old railway bridge at Cannistown and near

Bellinter Bridge for badgers, so that surveys were carried out. Ms Joyce said that there

were references to surveys in Vol. 5A and she quoted from this at page 188 about badger

activity along the Cannistown road, at chn. 40000 and chn. 950 about the need for further

investigations and several other references to hedgerows, trees identified as bat roosts and

so on. Mr. McIntyre said his concern was that a detailed inventory of the flora and fauna

in the area should be undertaken as part of the EIS and he understood the EIS said the

reference he was relying on which was in paragraph 6.2 of Vol.5A, but that also said that

further surveys had been undertaken in September 2001 which, she said, showed that

Mr. Tiernan asked what had they raised with the ERFB in the consultation they had as

there was nothing in the EIS to state what the ERFB had been asked about. Mr. Guthroe

replied that they presented their proposals for the Bellinter Bridge crossing and the

culverting of the Skane and Lismullin Rivers to the ERFB and discussed these in detail

with them to establish what their requirements were and the ERFB had set out their

structural requirements in the response Mr. Tiernan referred to. Mr. Guthrie gave as an

example the request by the ERFB to keep piers out of the River Boyne Channel and for

identified and said this was in the EIS, which was the outcome of the consultation. Mr.

Tiernan asked if the two streams in Cannistown had been examined and said one of these

flowed past the attenuation pond. Ms Joyce, having been given details by her colleague

said that there had been two sampling sites, 4 & 5, on those streams and they were shown

The Inspector said that from a reading of the EIS birds such as pheasants, wood pigeons,

blackbirds and others were mentioned in it as well as various mammals such as fox, hare,

hedgehog and others and he said the EIS appeared to have referred extensively to birds

and wild animals and gave mitigation measures for them. Mr. Tiernan asked about red

deer and the Inspector said deer were specifically mentioned in the EIS and Mr. Keane

said the reference was on page 102 in Vol.4A and at page 102 in Vo.5A as well. Mr.

Tiernan said their concerns were listed in their submission and he handed in a copy of

Mr. McIntyre asked why the proposed new road behind his house was raised significantly

above ground level and asked if this was because of a cattle underpass. Ms Joyce replied

that his property actually straddled the interface between the fill area and the cut area and

said the underpass was at chn. 1520 and said they were trying to keep the road as low as

possible while facilitating both the underpass and getting under the Ballybatter Road

without affecting the level on the existing Ballybatter Road where there were several

houses. Mr.McIntyre suggested that in doing this the gradient down to the N3 was being

increased and Ms Joyce said it was 3.5% and they could go steeper than that to about 4%.

Mr. McIntyre asked if they could lower the new road to bring it down to the existing

terrain but Ms Joyce said the extent of the embankment at present went to the corner of

the properties on the Ballybatter Road around the crossing point and said that was the

only opening they could get to cross under it. She said they had discussed this Road

crossing with the Cannistown Residents Association who wanted the road kept open. The

closeness of the houses meant keeping the existing levels on the Ballybatter Road

unaltered so that dictated the level of the new road at that point and the under-pass had to

Mr. McIntyre said that if the cut at the crossing was dropped by a further 2 to 3 metres

the new road could be dropped to ground level behind his house and those houses she had

been referring to would not be affected by this. Ms Joyce pointed out that such a further

reduction would mean a deeper cutting further on and would affect the side slopes on the

embankments which were designed at a one in two slope. She said they were presently

infringing on the corner of Balreask House grounds and on the entrance to another house

and any further reduction would increase that infringement and the impact. Mr. McIntyre

suggested that it was not necessary to keep to a one in two slope all the way down but Ms

Joyce said that would increase costs since a retaining wall would be required and said

there were also design problems with the vertical curve. Mr.McIntyre said that if the cut

was deepened there would be no problem with a vertical curve because the road could be

graded all the way down to the N3 from the Interchange and when Ms Joyce outlined a

further design problem, Mr.McIntyre suggested the underpass could be replaced by an

overpass. Ms Joyce said that underpass accommodated three landowners, M/s Keoghs,

Paul Foley and Frank Foley and moving the underpass increased the impact on them. Mr.

