Back to INDEX of reports
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
863
PART 5 -- CLOSING SUBMISSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
AND APPENDICES
------------------------------------------------
143. Closing Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 865
143. 1. Submission by Leshamstown Lane Residents -- -- -- - -- 865
143. 2. Submission by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 866
143. 3. Submission by Alan Park, Bellinter Residents Association -- -- -- 873
143. 4. Submission by Brendan Magee, Meath Road Action Group -- -- -- 875
143. 5. Submission by Mr. Casey -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 876
143. 6. Submission by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 888
143. 7. Submission by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 892
144. Application for Costs -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 899
145. Issues Required to be Addressed under Sections 50 (2)
and 50 (3) of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended -- -- -- -- -- 899
146. Comments on Written Objections and Submissions
made to An Bord Pleanala, prior to Hearing -- -- -- -- -- -- 918
147. Comments on Submissions made on Legal Aspects of Council's Proposal -920
148. Comments on Submissions made on Route Selection, Consultation
and Information Aspects of Council's Proposal -- -- -- -- -- 927
149. Comments on Council's Application for Confirmation of
Motorway Order and Approval of Road Development -- -- -- -- - 931
150. Recommendations on Confirmation of
Motorway Order and Approval of Road Development -- -- -- -- 996
Table 1. Modifications to be attached to any Approval of the
Motorway Order under Section 49 of the Roads Act, 1993 -- -- 998
Table 2. Modifications to be attached to any Approval of the Road
Development under Section 51 of the Roads Act, 1993 -- -- 1002
Appendix 1. Names and addresses of Objectors
to Motorway Scheme Order -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1008
Appendix 2. Names and addresses of Persons or Organisations
who made Submissions to the Road Development -- -- -- 1026
864
Appendix 3. Names and addresses of persons
represented by M/s Gaynor Corr -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1030
Appendix 4. Documents handed in to Hearing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1036
Appendix 5. List of Wayleaves to be Acquired -- -- -- - - -- -- 1051
Appendix 6. List of Public Rights of Way to be Extinguished -- -- -- -- 1052
Appendix 7. List of Private Rights of Way to be Extinguished -- -- -- -- 1057
Appendix 8. List of Planning Permissions to be Modified -- -- -- -- -- 1059
-----------------------------------------------
865
143. Closing submissions :
143. 1. Closing submission by Leshamstown Lane Residents :
This was made by Jimmy Finlay and Brendan Murphy on Day 23 of the Hearing and a
copy of their submission is listed at Day 23 in Appendix 4 of this Report.
Mr. Finlay said that they would like to focus on what they had been discussing with the
Council since their previous visit and said that arising from the Inspector's comment then
they had focussed on two issues. He said that the first issue was the costing of a bridge
over the M3 at Newalls and some traffic calming issues at Leshamstown Lane. He said
they were given sight of an outline sketch of a bridge but were told that it was
questionable if a two-lane road could be put in, due to the limitations of the CPO on the
land required there.
He said most of the discussions and communications with the Council had been about the
Leshamstown Lane issue and they had received certain documentation in the past week
which was an outline of what might be possible. He said that in fairness to the Council
officials who were trying to assist them in resolving the crux, the documentation was not
a definitive view by the Council but he said that it would be a sort of a carving up of
Leshamstown Lane in such a way that it might be able to accommodate the diverted
traffic from the Drumree Road after the road was severed. He said the proposals were to
have entrance ramps at the Drumree and Dunsany ends of the Lane with eight further
ramps spaced out along the Lane and with lighting at each ramp and that there would be
eight pull-in points as well.
Mr. Finlay said that at a meeting attended by over 100 residents of Leshamstown and the
surrounding Drumree areas on the previous Monday there was shock and horror at what
was being proposed as these proposals were a sort of mini-urbanisation in a rural setting.
He said while they might be suitable in a suburb of Dublin the residents did not see this
as something that should be tried out on their locality. He said they could not accept what
was the result of bad planning and a lack of consideration and said that the EIS made
virtually no mention of the impact this would have on their lives. He said the decision to
sever the road had severed a community and split a parish from its hinterland. Mr. Finlay
said that the Council were saying that they were going to force traffic up Leshamstown
Lane however difficult that was over 800 yards but were not going to give them a bridge
of 100 yards at Newalls which would restore the link between Drumree and
Dunshaughlin that had existed for hundreds of years.
He said that the people at the meeting were up in arms about what was being proposed by
the Council, that they had not opposed the M3 proposal, they had not opposed the
sewerage works and they had not opposed the roundabouts which would flyover the M3.
He said that if the Council thought the residents would accept a motorway in their back
866
gardens and a mini-O'Connell Street along their road, they had better think again. He said
they felt it was up to the Council to resolve the issue of how they were going to take the
rest of the traffic in.
Mr. Finlay said the traffic in their area was made up of people coming home from
Dunshaughlin through Batterstown to avoid the traffic jams in Dunshaughlin; people
from Trim used their road and locals who lived in Drumree Village used it. He said these
were three separate groups who used the Drumree Road and the new feeder link would
have no use for those except for people coming back from Dublin who came on the
motorway. He said there was no need for the people living around the Drumree area for
this link road as it was too much of a roundabout journey for people to use it as they
could be faced with bottlenecks coming across the motorway . He said that it would only
be the people from Trim that would use it and that it was a waste going ahead with a road
that two-thirds of the people would not use.
He said that if it was a farmer who had land on both sides of the motorway he would be
given an overpass and they as residents should get the same treatment when they wanted
to stay in contact with their mother town, Dunshaughlin. Mr. Finlay said they were
annoyed that sufficient land was not kept in the CPO to allow this bridge to be built and
he said they felt this was done deliberately so that there could not be a case made to have
a bridge built there in the future. He said that even if the bridge was only wide enough to
take one car at a time this would be only over 100 yards, when the Council were sending
them down 800 yards over a single lane road. Mr. Finlay said they hoped the Inspector
would take on board the unfairness of what had happened and said they were not asking
for the M3 to be stopped but were asking that the 100 yard span be kept open to keep
their communities alive. The Inspector said the points they had made would be taken into
account.
Mr. Finlay asked if they could engage with the Council in open debate at the Hearing on
some of their concerns and the Inspector said that, while there was nothing to prevent
them from having further discussions with the Council, they had been given a second
opportunity to make a submission and the Hearing was not going to become a mediation
forum at this stage for this matter. Mr. Murphy asked if the Council could give the
reasons why the bridge could not be put in and Mr. Keane said they would write to
Leshamstown about that.
143. 2. Closing submissions of Michael O'Donnell B.L.
on behalf of his various Clients :
Before making his specific submissions, Mr. O'Donnell referred to the issue of
accommodation works which he said was of concern to some of his Clients and said he
accepted the Council had some difficulties because of the nature of their proposal and
with some aspects being left to the contractor to design, but said he thought there should
be some degree of precision as to how mitigation works were to be included and that
these should be given to the Hearing so there would be some degree of certainty on what
867
formed part of the scheme. The Inspector intervened and said that the precise details of
accommodation works were not an issue for An Bord to decide on, but said that he
accepted there could be some more certainty in relation to what could be regarded as the
residential aspects of the frontage proposed to be acquired. He said this was part of the
reason he had sought clarification on that issue from Mr. Bergin.
Mr. O'Donnell said that in relation to the case of Mr. & Mrs. Peters, the Council had
fairly accepted the impact would be severe since the house would be located within 50
metres of the boundary of the works and said that, while this was not the actual
motorway, there would be severe disruption during construction for his Clients, and he
suggested this would almost make it impossible for them to live in their house for the
period while the road was being constructed. He said the house had been laid out to a
very high standard but that it was now going to be very susceptible to the road intrusion,
particularly from traffic noise, since the living rooms and bedrooms were at the front of
the house. He said that no mitigation measures were proposed either for during
construction when the impact of dust and noise would be very significant, or for the
operation of the road when noise levels would be a major intrusion on their quality of life
and the amenities they enjoyed in their property.