McIntyre suggested the underpass could be moved further south and said that might have

When Ms Joyce said his proposal was basically to raise the road elsewhere and lower it at

his house, Mr. McIntyre said what was being proposed did not make sense to him as a

continuous gradient would be better from a drainage aspect and could have the underpass

closer to the Foleys or an overpass could be located where there was suitable ground for

it that he pointed to. At that stage the Inspector intervened and said that he thought there

investigated and that it could not be designed by discussing the possibilities at the

Hearing. He said the CPO line and the houses were a constraint and there were obviously

cost implications from deepening the cutting if a retaining wall was needed. The

Inspector said that rather than debating it further the Council should look at the

possibilities of what was suggested by Mr. McIntyre and that they could come back the

following week with a suggestion or assessment. He told Mr. McIntyre he could discus

Mr. McIntyre concluded his cross-examination by saying to the Inspector that he wanted

to put something about the NRA website on traffic noise to him and said that in the

various sections of that site where it said "the most" he believed it should read "the least

commonly used". The Inspector said he would note this submission but said if he wanted

that to be sent in writing to the NRA he would have to do that himself as it was not a

Mr. Gunne said Mr. Murtagh was one of the few people who had a notice served on him

for a forfeiture of � 5000 for failing to allow the Council onto his lands and that his lands

were being severed and he was being provided with a shared access with Plot 2180. He

said Mr. Murtagh would have to travel for about 900 metres to get around to his lands

and his farmyard was on the other side of the Athboy Link Road. Mr.Gunne said he

would have about 65 to 70 acres severed across the road with about 25 acres left on his

own side and suggested that he should have been given a farm overbridge as against the

addition of nearly a kilometre and the underpass to get to his lands. Ms Joyce said they

had looked at that but a farm bridge would have cost over � 900000 when the underpassc

cost about �50 to 60000,but she said that it was not only on costs but because his farm

was all in grassland and there would not be cattle being moved on a daily basis. Mr.

Gunne said that Mr. Murtagh considered he should be given the same treatment whether

he was a dairy farmer or not but Ms Joyce explained that an access was provided where

the lands were being severed and in this case the most economic was an underpass .

The Inspector intervened and asked for clarification on the area of severance and was told

that the total area was 107 acres with about 9 being taken for the road and 70 acres

severed Mr. Gunne said the lands were let for over two years since Mr. Murtagh had been

in ill-health and that all of the land was used for grazing dry stock. Following further

discussion between Mr. Gunne and Ms Joyce about the costing for an overbridge and the

suggestion of Mr. Murtagh offerring to cede lands necessary for this at no cost, the

Inspector suggested that the farmyard appeared to be in the larger area of land and Mr.

gunne confirmed this was so and the Inspector commented that with the farmyard being

in the 70 acre part, the severance was on the 25 acres and not as was being implied on the

70 acres. He also said it was a dry stock farm and when Mr. Gunne said he accepted that

but said the house was between the yard and the road, the Inspector commented that the

One of the submissions to the EIS was from M/s Steen O'Reilly & Co. Solicitors Navan

on behalf of Ronald Sherlock, t/a Sherlock Furniture, Balreask Old, Navan who objected

to the proposed closure of Swan Lane by the extinguishment of the right of way at its

On Day 22 Mr. Burke advised the Hearing that agreement had been reached between Mr.

Sherlock and the Council on the details of an alternative access arrangement which

provided for a private access road being constructed, 6 metres in width with a 4 metre

paved surface through Plot 2121 with gates at both ends. This private road would only be

used by Sherlock Furniture in accessing and egressing their factory. Details of the Points

of Agreement from which the objection to the extinguishment of the right of way was

withdrawn were handed in to the Hearing by Frank Burke on behalf of M/s Sherlock

Note -- As Mr. Farrelly had already given evidence for the Council on the Clonee to

Dunshaughlin and Dunshaughlin to Navan Sections and as some of this is common to his

evidence on this Section, only the parts in his Brief of Evidence that are specific to this

Mr. Farrelly said said his Brief was to carry out a detailed assessment of each farm along

the selected routes impacted by the proposed M3 on the Navan By-pass Section for

inclusion in the EIS and to assess the macro effect of the proposed scheme on agriculture

locally and nationally for inclusion in the EIS. Mr. Farrelly said there were 47 farms

impacted on by the Navan By-pass Section with each of theses visited by a consultant

who interviewed each owner or occupier, using a set questionaire for all of them, with a

map of each farm showing the M3 impact prepared and a report prepared for each farm.

He said these reports were summarised in Table 10.6 in the Material Assets section in

Mr. Farrelly said they examined the nature and style of agriculture along the proposed

route corridor in the macro report, which commented on the soil types encountered and

specifically on the Soil Associations in the effected area, and that agriculture in the DEDs

along the route was examined and compared to agriculture locally and nationally. He said

that the soil types encountered were principally Soil Associations No. 38 and 40, as

defined on the Soil Association Map of Ireland, which were characteristically fertile and,

when well drained, were suitable to a wide range of crop production. He said that no

farming enterprise along the route was so severely severed as to render it non-viable and

that no farm of national or local importance was being impacted in a way that would

Mr. Farrelly said that the impact of the scheme would be felt by individual farmers and

farm units rather than nationally or regionally and that the area being acquired was

insignificant in terms of the national agricultural area or the agricultural area in Co.