He said that he was not going to review the evidence given about the noise impact but
said that the appropriate levels were those imposed by the Council itself, by An Bord and
by the EPA for developments where they imposed noise conditions. He said that a
substantial stone wall should be included as a condition to mitigate the impact of noise,
dust and visual intrusion along the full frontage and said this should be constructed before
work commenced on the road development. He said that the landscaping works should be
time limited so that they were completed within the planting season after commencement
of the works so these could be in place to mitigate the impact on the house. He said that,
without meaning to be facetious, if a badger sett or bat colony were as close to the route
as the Peters house was then it was likely the route would have been moved and he said
the Peters were entitled to get at least the same degree of consideration and protection
when they would be continuing to live so close to the road.
Mr. O' Donnell the referred to the Tara Stud situation and said the Council witnesses
had also fairly acknowledged the major impacts there would be on the operations of the
stud which would seriously undermine its ability to continue since it was effectively
losing one third of its land between the 100 acres severed, the 70 acres taken and the
lands sterilised by being in close proximity to the motorway. He said that Mr. Osbourne
had acknowledged the status of the stud as a nationally important stud farm and Mr.
Bergin had given the example of the National Stud where there had been a bunding with
a wall and appropriate planting of mature trees provided along the full length of the
boundary. He submitted that a stone wall constructed along the full length of the
motorway should be required as a mitigation measure in the Tara Stud situation and said
that this would go towards mitigating the traffic noise and general construction impacts
which would be very inimicable to horse rearing and horses breeding activities.
868
He said that in the case of the Swans, both Mr. Osbourne and Mr. Guthrie had fairly
accepted that the planning permission there would be un-implementable since the
motorway would have an impact on the proposed house and stable block. He accepted the
issue was primarily one of compensation but said the impact would appear to be very
severe in terms of the Swan lands.
Mr. O'Donnell said that in terms of the McCarthy lands at Garlow Cross the impact on
that property was similar to that in the Peters case as the road would come very close to
their house but there was the addition of a major interchange being located in close
proximity. He said the construction works associated with the interchange would have
major negative impact on the house during both construction and operation and he
submitted that appropriate mitigation measures should be required to limit and, if
possible, eliminate those impacts. He said that the light pollution would have a serious
impact on the McCarthy lands at night and said that regard should be had to this in terms
of the amenity of the McCarthy family home and also on his stud farming operations.
Mr. O'Donnell said he was hopeful that some of the difficulties identified in the case of
Betty Newman Maguire could be resolved by the Council and that they might be able to
indicate before the end of the Hearing some proposals that might deal with some of her
concerns. He said that in the event that this was not possible, he submitted that her
requirements were reasonable, particularly her request that appropriate landscaping
would be carried out along both the new county road and along the embankments to the
proposed motorway and that appropriate noise mitigation measures be included on the
bridge. He suggested that these should include installing porous asphalt to reduce the
noise impacts.
Mr. O'Donnell then made an application for his Clients costs of the Hearing and said that
he was aware of the Inspector's position of this not being a matter for him to deal with,
but said he simply have it recorded that the application was made as none of the
submissions were frivolous and he suggested they might have provided some assistance
to the Inspector in making his recommendation to An Bord.
Note -- Mr. O'Donnell's submission on behalf of Dalgan Park was made on the
following day, Day 25, to those made on behalf of his other Clients.
Mr. O'Donnell commenced by saying that there was something unbelieveable about the
entire proposal for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section since if you said to someone who
had no particular knowledge of the area that the Council and the NRA were proposing to
build a tolled motorway that crossed an internationally important river at a crossing point
where that internationally important river, the Boyne, and a similarly important river, the
Skreen, converged, they would find that extremely surprising. He said if you told them
the river system had species protected under the Habitats Directive and was a proposed
SAC and a major spawning ground for salmon, they would be amazed. He said that if
you then said that this immediately adjoined the lands of Dalgan Park, which had been
acknowledged as a landscape of outstanding beauty, with trees specifically protected by
the Council and used as a public park, it would be almost unbelieveable. He said that if
869
you then were told of the major educational and pastoral facilities, the retirement home
for old people and the range of facilities which would be adversely impacted in a major
way by noise, construction impacts, traffic, it would be scarcely believeable that this
could be possibly chosen by the Council to locate this roadway.
Mr. O'Donnell said that, as if that was not bad enough, on the other side of the lands was
a world famous site for archaeological reasons that the Council through Ms Gowan
accept the road would have a profound impact on and he said that, when all of that was
put together, this Dunshaughlin to Navan Section was all about the impact the road would
have on this "landscape" and he said he used the word "landscape" metaphorically for all
that was contained within it. He said there was the archaeology which was clearly an
international issue as it was the most sensitive site in the country and that proposing a
tolled motorway at the bottom of the hill within 1000 metres of what Ms Gowan called
the complex of Tara itself was an extraordinary proposal. He said that when this was
combined with the landscape, the river system, the public park in Dalgan Park, the sacred
nature of that place, the links of Dalgan with Tara, it was incomprehensible that a such a
design would be proposed. He referred to the Interchange at the bottom of the Hill of
Tara with its lighting giving constant light pollution, the noise and traffic, and said the
scale of what was being proposed was unacceptable.
He said that when you stood on the Hill of Tara and looked north or west, you looked
across a landscape that had remained unchanged for 2000, or perhaps 3000, years with
the link from Tara to Skreen, from pagan to early Christian and to modern Christianity in
terms of Dalgan Park. He said the landscape was a stunning, mythological,
archaeological landscape of great scientific and ecological value that was effectively
unchanged with the existing roads that had followed traditional pathways and changed
incrementally overtime. He said that what was now proposed would radically change the
entire context of Tara and the landscape and would destroy that landscape forever. He
said that it could never be the same and that when you stood on the Hill of Tara and
looked north to Skreen you would look across a major interchange and a tolled motorway
system, which would be the destruction of the landscape forever with no going back. He
said that this generation would have destroyed the landscape that existed unchanged for
3000 years by the construction of a tolled motorway system and a major interchange and
he submitted that this was not something that could easily be forgiven, if it were allowed
to occur.
Mr. O'Donnell suggested that no answer could be given if someone asked in 10, 15 or 20
years time "why was this motorway and major interchange allowed to be built within the
Tara complex to destroy that landscape" since it was simply unacceptable and he
suggested that now was the time to stand back and consider what was being proposed. He
said there was nothing to justify it when the scale of what was being proposed and the
landscape were considered. He said that there was not even a public service development
justification since it was a private profit making development that was being proposed to
be designed, built and operated by a private contractor, which would be designed for
profit and used as a parallel system to the existing road which would remain for those
who could not afford to pay the tolls. He said that it was for that type of a development
870
that we were willing to destroy the landscape along this location. He said it was clearly
not just a national question for this development because it was a world site and so was
an international question.
He said that Tara was for him the symbol of Meath and it was Meath County Council that
were now proposing this development, which would on their own evidence have a
profound impact on Tara. He said that not only would it destroy Tara but the Council's
answer for the monuments that had been identified as being connected to Tara was that
they would also be destroyed or, he said, by the euphemism quoted the previous day they
would be preserved by record. He said it was a wonderful answer for Tara that it would
be preserved by record and could then be visited in the library where there would be
drawings to show what had been removed and what had been destroyed. He submitted
that preservation by record was not an answer in this case and said that the Council had
prepared the EIS and purported to rely on that answer to some extent as the justification
for their case to proceed with this route.
Mr. O'Donnell said that in all of the Hearings he had been involved in, he had never seen
a submission that was so lacking, so inept and so inadequate. He referred to his
submission to the Inspector during the Hearing that he should go to An Bord Pleanala and
ask them to consider if they should proceed with the Hearing in view of the inadequacies
of the EIS as, he said, it was that bad. He said that it might not matter if the site and lands
were not so important but this was a critical site and he said that any flaws of deficiencies
were magnified because of the scale and the impact of what was being proposed. He said
that the inadequacies in the EIS were of crucial importance in this case and suggested that
Mr. Guthrie as the Project Engineer was not aware of the geographic, administrative or
legal context in which he was operating nor of the SPGs and said this level of ignorance
pervaded the EIS which accepted that the design had not yet been formulated and that it
was a matter for the contractor to agree the detail of the design.
He said that you could not accept a document for such a sensitive site where the design
was not yet formulated and where it would be left to the contractor to source the materials
for filling and the source of extraction and waste materials, where culverts and bridges
had not been formulated and where the height the road would be built was not even
known and said that was what was being proposed for this landscape of international
importance from at least five different criteria.
He said that the only part of the report that was generally immune from criticism was the
archaeological section since this clearly accepted the profound impacts that the
development would have, but he suggested that even here it was incomplete since Ms
Gowan had indicated that a major site, identified as part of the preliminary works, would
be destroyed as part of the development.
He said that for the built heritage Mr. O'Sullivan did not know the legal context within
which he was operating and was not aware of the need to consider the curtilage of a
protected structure, had no idea of what he was required to investigate and accepted that
871
he was simply sent to look at buildings without making any critical analysis of them
which, he said, gave a built heritage that was fundamentally flawed.
He said there was the ecology report on an internationally important river system where
the person preparing that report did not disclose the proposed SAC --- the highest
designation the EU could give to a site, he was not aware until it was put to him of there
being three separate species protected under the Habitats Directive in the river system,
and all of that was within the area where there was, he said, a major intersection of a
county road with the motorway being constructed at the confluence of two rivers.
He said there was a noise report by a person who had never visited the site until after the
EIS had been published. He said that when the impact of noise on the context of Tara
was considered and that Mr. Summers had never visited Tara and did not know what it
looked like, never visited Dalgan Park and did not know it was a public park before he
had prepared his report, and that this was what put in evidence as something to rely on to
justify the proposed route was unbelievable arrogance and contempt for a landscape and
for the people that lived there and for the heritage the EIS was required to protect.
He said there was a discrepancy in the air pollution report of about 20 times difference
between the modeled and measured air pollution levels with no explanation of how this
could have occurred from Mr. Crawford, the air pollution expert. He said the landscape
expert argued he could screen or landscape away a major interchange which was again a
contempt for the ordinary common sense view of what the likely impact was. He said that
there was a socio-economic report by Mr. Prendiville who accepted that he had no
sociological or economics expertise yet purported to give evidence on socio-economic
impacts.
Mr. O'Donnell suggested that for each category of evidence there was a huge inadequacy
and discrepancy with huge holes in what had been submitted and said that if a script were
to be written for ineptitude and inadequacy, a more disparate and inept number of people
could not have been chosen. He submitted that when the Inspector looked at the evidence
he had heard, then he could not rely on what had been stated in this section of the EIS. He
said that of all the landscapes possible, this one was the most critical for such mistakes to
be made and that to have prepared and relied on such a document made it not surprising
that they chose to build an intersection in this particular site in an EIS that was so
fundamentally flawed. He submitted that it was simply not possible to allow the damage
that would happen in this case to occur and said that of the range of experts, and he
named them all, not one could stand up and say that their report was complete and
accurate and free from flaw. He said the contrary was the case because each one was
hugely deficient, inadequate and had been shown to be such.
Mr. O'Donnell then said that there was an alternative and that it had been said on
numerous occasions to the Hearing that for this section of the route you looked at the
proposal to the east of Skreen. He said that he had deliberately chosen to compare these
two routes and that on each heading they were either equal or the road east of Skreen
was better. He said that for air pollution they were probably equal but that it would be
872
better not to cause air pollution to a world heritage site or a public park so the route east
of Skreen was the better choice. He said that in archaeological terms it was accepted the
road east of Skreen would be less damaging than a road through Tara and that in terms of
built heritage there were no protected structures east of Skreen. He said that for ecology
while you would have to cross the Boyne, this would not be at the confluence of the
Boyne and Skreen and that spawning would be protected, which made east of skreen
better. He said that in landscape terms Mr. Burns accepted both were attractive but
clearly a world archaeological site had a particular impact and should be avoided in
landscape terms. He said that in terms of noise and vibration a public park and a world
heritage site and a centre like Dalgan Park were places to avoid in terms of excessive
noise levels.
He said that the only section that sought to be relied on in providing a negative impact in
the Tara to Navan section was the socio-economic impact and, he said, this was by a
person who had no expertise in this area at all and his evidence must be discounted
because of this. He said that it had been shown to the Hearing that the entire basis of the
approach was fundamentally flawed and he submitted that if the two routes were looked
at objectively in the terms set by the Council then the road east of Skreen was the
preferred option. He said there had never been a satisfactory explanation given why that
route had not been selected and said that it came down to whether the EIS could be
depended on and said it was his submission that it could not be given reliance. He said
that even if reliance were to be given then the route in the EIS was not the optimum
because he said it could never be the case that you could build a motorway through Tara
and a major interchange at the bottom of the hill where Tara begins and that it could
never be right to build a motorway through a public park.
Mr. O'Donnell suggested the answer for that was because the public park and the uses
within Dalgan Park were never identified in the EIS and said that nowhere within the
EIS were the range of activities and public nature of the facilities in the uses of Dalgan
Park ever identified, so they were not had regard to. He said that if the Council had
directed its mind to those uses he had no doubt that they would not have chosen the route
they did as they would have been aware of the significance of the Boyne and Skreen
rivers. He said that had they been aware of the full extent of the archaeology and its
impact on Tara, he had no doubt that they would not have chosen that route and he said
the EIS was so flawed that it was not surprising they chose to proceed with that route. He
said the Council's solution was to destroy Tara because, quoting from the McGarry v.
Sligo County Council Supreme Court judgement, he said destroying a monument likc
Tara was not just the monument but its context and if its context was destroyed, you
destroyed the monument.
Mr. O'Donnell said that if a motorway was run through a public park at a place used by
the public then this effectively destroyed the public park, that if you built a major
intersection across a river spawning area you put that to an unacceptable level of risk and
that if you put all of these together you had a recipe for disaster. He said that could never
be confirmed by An Bord Pleanala if they were to properly direct their mind to what had
been proposed here. He said the Council might reply that they would destroy significant
873
amounts of landscape, archaeology and ecology but that they would preserve these by
record and he said he would conclude by saying that if the record was anything like the
record contained in the EIS, then it would bear no relationship to what was, in fact, there.
He submitted that having regard to the evidence there was only one solution for An Bord
Pleanala and this was to refuse to confirm this section of the road and he further
submitted that this was the appropriate recommendation for the Inspector to make.
143. 3. Closing Submission by Alan Park on behalf of
Bellinter Residents Association :
Mr. Park said that the main thrust of the BRA position regarding the proposed motorway
was, and remained, their disagreement and dissatisfaction with the Route Selection
process as they believed this process did not fairly assess the various options and that the
wrong conclusion had then been reached. He said they had demonstrated that the
preferred route of those who had attended the Public Consultation process was ignored
and that the EPR was the second least preferred and he said the Corridor Selection
process was never put to Public Consultation which, he said, meant that the process was
not correctly followed.
Mr. Park said there were many areas in the Summary Matrix in Table 4.2 in Vol. 2 of the
EIS that were not correctly rated. He gave details of these which included :-
1. The impact on "minor roads" rated as "slightly positive" which they disagreed with
and referred to the extra length for his neighbours in walking to Dalgan Park from
their homes or to the shop at Garlow Cross, where a longer round journey of 5.1 km
compared to 3.9 km would now apply.
2. He said that the Landscape & visual impact for the EPR (Blue Route 2) had been
wrongly entered in Table 4.2 and that the value given was understated and referred to
the values shown in Table RSR/6.6.1 as being the correct ones, and he said that Mr.
Guthrie's response in cross-examination was erroneous.
3. He said that both Consultant Archaeologists had clearly reported that any route
between Tara and Skryne Hills was not a desirable option and that this was supported
by Conor Newman and he suggested that Duchas were also opposed to a route
through the Tara/Skryne valley and said that they believed the EPR was Route P. He
referred to the failure to include the geophysical survey images in the EIS and
suggested that this could only have been done to conceal the full facts. He said that
the BRA believed a route through the Tara/Skryne valley should be avoided at all
costs.