Note -- As Mr.Dilworth had previously given evidence on Noise and Vibration for the

Mr. Dilworth said they had been commissioned to conduct a detailed appraisal of the

noise and vibration impacts associated with both the construction and operation of the

Navan By-pass Section of the proposed road scheme. He said the existing noise climate

was quantified by baseline noise surveys which were conducted in accordance with the

survey methodology set out in the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) published

by the Department of Traffic, Welsh Office in 1988 and measurements were performed in

the vicinity of noise sensitive locations close to the proposed scheme. He said the primary

contributor to noise build-up was found to be road traffic with contributions from

livestock, wildlife and occasional aircraft and he said that the measured noise levels were

typical of those found in this sort of environment with no significant sources of vibration

He said that it was generally not possible to conduct detailed construction noise and

vibration prediction calculations at the EIS stage of a development, as the program for

construction works was not sufficiently advanced and that the current best practice

dictated consideration be given to practicable mechanisms for controlling likely sources

of noise and vibration. He said that a variety of items of plant would be used in the

development and that rock breaking might be required on occasions. Mr. Dilworth said

that guidance on practicable control measures would be taken from BS 5228, Noise and

Control Measures on Construction and Open Sites, Part 1, Code of Practice for Basic

Information and Procedures for Noise and Vibration Control, 1997 and, where applicable,

reference would also be made to the EC Construction Plant Permissable Noise Levels

Regulations 1988. He said that typical control and compliance measures could include

the appointment of a site representative for noise and vibration matters; fitting effective

silencers to plant exhausts and pneumatic tools; selecting plant with low inherent

potential for noise generation; shutting down machinery rather than permitting it to idle;

limiting the hours during which specific activities such as piling might be conducted;

conducting noise control audits in accordance with BS 5228; communicating with local

residents and monitoring levels of vibration during critical periods and at sensitive

Mr. Dilworth said that traffic noise predictions for the proposed scheme when in

operation had been conducted for 2004 and 2024 in accordance with CRTN methodology

with traffic noise levels predicted for 20 locations as being representative of the closest

noise sensitive locations along the route. He said the predicted levels had been compared

to the target criterion of 68 dB LA10 18hour, which was the current best practice

advocated by the NRA. He said mitigation measures were deemed necessary whenever

the scheme had a nett negative impact and the predicted noise level was greater or equal

to the target criterion. He said this target of 68dB LA10 was neither met nor exceeded for

the tolled scenario at any receiver but that mitigation measures were required at one of

the locations assessed for the untolled scenario. He said the proposed mitigations

consisted of solid roadside barriers, the details of these being set out in the EIS and the

resultant predicted traffic noise levels satisfied the target criterion at all locations.

Mr. Dilworth said that it had been found the ground vibrations produced by road traffic

were unlikely to cause perceptible structural vibration in properties located near well

maintained roads and that maintaining the road surface would ensure vibration was not

He said that mitigation measures were required for one location under the untolled

scenario and this consisted of a solid barrier 1.5 metres high that ran from chn.2200 to

chn.2450 along the proposed Athboy Road and satisfied the target criteria. He said that

no further mitigation measures arose from the assessment for the Navan by-pass Section

but he said the cumulative noise level associated with the Navan By-pass Section when

combined with the Dunshaghlin to Navan Section was such that further measures were

required. He said this mitigation consisted of a solid barrier 3.5 metres high that ran from

chn. 41050 to chn.41300 alongside the southern carriageway and this satisfied the target

Mr. Dilworth then referred to the "Errata sheet" which he had prepared and which

superceded Tables 4.2 and 17.4 and Tables 4.6 and 17.5 in Vol.5A of the EIS. He said

that the reasons for the "errata sheet" were given on it and this arose from incorrect

descriptions of two of the links being given and one of the links being missing, which had

now been corrected in the "Errata sheet" . He said that, essentially, the descriptions for

the top two lines in table 4.2 were misplaced and the link for the N3 north of Navan, the

third line, was omitted. He confirmed that there were no materially different results and

( Note -- The Errata Sheets handed in to the Hearing are included in Mr. Dilworth's Brief

Mr. McIntyre asked if he was familiar with EU Directive 2002/49 EC of 25 June 2002

and when he said he was, asked if he could explain this in layman's language. Mr.

Dilworth said the Directive was one of the first instruments in an on-going process across

the EU to homogenise noise and said there were two thrusts to it, the first being a

proposed change in parameters to Lden which was the day/evening/night and Lnight

which was the night time parameter and the other was a protocol on noise mapping. He

explained that the noise mapping set out the circumstances where Member states would

map environmental noise from various sources such as rail, airports etc and present the

results with mitigation proposals to reduce exposure of persons to noise. He said there

were various steps to the exercise with criteria set for the level of traffic on a road or size

of airport requiring mapping and that by 2007 there had to be a report back, with further

stages by 2012 when the noise maps and mitigation measures were to be put in place.