4. He criticised the impact on private properties in the Residential/Private Property
category in Table 4.2 of "moderately positive" saying that there was no positive
impact on the properties in Bellinter, Ardsallagh or Cannistown and said this entry
was erroneous.
5. He said it seemed the Community Impacts were almost forgotten with no mention
being made of Dalgan Park or Dowdstown demesne in the socio-economic section,
nor of the impact on the walks in Dalgan Park by the Rivers Boyne and Skane, nor of
874
the work and courses carried on in Dalgan Park and Dowdstown House and said that
part of the EIS was not adequately addressed.
6. He said that they were as confused by the Noise section as the expert, Mr. Summers,
seemed to be. He said that some of the figures presented were incorrect, that the
manner in which readings were taken was open to doubt, that Mr. Summers only
visited the site for the first time in August 2002 after the EIS had been published and
that the Council were now saying that a new noise criteria would be adopted to assess
the noise impact. He said that the BRA saw no alternative to a complete reassessment
of the entire noise section in the EIS to provide correct values for Table
4.2 of Vol. 2.
He said that the BRA found Table 4.2 of Vol. 2 of the EIS was not a true and accurate
assessment of the impacts and submitted that the values in that table should be corrected,
which could then change the conclusions of the selection process.
Mr. Park said they were not satisfied that the provisions for the railway line at
Cannistown had been adequately provided to meet the requirements of Iarnrod Eireann
and said that the railway line should not be economically disadvantaged by having to
construct a bridge over the motorway. He said the railway connection was an important
part of the CDP and the SPGs and deserved to be considered as part of an integrated
transport plan for the County and not as a sort of optional extra that might be taken up in
the distant future.
Mr. Park referred to the response given by the Council to the BRA objection to the EPR
and said that the only issue of substance in it was a description of the bridge crossing the
River Boyne, with every other aspect of the issues they had raised being ignored. He said
they considered Mr. Harold O'Sullivan's response inadequate; that of Mr. Burns was still
awaited; that they had problems with Mr. Summers credibility; that the MC O' Sullivan
response on Blundellstown & Cannistown Interchanges failed to mention Blundellstown
and said that the Halcrow Barry response described the topography of Blundellstown
without explaining the rationale for that Interchange.
Mr. Park concluded the submission by saying that the BRA had found the experience to
be less than satisfactory; that they had found it most difficult to get full and proper
information about their queries and fears; that they had found many answers to be
economical of the truth and that they had not been given full and free access to
information they had legitimately requested and they felt advantage had been taken of
their inexperience and lack of knowledge in this field. Mr. Park said that to defend their
own interests, property and environment they had been forced to spend considerable time,
effort and money in pursuing their case and he asked that An Bord Pleanala would look
sympathetically at their right to recover costs and expenses incurred with the Hearing. He
said that the BRA appreciated the Inspector's forbearance relating to their presentations
and cross-examinations as they were made to feel at ease in an area where they were
inexperienced.
875
143. 4. Closing Submission by Brendan Magee on behalf of
the Meath Road Action Group :
Mr. Magee said that the MRAG objection to the proposed M3 was based on their
assertion that the wrong route had been chosen. He said that the EIS was a very well put
together document and that, taken at face value, it was difficult to find fault with it. He
said it was their contention that it was a flawed document, since it dealt only with the
Preferred Route, and that of deliberately hid the fact of another route option being more
viable from an environmental and cost point of view. He said that, in spite of the
Council's efforts to prevent the MRAG getting information about the proposal, they had
managed to get enough to be able to prove that the wrong route had been chosen and said
that he would now summarise this proof, which had been exposed during the crossexamination
of all of the Council's experts.
Mr. Magee said that the MRAG instinctively knew that the wrong route had been chosen
when it was proposed to be located between the Hills of Tara and Skryne through the area
with the highest concentration of known archaeological sites and said that this had been
proved when they got copies of the Route Selection Report, The Archaeological
Assessment Paper Survey by Valerie Keeley and the N3 Navan to Dunshaughlin Route
Selection by Margaret Gowan. He referred to neither of the archaeological reports
recommending the Preferred Route and Ms Gowan's evidence under cross-examination
of Route P being the most viable from an archaeological perspective. He also referred to
Conor Newman's presentation, the geophysical survey results and his opinion of the
archaeological dimension of the EPR going to be hugely expensive in time and money.
He then referred to the various expert witnesses for the Council and the Ecology, Air
Quality and Landscape & Visual sections in the EIS and said that a reading of their EIS
reports would give the impression that the Preferred Route was the "right" option but
when the same experts report in the Route Selection Report was read you found that
another conclusion was reached and that the preferred route was not the best option from
the perspective of that discipline. He said that there was no assessment made of the Built
Heritage in the Route Selection Report and that Mr. Guthrie had not disagreed with the
quotation from that Report which said that route P did not come close to structures in the
area. He said that the Noise figures in the EIS were admitted to be wrong by the noise
expert and asked what legal standing had an EIS when it had been proved some of its
information was wrong.
Mr. Magee submitted that none of the environmental experts employed by the Council
had recommended the Preferred Route and said that 5 of them had recommended another
route, Route P. He submitted that the decision to ignore all of the experts advice was
taken by Mr. Alan Guthrie as the Project Co-ordinator, and said that Mr. Guthrie had
justified his decision by saying that the primary reason was that the Preferred Route
affected fewer people. Mr. Magee submitted that the Assessment Matrix used to assess
all route options was proven not to have given any serious consideration to the effect on
people in the selection process, with the rating being shown as " slight positive" for all
options.
876
Mr. Magee said that Mr. Guthrie's only stated reason for not choosing Route P was its
remoteness from the N3 and he said that was not true, since the P route crossed the N3
only 2 miles from Navan, while the proposed junction at Blundellstown was 4 miles from
Navan. Mr. Magee questioned the location of a junction at Blundellstown on safety
factors because of the history of fatal accidents on the existing N3 between
Blundellstown and Navan which, he said, would also be added to from the increased
traffic using that section of the N3 to access the motorway.
Mr. Magee said there were a number of questions to be answered by Mr. Guthrie which
included why the NRA guidelines for Public Consultations were not followed ? ; why
were the Public's views expressed at those Consultations ignored ? ; why was
information not made freely available to the public ? ; why were documents changed and
edited before being made available to the public ? and why was false information given
to the public.
Mr. Magee said that, having heard the evidence, the MRAG believed that the Inspector
could not recommend that the route be approved, particularly the section going through
the Hill of Tara area. He said that the MRAG were not against a motorway but were only
against the proposed location and he said that they had put forward a credible alternative
that had many advantages over the present proposal. Mr. Magee concluded by asking that
a full feasibility of the MRAG Alternative Route Proposal be undertaken by the
NRA/Council before any final decision was taken.
( Note -- A hard copy and CD of the previous MRAG submission on Day 17 was handed
in by Mr. Magee and are listed in Appendix 4 of this Report at Day 25. )
143. 5. Closing Submission by Greg Casey, Solicitor,
on behalf of Sarah Maher, Ardbraccan House, Navan :
Mr. Casey said that he would start with what he would loosely call the Facts and that Fact
No.1 was the requirements for assessing needs for motorway schemes in the NRA
Guidelines which, he said, were quite strict. He said he would outline the chronology of
events that followed from when they had made a telephone request to the Council on 12
November for the completed Phase 1 & 2 questionaires returned to the NRA for this
scheme as required under the 1999 version of those NRA Guidelines and were told they
would be faxed to them. He said that by 18 November when no FAX had appeared they
again phoned the Council and spoke to Nicholas Whyatt and were then told that they
could not have these questionaires since " They" whoever, he said, "They" were had met
and decided the public were not entitled to see these under the Freedom of Information
Act due to commercial sensitivity. He said that on being reminded that access to
Information on the Environment under 90/313/EC and the Irish Regulations SI 125 of
1998 applied here, Mr. Whyatt had replied that this had also been debated and the request
was still being resisted but had requested a written application. Mr. Casey said they sent
off their written request on 18 November and repeated this at the Hearing on 19
877
November and that, in fairness to Mr. Whyatt, he supplied a letter to them on 20
November that explained the 2000 NRA Guidelines were in Draft form and the NRA did
not require that Phase 1 & 2 questionaires to be completed. He said they reminded Mr.
Whyatt that the 1999 guidelines were quite specific and would have applied at route
corridor stage, and said that Mr. Whyatt doubted these existed but had returned at 6.30
pm yesterday (20 Nov.) with those 1999 Guidelines.
Mr. Casey then read the Council letter of 20 November 2002 "--- I resume the
questionaires you referred to are those contained in the NRA Project Management
Guidelines (PMG), March 2000. You should note that these non-statutory guidelines
were not in place when the consultants were originally appointed to design and develop
the section of the scheme relevant to Ardbraccan House. Generally the PMG were
published when the majority of the sections of the scheme had reached the constraints
study, Phase 2, and route selection, Phase 3, stages of development. After publication of
the PMG, the Council consulted the NRA about their use in this scheme including the
completion of the questionaires. The NRA informed the Council that on the M3 Clonee
to North of Kells scheme they only required formal submission of the questionaires for
approval for route selection Phase 3 and that there was no need to get retrospective
approval for Phases 1& 2. Therefore there are no completed Phase 1& 2 questionaires for
any section of the scheme that were submitted to the NRA for formal approval. The one
exception to this is the Kells to Carnaross section which lagged behind the remainder of
the scheme. When the PMG were published, formal approval was needed to proceed to
route selection. Phase 3 for this section of the scheme was obtained from the NRA.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, our file does contain a completed Phase 2 questionaire
from MC O'Sullivan for the Navan by-pass section and from Halcrow Barry for the
Dunshaughlin to Navan section. I attach a copy of the Navan By-pass Phase 2
questionaire for your information. However, I would reiterate that neither of the Phase 2
questionaires for the Navan By-pass or the Dunshaughlin to Navan section were
submitted to the NRA in accordance with the PMG."
Mr. Casey said he was proposing that the Road Scheme Development Guidelines of May
1999 be submitted to An Bord to peruse at their leisure since Phase 1 as set out in the
guidelines was a pre-planning questionaire that set out in outline what the Local
Authority wanted to build, be it a motorway or whatever, and then, he said, the NRA
responded to that and sanctioned the Local Authority to go to Phase 2. He said they knew
these were non-statutory guidelines but they were guidelines that the NRA imposed
stringently relating to road planning. He said that the purpose of the Phase 1 questionaire,
which he said would only take about 10 minutes to complete, was to allow the Council to
proceed to Phase 2 and that was not funded by the NRA. He said Phases 2, 3 & 4 were all
funded by the NRA and that it was clear this particular scheme would be funded in its
entirety by the NRA, whether that was by a PPP or otherwise.
Mr. Casey then discussed the Phase 2 questionaire for the Navan By-pass which, he said,
had not been approved by the NRA but mirrored the Phase 2 questionaire set out in the
May 1999 guidelines and said that the questions answered mirrored largely the concerns
that Ms Maher had been enunciating to the Council and the NRA throughout the year and
878
this Hearing. He referred to the questionaire having been signed by Ms Joyce and said
that the questions covered were " field checked, streams, rivers, canals etc having regard
to drainage systems, local knowledge" both ticked yes; " springs, wells, watertables,
turloughs " it said "no information on wells". He said it said something relating to
turloughs, something about farm walkover aerial photography and preliminary site
investigation undertaken and otherwise no. He said that in relation to ground water the
answer was no and that written after that was " preliminary investigation undertaken". He
said that at "R" was asked " Has a review of Irish /EU legislation/ regulations relating to
infrastructure/funding/regulations been carried out, ie to include issues relating to
licensing requirements during construction, quarries, tips, mobile plants etc" and said the
answer was no. He said the answer to a question " are there known areas of special
designation within 10 kms. of the study area at B" was yes and that it referred to the NHA
on the Boyne and archaeological sites at Tara and he referred to the Navan By-pass as
not going near Tara.
Mr. Casey then said that from the 1999 Guidelines once the NRA gave the go-ahead, that
the first thing to be done was to draw up a Constraints Report; that the second thing was a
Corridor Selection Report; that the third thing to happen was the Route Options Report;
that the fourth thing was there should be a Route Selection Report and the fifth thing was
that the Emerging Preferred Route (EPR) should be produced. He said that it would be at
that point that the Members of the Council would approve the EPR which then went to
pre-planning stages and EIS and on the a Hearing like this one. He said that having set
out what was the correct chronology, he would now look at what the actual chronology
was which, he said, had been dug out during the course of the Hearing. He said that the
first thing considered appeared to have been in February 2002 (as he said it) and was
called Route Options; that the second thing appeared to have been considered in May
2000 and was the Constraints Report with Archaeology February 2000 and Architecture
April 2000; that the third thing considered appeared to have been a powerpoint
presentation to the Meath Councillors where the EPR popped up on the screen; that the
fourth thing, which he said was in its right order, was the Route Selection Report in
December 2001 and that the fifth thing was the Corridor Selection Report that arrived in
January 2002.
Mr. Casey said that as he understood it the Corridor Selection Report should have arrived
before the Route Selection Report and that the Corridor Report was dated January 2002
which was after the date of 19 December 2001 when the Council had advertised their
intention to vary their CDP and the Navan Environs Plan to allow for the construction of
a motorway incorporating the route west of Navan through Ardbraccan up to Kells. He
said that the Corridor Report arrived after the variation was advertised and that the Route
Selection Report, which was dated December 2001, should have arrived after the
Corridor Selection Report but said that by the time the Corridor Selection Report was
there it was already a fait-accompli as far as the 2001 CDP was concerned. He said that
the Route Selection Report of December 2001 and the Corridor Selection Report of 2002
had only been made available at the Oral Hearing.
879
Mr. Casey said this juxta-positioning of the planning such a project defied all logic and
had placed members of the public in County Meath and in particular, his clients the
Mahers, in a material disadvantage which he would now deal with. He said that the
Meath CDP of 2001replaced the 1994 CDP, which had been allowed an extension of time
by the Minister to allow for debate and for the public to be consulted, and that Plan
became operative in March 2001. He said that March 2001 was ten months after the EPR
for the motorway had been shown to the Members of the Council at their meeting on 8
May 2000 and that a Matrix ( which he showed to the Hearing) had been shown to the
Councillors at that meeting. He said he believed that the matrix shown to them was a
simplified version of the actual matrix for what reason he did not know, but suggested it
was to keep them "in the dark".
He said that between May 2000 and March 2001 when the CDP was adopted nothing had
been done to incorporate the EPR into the CDP and that this required the advertising of
the Variations on 19 December 2001, both to the Meath CDP which was 8.5 months old
then, and to the Navan Environs Plan and he said that the people of Meath deserved an
explanation for why that happened. He said the advertisements allowed for submissions
to be made up to 26 January 2002, but that reports had been prepared on 30 and 31
January for circulation to Councillors on the Friday, 1 February, to vote on the Variation
at their meeting on Monday, 4 February.
Mr. Casey said there was a curious matter relating to those variations of the Meath CDP
of 2001 and the Navan Environs Plan of 1997 and he referred to Mr. Killeen's evidence
that the 1994 CDP and 1997 Navan Envirions Plans were important documents to be
considered regarding their objectives together with the 2001 CDP and the Variations as
being the cause of some curiosity for him. He said that he could not see what relevance
was the 1994 CDP now and could not understand what the Navan Environs Plan had to
do with it after the adoption of the new CDP in March 2002 but that he now realised that
the Navan Environs Plan of 1997 was produced as an Area Plan by the Council under the
1963 legislation as part of the infrastructure of the 1994 CDP. He said that when the 2001
CDP kicked in, then everything that had to do with the 1994 CDP was cut off and that
you started with a new fresh clean sheet. He said that he could find no reference in the
2001 CDP of a carryover into that Plan of the Navan Environs Plan of 1997 and said that
if anyone could point him to the carryover into that Plan, he would be delighted.