Mr. McIntyre asked if he believed the provisions of 2002/49/EC should be considered if a

motorway was being built today and when Mr. Dilworth said "no", asked why not. Mr.

Dilworth said it was a question of prematurity as there was no guidance on what would

be the national methodology or proposed criteria or assessment methodologies. Mr.

McIntyre asked if he was paying him would his answer be different and Mr. Dilworth

said it would not and he was already being asked that by some clients and his advice was

that the Directive set out clear time scales. He said that for a scheme like the M3 where

planning started some time ago it would be premature to have used an as-yet unpublished

Directive. Mr. McIntyre suggested this Directive went back into the early 1990s and Mr.

produced the present Directive started later. Mr. McIntyre asked if the roads should be

designed to best European practice rather than using the highest decibel levels in Europe,

which were only used in Greece and the UK as well as in Ireland. Mr. Dilworth said the

Directive acknowledged there were differences and that it was appropriate for the

relevant authorities within Member States to set the criteria which meant localised

criteria. Mr. McIntyre referred to the "euro" and said if we had one currency why should

there not be one noise level. Mr. Dilworth said that was for the EU and his argument was

that you designed to an acceptable standard and said the present one represented an

acceptable level, but he agreed there could be a case argued for a more stringent level.

Mr. McIntyre referred to the modifications that airports would have to do to meet this

Directive and asked why was the motorway being built to a standard that would have

then to be modified within the next 2 to 12 years but Mr. Dilworth said it was being built

to standard practice and that to design to a hypothetical future level was premature and

not the best practice. Mr. McIntyre quoted the criteria from other European countries

(which he had previously quoted in Section 86.3 )and said all motorways in Ireland were

being built to a criteria that was 8 to 10 decibels above the European average and asked

why should he be asked to support the building of one at his backdoor where it would be

necessary to spend more money in 3 to 7 years time to replace the barriers to comply with

EU legislation, which he suspected would put the level in the low 50s but not in the high

60s. Mr. Dilworth said he had quoted a lot of figures, probably from the same Table as he

was looking at, and there were different parameters and different time scales used for

most of them and most were free flow rather than fa�ade levels. Mr. McIntyre said some

had fa�ade levels and Mr. Dilworth replied that some were LA10, some LA and most

63LAeq so the comparison should be with that figure. He said the question of why 68dB

was being used was a policy one and not for him to justify. He said that he considered it

was an appropriate level but that was not to say it would not be changed to a lower figure

at some future time. He said that it was possible the EU would continue to allow each

member state to fix its own level so it could still be an Irish limit would be used. He said

that in his opinion it was very unlikely that we would ever go into the low 50s and that

55 was the lowest he would envisage and said that 60dB seemed to be the more likely

figure, if an EU wide level was chosen. Mr. McIntyre said he was agreeing with him that

55 would be a more sensible level but Mr. Dilworth said he was saying that 55 would be

a more stringent level and that there were arguments for and against it and he would

Mr.McIntyre said the Directive gave guidelines and that certain elements of it would

happen in time but that it was effective now and when he was told that the UK CRTN

method was used in Ireland, he said the Directive stated the French national computation

method should be used and the French limits were 60/65 in daytime and 55/57 at night

and that he wanted those limits applied. Mr. Dilworth accepted the Directive was

published in June 2002 and that it made a recommendation but said the M3 scheme had

been designed some considerable time before that. Mr. McIntyre said the people living

along the route of the M3 were those who would be affected and that as the road might

not be built for several years, if ever, the EU Directive criteria should be used, not

historic criteria. Mr. Dilworth said that if a policy item was being considered and he was

consulted he would then offer an opinion but at this stage he had not, and did not intend,

Mr.McIntyre asked how long would it take to do this, if he were to be asked to do so and

Mr. Dilworth said it would take three to four months to complete. Mr. McIntyre asked if

he accepted the existing mitigation measures behind his house would have to be changed

if the French national standard for computation was used. Mr. Dilworth replied that he

would not comment on any specific situation as an analysis would have to be done, but

said he would accept that any change in the target level would make it likely that

Mr. Keane intervened and asked Mr. McIntyre to indicate where in the Directive did it

say that the French computation method was to be applied, as he had the Directive in

front of him and could find no such reference and he quoted several extracts from the

Directive. Mr. Dilworth said that he understood there was a provision that where a

country did not have its own standard or policy then the French method of computation

should be used as a default. He explained that the standards and method of computation

were two separate things with the method of computation only saying how noise levels

were to be calculated and it had no limits given in it as these were in a different document

which was the standard used. Mr. Dilworth said he had no recollection of the Directive

saying the French standards should apply but the computation method was the default