Mr. Casey then said he would theorise that if there was not a carryover into the 2001
Plan, that there was then a significant and material lacuna in Part 2 of the 2001 CDP
where there was no mention of Navan and its Environs in relation to various County
plans around the County contained in that document. He suggested that at this stage the
lacuna was so gaping that it undermined the viability of the 2001 CDP and said that, at
any rate, the variation proposed to the Navan Environs Plan 1997 on 19 December 2001
was adopted on 4 February 2002. He said that Variation allowed specifically for the
development of a motorway from South Navan up to beyond Ardbraccan and allowed for
the construction of feeder roads from the centre of Navan out in a southerly and
southwesterly direction to the Athboy Interchange and that that was what the Navan
Environs Plan allowed for. He said that it seemed to him that you could not vary a Plan
880
that did not exist and that he was submitting to An Bord that it was highly questionable as
to whether there was any variation of the Navan Environs Plan of 1997 on 4 February
2002, because he was saying no such Plan existed which left a gaping hole in the middle
of the 2001 Meath County Development Plan, and said he was signaling this to everyone.
Mr. Casey then referred to the Consultation processes and to the case of Attorney General
and the relation of Frank McGarry, Paddy O'Hara, Patricia Mulligan,Niamh Crimin, John
Hamilton in their own right re Sligo County Council, Supreme Court 1985, no.118/133,
Walsh, Hedderman,and McCarthy J.J. of 17 February 1989 commonly known as the
Carrowmore Graves case and he quoted from the judgement which, he said, was well
known to An Bord. One part of the extracts he quoted reads " The Plan is the statement
of objectives. It informs the community in its draft form of the intended objectives and
affords the community the opportunity of inspection, criticism and, if thought proper,
objection. --- The private citizen refused permission on such grounds ( ie material
contravention of the CDP) based upon such objectives may consloe himself that it will be
the same for others during the currency of the plan and that the Council will not shirk
from enforcing those objectives on itself."
He said the EPR was adopted by the Councillors on 8 May 2000 with the CDP not
adopted until the following March and asked why, given Mr. Justice McCarthy's words,
the citizens of Meath and his Client, were not given an opportunity to ascertain
essentially what was now adopted by the variation to the Development Plan 8.5 months
after that EPR came into being, which allowed for the motorway to go past Ardbraccan,
and why that was never in the consultation process and the drafts of the Plan prior to its
adoption. Mr. Casey said he would put on the record that the variations were adopted on
4 February 2002 and that the newspaper advertisement of the fact of the variation to the
Meath CDP and Navan Environs Plan was dated 29 May 2002, almost four months later.
He said he could find no explanation why there was such an extendcd period of time
between the adoption of the variation, which took effect immediately, and the notification
to the people of Meath that it had come into being. He said that in April and May 2002
Ms Maher had sent two people to the Council Office in Navan seeking an up-to-date
version of the CDP and that the professional representative was given Volumes 1, 2 and 3
of the 2001 Plan without the Variation and the person who went in on her behalf from
Ardbraccan was given the same. He said that again on instructions a representative of Ms
Maher was sent into the Navan Offices of the Council during the course of this Hearing
in August looking for the current version of the CDP and was again given Volumes 1, 2
and 3 without the Variation.
Mr. Casey submitted that if the chronology he had given was correct, then there had been
a denial of the rights to participate in the process of (a) the routing and positioning of the
road, (b) the CDP, (c) the variation because the variations were published long after the
time had elapsed in which the public and those affected by CPO notices could make their
submissions and objections to the EIS and CPO as the documentation was not available.
He submitted that you could not make a reasoned submission which would be technically
correct in law or in fact unless you were in receipt of, and aware of, the passing of the
variations of 4 February 2002. He said that, to him, amounted to a denial of public rights
881
of participation in the process leading to the Oral Hearing and on to An Bord and any
adoption by An Bord of this scheme.
Mr. Casey said he now wanted to come to the scheme itself and said that the statutory
basis for there being a Hearing was to look at and have an Oral hearing into the CPO and
to participate inn a fact-gathering exercise in connection with the EIS and the EIA. He
said he wanted to remind An Bord that the concept of EIS and EIA was not a creature of
Irish domestic law but was a creature of Europe by reason of the various votes in favour
of further European integration over the years. He said that the Directives relating to EIA,
Habitats and Ecology, Water Quality and Air Quality emanated from Europe and were
binding on us here. He said that we were sometimes good at transposing the requirements
of European Law particularly in the areas of agriculture and such matters, and were
particularly strict in their enforcement, and said that we were not so good in other areas
and were not very good at it in terms of the area of EIA.
He said that some questioning had arisen the previous day relating to data and whether
there was a requirement to furnish data or not as part of an EIS. He said the relevant
directives were 85/337/EC as amended by 97/11/EC on the assessment of certain public
and private projects in the environment. He said the recent Directive updated the original
EIA legislation and amended a number of articles of the 1985 Directive. He read Articles
3 and 5 sections (1), (2) and (3), with section (3) saying in part "The information to be
provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph (1) shall include at least : ---- (3)
the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the project is likely to have
on the environment" and he said that he emphasised that section (3) required the data to
identify and assess the main effects, not the adverse effects but the main effects. He read
the next section as " An outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an
indication of the main reasons for his choice taking into account the environmental
effects" and the last section as " A non-technical summary of the information mentioned
in the previous sections". Mr. Casey said he was tendering this to An Bord for
consideration in the context of the EIS before the Hearing for consideration.
Mr. Casey said that the 1997 EIA Amendment Directive was implemented into Irish law
by the 1999 EIA Regulations and that in Schedule 6 it set out the information to be
contained in an EIS and that it mirrored the amendments in the 1997 Directive which he
had referred to above. He quoted the equivalent passage from the 1999 EIA Regulations
and said this included for the inter-reaction between all of those matters including water,
culture and heritage, landscape, soil, air, material assets, flora, fauna, human beings,
climate. He said that if he took the EIS that had been furnished to the public and assumed
that was the only information available to them, until documentation started coming out
of the Council during the Hearing, he would submit to An Bord, who had already allowed
the Hearing to go to Oral Hearing, that if An Bord considered the contents of the EIS
furnished to the Hearing and made available to the public they could not possibly come to
the conclusion that the EIS and the information contained therein complied with the
requirements of either the 1997 EU Directive or those of the 1999 Regulations
implementing that Directive.
882
He said he would give one example of this and said that Ms Joyce might have been
wondering why he had been asking her questions about the conclusions set out in the EIS
at Volume 5A relating to soil, water, geology and hydrogeology and why he was harking
on about the Report of April 2002 which post-dated the EIS and which appeared to
review the question of water, geology and hydrogeology at the Ardbraccan area. He said
that he was not present for the balance of the Hearing on the other Sections all the way
from Clonee but, he said, all the borehole logs, trial pit logs and core hole logs and results
and all the data relating thereto should have been included with the EIS, so that the main
effects of the project on the environment could be identified. He said he had sight of the
borehole test results, Mr. Finlay had a quick glance at them, Ms Maher had the
opportunity of examining them and so had Mr. Sweetman but that no other person
affected by the line of the project from the Durhamstown Road Overbridge to the start of
the Navan By-pass section had been given any opportunity to examine the data referred
to or contained in those Reports. He said that it appeared to him that those borehole logs
were nowhere to be found and that it appeared to him to be a gaping hole in the middle of
the EIS. He submitted to An Bord that it rendered the EIS unacceptable and unworthy of
description with the term of EIS.
Mr. Casey said that Ms Joyce had said that the part on hydrogeology and geology and
other related matters in the EIS were an assessment by someone who was no longer with
the Company and that it was conclusions drawn by him from data that were put in the
EIS and that people were simply supposed to accept a conclusion that he had come to as a
fact. He said that they could not do that, and said that any conclusions posited along the
entire route that were not backed up by the data could not be regarded as sufficient
statements of fact to be assessed so as to (a) identify and then (b) to assess the main
effects on the environment, and then to go on to consider whether they had any adverse
impacts on the environment.
Mr. Casey said that Ireland had a peculiar record with Europe in its track record on EIA
and that Ireland had a peculiar record before the European Commission and before the
European Courts of Justice and was being regularly hauled before the Commission and
the Courts of Justice for failure to implement environmental directives and regulations.