The Inspector intervened and said that for the purposes of the Hearing Mr. McIntyre had

outlined that he considered standards lower than the 68dB should be used and the

Council's case was that they were following the accepted practice. He said that it

appeared as if the French method of calculating noise was contingent on something else

not being specified and that did not affect the basic argument which was the mitigation

level should be set at a lower level. Mr. McIntyre asked if he was right in thinking there

had been another occasion where levels below the 68 had been applied and the Inspector

said there had been reference earlier on that Day of the Outer Ring Road case in Dublin

where there was an additional level below the 68 dB LA10 applied by An Bord but that

construction of that road had not yet started so it would not be accurate to say it was in

Mr.McIntyre asked if he considered there would be a limit in place of between 55 and 60

at some time in the next 5 to 10 years but Mr. Dilworth said that it might be left to

individual Member States to set their own limits and that he could not bank on there

being an EU wide limit. When Mr.McIntyre suggested the present differences ranged

from 45 to 68, Mr. Dilworth said he was not comparing like with like and that the present

range across the EU was 55 to 65 LAeq for daytime and 45 to 57 LAeq for night time and

said that by designing for a daytime 68 LA10, which was 65 LAeq, this gave a typical

nighttime level of 10 to 15 decibels lower because traffic noise was a function of total

traffic flow (AADT) in the period 6am to midnight. He said that outside that period

traffic flows were much lower giving traffic noise in the 40s and 50s. Mr. Tiernan asked

how noise was measured and Mr Dilworth explained the basis for the LA 10 18 hour

parameter presently used in Ireland for traffic noise measurements and how there was no

rule of thumb for relating noise to the distance a house was from a road, saying it

depended on variables like traffic flows, traffic speeds, gradients, HGV %s, topography,

Mr.Dilworth referred to these and explained why locations were selected and that unusual

noise sources would mean a particular location would not be used, as well as the

difference between baseline measurements and modeled noise levels. Mr. Dilworth said

that one of the difficult results to get across to people was where the noise level at a

prediction location showed a decrease, which he said would come from a redistribution of

traffic patterns by traffic moving off a local road and onto a new road. He said that the

cumulative effect of this traffic removal to another road some 100 to 200 metres distant

giving a benefit was a hard point to get across. Mr. McIntyre said that the Cannistown

Residents Association believed that figures lower than 68 dB should be used and that best

practice meant EU directives should be put into place now rather than having in the

future, as taxpayers, to pay for a modification to the presently proposed mitigation

measures. He said that environmental noise had several negative effects on humans and

the most important of these was annoyance and that it would annoy him to have a slip

road 170 metres from his back door where now he had green fields. He said it was also

the cause of mental stress, hearing damage, blood pressure and that he could not think of

one positive effect other than that he was actually in favour of the motorway but said he

could not abide a system whereby they had to accept design specifications knowing that

these would have to be changed within 3, 7 or 12 years time and at great expense which

Mr. Tiernan said that as a community they accepted the motorway was going through, but

they wanted assurances that it would have the least impact and that their concerns about

drainage, noise and the safety of their community and children would be taken on board.

Mr. McIntyre said his house was located at position P10 in Figure 5.1.1 of Vol. 5A of the

EIS on the Kilcarn Road and that his queries would follow on from where they had

reached when he was part of the Cannistown delegation and asked if the L10 18hour

dB(A) was the most commonly used parameter for assessing traffic noise in a european

or worldwide context. Mr. Dilworth said it was the only one used in a national context

but said the LAeq parameter was more widely used in a european context. Mr. McIntyre

referred to the reference to traffic noise assessment on the NRA website, which said the

most commonly used parameter was the L10 18hour dB(A), but Mr. Dilworth said they

were probably referring to the Irish context and when Mr. McIntyre said the website

intent was misleading as it implied that parameter was the most commonly used in

Europe, Mr. Dilworth replied that was a matter he should take up with the NRA. Mr.

McIntyre asked if the UK were the only other country using the CRTN 68 level and when

Mr. Dilworth confirmed that was so, he suggested that Australia used a figure of 55 with

mitigation at levels above 63, and when Mr. Keane intervened to ask what parameter was

the 55, he said it was in LAeq which would be about 58dB. Mr. Dilworth said that a freefield

Mr. McIntyre asked if the Australian criteria were to be applied what additional

mitigation measures would need to be applied to the proposed route between Clonee to

Kells. Mr. Dilworth said that the extent of additional measures would be a function of the

final selection of the criteria and that the Irish figure of 68 dB was 63LAeq in terms of

our European neighbours, a number of whom had limits of 60 LAeq, so that a further 3db

might need an alternative surfacing or barrier screening but he could not say if it would

require a 20% more mitigation or whatever. Mr. McIntyre asked if he accepted it would

require more mitigation if a level like Australia were used and Mr. Dilworth said that was

likely but said the Australian level of 55 was aspirational and they had a higher level

where mitigation was required which was, he thought, the 63 mentioned. He said the

lowest European level he was aware of was 55 and that the majority hovered around 60

but with lower night time limits. Mr. McIntyre then suggested that if the average