He said he would refer An Bord to the judgements of the European Court of Justice
against Ireland in that regard, including one of the Court Fifth Chamber of 21 September
1999 relating to Directive 85/337/EC for Case C/392/96, which related to thresholds and
matters of that nature. He said that Ireland's defence against that action was that it was
pulling up its socks and that it was improving its EIA regulation and domestic legislation
to enable it to apply the 1985 Directive and said that while this was going on, the 1997
Directive was coming into force with the 1999 EIA Regulations. He said that contrary to
what Ms Dempsey thought, these regulations applied equally to road building projects as
much as they did to any other project and that there was no waiver for road projects. He
said there were no lessor thresholds for roads than there were for dumps, for water
extraction, for airports, for gas terminals or for anything else, with the same rules
applying.
883
Mr. Casey said that in a recent opinion of the Commission addressed to Ireland in, he
thought, September 2001 which An Bord already had from another Hearing, the
Commission, under Article 226 of the Treaty, addressed Ireland's failure to fulfil its
obligations under Directive 85/337/EC and Amending Directive 97/11/EC regarding the
requirements of an EIA and he quoted from page 3 of that Opinion as "The information
to be provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph (1) shall include at least a
description of the project, a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid ---
the data required to identify and assess the main effects -- etc." He said that the Opinion
dealt with specific cases where the Commission believed that Ireland had been in breach
and that one of those was a road project, complaint P1998/4307, which concerned the
environmental impact of a motorway project in Co. Kildare called the Kildare By-pass
which was given development consent on 22 January 1996 following an EIA. He said
that project involved constructing a motorway below the level of the surrounding land
which required the constant removal of large amounts of water from an acquifer, or a
natural reservoir, to keep the motorway dry and said that everyone present would be
aware of the Pollardstown Fen. He said he was tendering this to An Bord as he thought
that An Bord knew the comments of the Commission in relation to that complaint and he
said that the instigator of that complaint was Mr. Sweetman.
Mr. Casey said that the net effect was that before development consent could be given, all
of the data must be furnished and made available to the public for the public consultation
process and that the public must be consulted and that al of the data in the fact-gathering
exercise would then be assessed by An Bord. He said that it was okay for the EIS to set
out the likely effects on the environment of a particular plan or project, and said that as a
matter of good practice both positive and negative impacts should be set out, and that
then to proceed to come up with whatever the types of remediation or mitigation that
were capable of objective assessment. He said that in the case of this EIS he believed that
it did not contain fact, because the data was not provided, but only the Consultants views
on the merits of this particular project and he said these were saying it was great but we
are not going to give you any of the information which would allow you to question any
of the conclusions reached. He said that Ms Maher had referred to a rather peculiar
statement made to the Hearing which, in effect, said that if it was not put into the EIS
then they could not be blamed for being wrong and he said that the execution of an EIS
with such an attitude did not comply with the legal regulatory framework.
Mr. Casey again referred to the adoption by the Council on 8 May 2000 of the motorway
route and said that was done on the basis of a matrix that was simplified so that they
could understand it and that the effect of that simplification was to merge the boundaries
between the weighted criteria across a number of areas. He said that the crossexamination
had borne that out and that it had been their intention to analyse the matrix
in Table 4.3 and to try and draw a fresh matrix which would be accurate but said that the
ESB power cut had prevented them from doing this. He said that if the matrix presented
to the Councillors for the EPR on 8 May 2000 was examined, there were a number of
areas where the rankings did not make sense and that he would refer to the evidence for
this and would analyse Table 4.3.
884
Mr. Casey then said that when looking at Table 4.3, the summary matrix of the Navan
By-pass in Volume 2 of the EIS and at Routes A to H, it had to be remembered that at 8
May 2000 the 1997 EIA Directive and the 1999 Regulations were in force. He said that
for "landscape and visual" every route was ranked as neutral which he concluded meant
no impact at all and said that seemed strange since Route B went straight through the
front garden, a wing of the House and the stables and trees at Ardbraccan and on towards
the Durhamstown section and the toll plaza. He said that if Route A, which was the Route
now being examined in more detail than the others, was looked at it also said hat
"landscape and visual" was neutral and he asked that An Bord when looking at these two
matters would exercise common sense in seeing if there was any reality to those two
weightings. He said that in terms of "air quality" there was a major negative impact
found for Route A and a moderate negative impact for Route B and wondered how that
difference could have arisen. He said that in terms of "planning and development" the
matrix said Route A was extremely positive and wondered how that could be given the
CDP of 1994 and Navan Environs Plan of 1997 on 8 May 2000. He said that may well be
so in terms of the varied Plan and he suggested it flew in the face of logic that there was a
big blue blob there and that Route B was a major positive since that went through
Ardbraccan House itself. He said he was only analysing Routes A and B at that time to
show how ridiculous that summary matrix was and said that if geology was looked at,
which was neutral across the board, you could not even come to a conclusion whether it
was correct or not on the basis of all that they had heard and been given.
Mr. Casey said that there were a number of items in the Powerpoint presentation to the
Councillors on 8 May 2000 relating to Routes A , B and even H that beggared belief in
logic and he said they would be submitting that to An Bord later on when the ESB was
back on line for them to complete their fresh analysis. He then referred to the Conor
Newman response to Margaret Gowan's written response which had been submitted to
the Hearing by FAX that morning ( See Section 82.2 of this Report) and he read Mr.
Newman's response to Ms Gowan's point 6. He said that it appeared Mr. Newman was
making the point that the favoured route from the archaeologist in the Constraints Report
of February/March 2000 was to go from north of the Hill of Skreen and not to turn
northwest between Skreen and Tara and head to south Navan via Dalgan Park and head
for Ardbraccan south and west of Navan. He said that would mirror the experience of
Valerie J.Keeley in their recommendations of February 2000 when they said if they had
to choose a preferred route, they would say that a route east of Navan and around the
north of the town and to Kells would be the preferred route.
He said that he could not find any reasoning that would upset that viewpoint between
February and May of 2000 because Mr. Breen in cross-examination admitted that the
field walking was only for Route A and was only commenced after 8 May 2000. He said
that Mr. Breen had been forthcoming and fair and that some of the things he had said
might be unpalatable when viewed by the NRA because of he confirming he only started
walking routes after May 2000 and then only route A. He referred to Mr. Breen's
statement that some site excavation including topsoil stripping might be required in the
area to the southwest of the Mound, south of the Bohermeen Overbridge and the corner
of the field that was being landlocked. He said that area was also referred to in Ms
885
Rooney's Report they had tendered to An Bord and said that in the NRA Guidelines of
1999, which were non-statutory but nonetheless binding, it was stated that it would be in
order to conduct trial digs and matters of that sort. He said that in the document issued by
the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands issued in 1999, "Framework
and Principles for the protection of the Archaeology Heritage" it stated at paragraph 3.6.6
on page 27 that " EIA should, unless there is substantial grounds to show that it is not
necessary, involve the carrying out of archaeology assessment including, where
appropriate, test excavation". Mr. Casey said they knew from Mr. Breen that there would
have to be test excavation along the line of the route passing Ardbraccan and he said that,
not having been present for all of the other areas from Clonee to Kells, he could not say
whether similar excavations should have been carried out elsewhere as part of the EIS
process leading to the data to be contained in the EIS. He said there was nothing to have
prevented this and that it was recommended by Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.
He said that it left them in an "Alice in Wonderland" situation in relation to how the
various matrices were arrived at for archaeology at Table 4.3 in Volume 2 of the EIS, and
in the matrix presented to the Councillors.