European limit was applied that would require significantly more mitigation than was

proposed for the slip road passing his house into Navan and Mr. Dilworth agreed but said

that a detailed assessment would be needed to determined the exact amount. He said that

if the goal posts were moved by 3 to 5 decibels it followed that additional mitigation

conduct a survey into effects of noise and as a briefing document for the 2002 EU

Directive which referred to the basis of the UK index of 68 dB as coming from the early

developed and he suggested the criteria had outlived its usefulness and said that it was

only be used in Ireland now to minimise the amount of noise mitigation that had to be

applied along new roads. He said he had purposefully applied for planning permission for

his house so that it was equally distant from the Cannistown and Borallion (Ballybatter)

Roads so he could stay as far away from road noise as possible but now the slip road

would be 170 metres from him at the nearest corner. He asked what level of noise would

be expected at his house and Mr. Dilworth replied that while the level would depend on

distance, geometry and ground cover, he would expect it to be in the high 50s. Mr.

McIntyre asked what his present noise level, without the motorway, was in his very rural

area with only distant traffic and Mr. Dilworth said he would expect that it could be in the

30s to 40s and Mr. McIntyre suggested it was in the low to mid 30s which would mean a

20 decibel increase in noise levels passing his back door. When Mr. Dilworth agreed it

would be of that order, Mr. McIntyre asked what mitigation measures would have to be

pout in place if the EU legislation came into force before the motorway came to be built

and figures of 55/60 were set. Mr. Dilworth replied that it was probable that none would

be required since the level at his property would be around 55 LAeq and the criterion he

had mentioned would be below that since it was measured at the fa�ade. When Mr.

McIntyre asked if he was a border line case at 170 metres for the expected EU legislation,

Mr. Dilworth said it was only a possible new limit and that it might be left to each

Mr. McIntyre referred to the likelihood of the Directive setting limits on noise and Mr.

Dilworth accepted that while 55 was one of the figures being discussed, his own personal

view was for 60 being the more likely figure if a limit was eventually set by the EU. Mr.

McIntyre referred to the noise mapping process in CRTN and asked if that was done for

the M3 but Mr. Dilworth said that was the terminology used and that a model was done

for the entire route with the baseline measurements only taken when the meteorological

Directive required noise mapping by the state by 2005, Mr. Keane intervened to say the

Directive did not say noise mapping had to be completed before 2005 as there were a

Mr. McIntyre asked what mitigation measures were proposed for the section of the

Kilcarn slip road behind his house and when Mr. Dilworth said there were none as the

predictions were less than 68dB, he suggested the raised road should worsen the situation

but Mr. Dilworth said that was taken account of. Mr. McIntyre asked if the proposed

screening and planting there had anything to do with noise or was it just a visual exercise

referring again to the NRA website but Mr. Dilworth said he could not comment on that

wording as it was something to be directed to the NRA. The Inspector asked if he had

been given a copy of the Council's proposed adjustment to the noise criteria and when

Mr. McIntyre said that he had not, Mr. Keane said they would get him a copy and the

Inspector reminded Mr. Keane to supply a copy to the Bellinter Residents Association as

Note -- Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch had previously given evidence on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin

Section in Section 30.1. of this Report and as the first two paragraphs are also relevant to

Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said that the improved road network from the Scheme would provide

significant benefits at regional and sub-regional levels with travel times and transport

development, stimulate tourism activity and improve accessibility for recraetional and

cultural facilities. He said that at local level there would be positive and negative benefits

with positive benefits being experienced by communities along the N3 corridor by the

cleaner and safer environment from the reduced traffic volumes and that the residents of

Navan would enjoy benefits from being by-passed, with the reductions in the through

traffic giving relief from severance and improved amenity and safety. He said that the

improved traffic circulation and better road network would reduce delivery times which

would benefit the business community in the Navan area from the increased productivity

and greater reliability in the transport of goods and services. He said the accessibilty of

schools and recreational facilities would be significantly improved and the social

environment would be enhanced and that the reduced traffic would also create a safer and

Mr. O'Kelly-Lynch said that some businesses particularly those on the N3, the N51and to

some extent on the proposed cul-de-sacs would suffer from a reduction in passing trade

but that in the long term the improved traffic circulation and reduced congestion in Navan

would make this more attractive for shopping and business and the scheme was expected

to have a nett positive impact there in the medium to longer term. He said the improved

road network would increase the attractiveness of Navan and its environs for commuter

housing and retail / commercial development with pressure for out of town retail /

He said some of the road alterations in the scheme would have negative social impacts on

the local community, particularly the road closures and road realignments on Swan Lane;

R161, Trim Road; the Robinstown road, L4007-0; the N51 Athboy Road, the Boyerstown

road L 80008-20; Halltown road L 80091-16 and the Durhamstown road L 4005-11. He

said that measures to mitigate some of the negative impacts had been identified and these

included footpaths to reduce severance impacts for local communities and signs to reduce

impacts for businesses due to the loss of passing trade with measures to reduce negative

impacts during construction also identified. He concluded by saying that with the

outweighed the disadvantages with residual impacts being, in the main, minor. He said

that any major or moderate impact remaining after mitigation would only affect relatively

few individuals and that the nett socio-economic impact for society as a whole would be

Mr. Nairn, who had given evidence on Ecology in the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section,

Consultants and his firm had been engaged by MC O'Sullivans to deal with the Flora and

Fauna aspects of the EIS, except for fish or fisheries which would be dealt with by other

specialists. ( Note-- Some of his general evidence was the same as he had already given

for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and is not repeated here for the Navan By-pass

He said that all habitats along the proposed route were surveyed during September 2000

and classified with the dominant species recorded and hedgerows evaluated on a 3 point

scale of high, medium or low ecological value. He said that an inventory of all trees along

the line of the route was made in February 2001 and it was unlikely this environment had

changed since then. He said mammals and birds were assessed during the habitat surveys

using a combination of direct sightings and observations of signs, with some additional

field visits in September 2001 to locate badger setts and areas of high badger activity and

Mr. Nairn then described the route and said there were no designated areas along the

route but there were 3 proposed NHAs within 10kms.of the route, none being affected by

the M3. He said the habitat survey showed improved agricultural grassland and arable

crops as the dominant habitat along the route, these being highly modified habitats and

were of low ecological value. He said areas of semi-natural grasslands were scattered

along the route and were either heavily grazed and species poor or transient as in the case

of set-aside. He said the most significant habitat recorded in the survey was an area of

diversity and low levels of grazing meant the site was of high local ecological value. He

said a further area of wet grassland occurred beside the River Boyne at Kilcarn Bridge

and while species diversity was low it formed an integral part of the Boyne floodplain

He said other habitats of moderate ecological value included relatively undisturbed areas

of grassland, scrub and woodland at the northern end of the Athboy Link Road at chn.

1650 to 2300 and at Athboy Roundabout. He said woodland occurred in small bands or

blocks along the route and was mainly broadleaved woodland derived from past planting,

and that there were also areas of scrub and an immature broadleaved plantation of low

ecological value. He said hedgerows were a significant feature of the landscape along the

route and these were one of the main semi-natural habitats for flora and fauna in the

expanses of intensively managed farmland. He said while most were of low to moderate

local ecological value, there were hedgerows of high ecological value at a number of

Mr. Nairn said that a number of treelines occurred along the route and that these were of

providing valuable habitat for invertebrates, bats and birds. He said all trees of greater

than 30 cm. diameter at breast height along the route were recorded as part of a tree

inventory and that 624 trees would be felled during the road construction and that most of

the trees were in hedgerows and treelines along field boundaries and beside roads with

most being native species. Mr. Nairn said that the route crossed a number of watercourses

in lowland farmland, all being small streams in the upper reaches and all of low to

moderate local ecological value. He said that no Otter signs were noted during the field

He said Bat activity was noted at a number of locations with the species present being

Brown long-eared bats, Pipistrelles and Daubenton's bat and that a house at site 4 was

identified as a Bat roost, wth feeding bats being detected along treelines and along the

Mr.Nairn said that Badger tracks were noted at two locations but no breeding setts were

located during the survey but that this did not preclude the presence of breeding badgers

in the area as setts could be dispersed and were usually well-concealed in hedgerows,

scrub areas or woodland. He said no signs of Deer were noted during the field survey but

it was likely they passed through or feed in fields along the route occasionally and he said

Ardsallagh. He said that a wide range of common bird species was observed but that a

greater diversity of species typically associated with the range of available habitats would

Mr. Nairn said the impacts of the proposed route on improved grassland and arable land,

both of low ecological value, would not be significant and that on areas of semi-natural

grassland and wet flushes would be minor negative and only of local significance. He

said there would be a major negative impact of local significance on the wet grassland

area at chn. 48400, with most of this habitat being lost through construction, drainage and

re-direction of the water source. He said the loss of treelines would constitute a moderate

negative impact, except for the 250 metre stretch of beech treeline along both sides of the

He said the route would impact on minor watercourses at 4 main locations which would

construction, and that there would be some permanent loss of bankside vegetation where

He said there would be a negative impact on animal and bird populations near the

proposed road from disturbance during the construction and, to a lessor extent, from its

operation and also with negative impacts from the loss of areas of semi-natural habitat

for feeding, breeding and cover; and the creation of barriers to animal movement, habitat

fragmentation, severance of territories and isolation of populations. He said the road

construction would have a negative impact on Bats through the loss of foraging habitat

and roosting sites, with flight paths between foraging and roosting sites interrupted by the

removal of both hedgerows and treelines. He said lighting associated with the road might

disturb the feeding behaviour of some species or might discourage Bats from using

adjacent habitats and that potential breeding and hibernation sites would also be lost by

Mr. Nairn said road construction was likely to lead to fragmentation of the home ranges

of some larger mammals such as Deer and Badger but this was not significant as no large

concentrations of either species were affected and he said that animals would become

Mr. Nairn then referred to the mitigation measures proposed and said there would be no

hedgerow removal during the months of March to June inclusive to avoid impacts on

breeding birds, and that trees and hedgerows being retained would be fenced at the

canopy line prior to construction. He said buildings with bat roosts would not be

demolished or disturbed during the months of June to August, the breeding season, or

November to March, the hibernation season. He said the old stone railway bridges near

chn. 40000 on the M3 at Cannistown and at chn. 1650 on the Kilcarn Link would be

retained as these were likely to be used as Bat roosts. He said that impacts on the wetland

areas at chn. 48400 would be reduced by maintaining the hydrological integrity of the

He said that impacts on hedgerows and tree lines intersected by the new road would be

reduced by minimising the working area around these habitats with the working area

defined before siteworks by the erection of a fence to define the limits of the siteworks.

He said that any trees and hedgerows being retained within the site works would be

fenced at the outset, with the fence line set at the outer canopy line of the trees and that

Mr. Nairn said that bankside vegetation would be left intact where possible and that

adequate fencing would be provided by fencing it off prior to construction, with the

fences set at a minimum distance of 5 metres from the bank of the watercourse or the

edge of the woodland canopy whichever was greater. He said that where natural bankside

vegetation had to be removed it would be pulled back from the river edge by machinery

operating from the bank. He said that where temporary diversion of a watercourse was

required that should be done prior to removing bankside vegetation and where permanent

diversion was required, the existing vegetation would be removed in sods to be re-planted

on the new river banks. He said that no works would be conducted in bankside vegetation

during the March to June period if suitable habitat for breeding birds existed there and

that transplanting of bankside vegetation would be conducted during the dormant season,

except where salmonid restrictions were in force when transplanting would be in the

Mr. Nairn said that replanting or rehabilitation of banksides would follow a sensitive

grading of the banks to replicate topography and that planting would use native species

and would follow a natural zonation appropriate to the river profile. He said temporary

deer and hare proof fencing would be erected to protect newly planted areas. He said

hedgerows and treelines would be retained, where possible, for their value as ecological

corridors for wildlife in general, and for Bats in particular, and that mature trees would be

retained, where possible, to minimise unintentional destruction of Bat roosts. He said that

no special mitigation measures were required for improved grassland, arable land or areas

Mr. Nairn said that where the removal of hedgerows, treelines and mature trees could not

be avoided then compensatory measures, including the re-planting of hedgerows and

He said that areas of severed land would be planted with native broad-leaved trees, or set

aside to allow for natural re-vegetation, to compensate for the loss of woodland and

habitat fragmentation of ecological value and that those areas would be designed towards

ensuring ecological connections or wildlife corridors were maintained between existing

He said that where buildings containing bat roosts were to be demolished, bats must be

excluded prior to demolition and this can only take place under a licence from Duchas

and in the presence of a bat specialist and should not be done between the months of June

to August ( Breeding season) or November to March (Hibernation season). He said that

where the removal of buildings or mature trees could not be avoided, Bat boxes would be

erected in appropriate locations in the area, at least one month in advance of any

Ms Clarke said she would be dealing with the Non - agricultural Material Assets and that

TCD and had worked extensively on waste planning and environmental management as

Ms Clarke said there were some non-agricultural holdings which would be impacted by

the landtake and the alteration of access and these included residences, commercial

properties, recreational facilities and other non-agricultural lands which would be directly

affected by the proposed road. She said the compensation issues would be dealt with by

the Council at a later stage if the CPO were approved. She said that the assessment was

done by a combination of a desk study, orthophotography and a field study carried out in

May 2001 along the route of the proposed Navan By-pass with each property affectd

being classified as residential, commercial, recreational or non-agricultural land and that

Ms Clarke said 3 occupied dwellings were being acquired and a further 10 properties

would be affected by a partial acquisition of their landholding and that no commercial

properties were being acquired but one would be affected by the acquisition of part of its

holding. She said one field classified as non-agricultural would be acquired and a further

5 green areas would lose of part of the area and that 4 private driveways would be