Mr. Casey referred to Ardbraccan itself and said that Mr. O'Sullivan, who had only
become involved long after the route had been adopted by the Councillors, did not really
disagree with all that they, and Mr. Shaffrey, were saying about Ardbraccan. He said that
while there might be slight differences in emphasis, both Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Breen
agreed that Ardbraccan was a very rich area in terms of its historical, archaeological,
architectural and landscape context. Mr. Casey said that he had already read into the
record the definition from the 1999 Act relating to national monuments and that
architectural heritage included the historical, cultural, social, archaeological aspects and
the setting and it included groups of sites which, by definition, must include the groups of
sites plus their settings. He said he would remind An Bord that that legislation of 1999
was in force in 2000 and that if any element of common sense was applied in looking at
the setting and the objectives of the CDP, then the placing of a motorway on the
landscape 650 metres away from Ardbraccan directly in its view, within its historical
demesne, that part of it which was no longer in the ownership of the present owners of
Ardbraccan who, at great personal expense, had managed to reclaim that area west of the
farm road, was something which in saying there would not be an effect on the setting by
the imposition of a 21st century superhighway was a ludicrous statement. He said the
Inspector had commented on he taking a quick trip around West Cork to give examples
of the juxtaposition of ridiculous edifices in the settings of some of our more important
historical and archaeological and architectural sites but he had done that to make people
think about what was being imposed on the landscape of Ireland and on those parts of the
landscape which were precious and immoveable and once destroyed could never br
restored.
He then read from Volume 5C at page 16, paragraph 7.3 in Appendix I where Mr.
O'Sullivan referred to the issues raised by Ms. Maher in her letter under four headings
and the letter from Mr. Starret CEO of the Heritage Council to Mr. Tobin CEO of the
NRA and then he read from paragraph 7.4 on page 17 where Mr. O'Sullivan referred to
matters not impinging on the House but on its settings and said that Mr. O'Sullivan was
886
saying it would affect the settings. Mr. Casey submitted that it was a matter of law and
fact that the siting of the motorway with all of its intended environmental impacts,
including traffic, air, noise, water, visual impact, dust, pollution, and whatever affronted
the eye in having to look at it in the context of a richly endowed historic landscape
offended the law, offended the particularity of the objectives of the Meath CDP as
opposed to the general objectives. He said that particular objectives must be given greater
weight than general objectives since they had been made particular. He said the siting
offended against the sense of pride in our surroundings, in our countryside and in our
heritage whether that heritage came from pre-Christian, Christian or Norman times, from
the Protestant Reformation, the 800 year war with Britain or 100 years ago, it did not
matter as it was part of our heritage.
Mr. Casey said that he understood Ms Joyce to say that the Durhamstown road had been
moved off-line further north to facilitate Ms Maher at her request but he took from her
responses to the Inspector's questioning about overpasses being built off-line or on-line
that there was a general policy for overbridges to be built off-line because of mounding
and houses along the line. He said that if that was the case then it seemed to him the
present positioning of the Durhamstown Overbridge was in line with the general policy
of the NRA as opposed to being put there to accommodate the wishes of Ms Maher.
He said that he understood Mr. Searson had given evidence and had been cross-examined
about noise and that the outcome was that noise would present an adverse significant
impact on the House and settings of Ardbraccan and said that would escape onto the uses
of Ardbraccan in terms of noise pollution. He said that there was nothing in the EIS, or
before the Hearing, to suggest that the interactions between the noise and the uses of
Ardbraccan and its demesne were tested or that the interaction between noise and air
pollution, Ardbraccan, its landscape, its setting, its cultural heritage, its archaeology, its
water, effects on water, geology, hydrogeology or its landscape were considered in their
inter-relationships to one another in accordance with the EIA directive and the Irish
Regulations.
Mr. Casey said that the problem was that Ms Maher and her husband, who had lavished
time and money on the restoration and conservation of Ardbraccan, could not even deal
with the NRA and Council on the question of a deep cutting of the roadway to ameliorate
noise because the underlying ground conditions were not known. He said that it appeared
there was overburden of some nine metres from the borehole results for Durhamstown
and possibly further back the route for maybe 200 yards to the south where there
appeared to be four more boreholes near the location for the possible borrow pits. He said
that in the absence of any data or analysis of data relating to ground water, geology and
hydrogeology, it was not possible to assess whether it was possible to cut down into this
nine metres of overburden to try and remedy the noise, air pollution, visual impact and
visual intrusion on the landscape context and setting of Ardbraccan.
Mr. Casey said that even if they had tried over the last three years to deal with the
Council and the NRA and their various advisors, they would have had to try and amass
all of the data themselves to make an assessment of all the interaction between all of
887
those matters. He said they could not have come to any conclusive view with the Council
since the Council simply had not given any of the data or looked at any of those
interrelations not alone for Ardbraccan but, he said, that nowhere in the totality of the EIS
for the motorway were those inter-relationships taken into account as required by law.
Mr. Casey said that in relation to the Durhamstown Road Overbridge they did not know
whether it could be put seven metres into cut, when it could have been up to 1.9 metres
above ground with the Durhamstown Road overpass underneath, 10 metres from the
surface of the motorway.
He said they did not know if a large mound, like that described by Ms Maher at her
family home in Buckinghamshire, could be put between the road and the House as
nobody had ever addressed that question. He said nobody had addressed the question of
looking west from Ardbraccan House along the route of the motorway between
Bohermeen Road Overbridge and Durhamstown road of whether mounding could be
done or if a deep cut could be put there, and he said that by deep he meant 7 to 10 metres
and not 3 or 4 metres, as an amelioration of the significant adverse impacts on
Ardbraccan.
He said that there had been various promises made during the Hearing relating to
lighting, screening and planting of trees and he referred to Mr. Evans comments about the
point where the tangential light started towards Ardbraccan. He said he understood that
was on an embankment and as his calculations showed this to be about 1 or 2 metres
above the surrounding ground, then it would require 10 metre trees to raise the trees to a
height of 8 metres over the roadway. He doubted the feasibility of a timber screening
along the side of the road there to try and divert the flash of headlights and said these
were matters that could not be dealt with since the people who were responsible for doing
so, ie the promotors of the project, never addressed it at all.
He said that Mr. Burns had told the Hearing, by reference to a photograph taken from the
Bohermeen Road looking north along the stonewall which incorporated tree screening
and the gate pillars, that these would have to be retained and he said that Mr. Burns had
indicated, even if not in formal words, that in the event of development consent being
given that 10 to 12 to 15 metres from the western edge of that wall boundary to the top of
the embankment leading down into the cutting would be planted and that was in the
nature of an undertaking. He said that the engineering drawings indicated that would
involve taking land from the eastern side of that wall which was not allowed for in the
CPO maps. Mr. Casey said that it appeared to him from these drawings that if screening
of 12 metres was to be kept the whole way up to Durhamstown, that it could not possible
be done within the landtake and also have two in one embankments, drains 1 to 1.5
metres, the median strip and the minimum carriageways as set out in Volume 2 of the
EIS. He suggested that the Inspector should "run his ruler" along that area from
Bohermeen to Durhamstown and do the same exercise as he had done. He suggested that
the Inspector would also conclude that the screening mitigation proposed for that section
could not be achieved within the landtake and also allow for the minimum design
requirements of Volume 2 relating to carriageways etc. He said that from his examination
it appeared as if the landtake from a point some distance to the north of Bohermeen
888
Overbridge, possibly after a few hundred yards, was 16 metres too little in terms of its
width and that shortfall continued for some distance northwards. He said that even if the
mounding to ameliorate noise as outlined by Mr. Searson was started at that point, the
bunding would require a greater landtake and said that unless that was taken from Ms.
Maher he could not see how the NRA, or the concessionaire, could possibly comply with
the kind of undertakings being suggested by Mr. Burns the other day.
Mr. Casey said there was an issue about the Farm Road and that the Inspector had invited
him to make a submission about this. He then submitted that if a dual carriageway was
being given sanction in this area, then the Farm Road should be closed off from the
Durhamstown road right down to the Five cross roads other tan for the people who lived
along the road and the people who owned Ardbraccan or, effectively, the landowners.
He said he had one final matter he wanted to refer to and that was about the public
questionaires handed out as the choice of questions used always puzzled him. He said
what puzzled him even more was the weighting given to various answers as they had
been told that 79% of people said that proximity to the motorway would be their biggest
issue. He said that the answer of "people living near the route 79%" to " what in your
opinion is the most important consideration" might be an Ibsenism but whether it was
that the people living near the route should be accommodated to allow then gain access to
the route or as in the people living in east or north of Navan. He said the second most
important weighting to" what in your opinion was the most important consideration" was
that 71% said archaeology and historical sites. He said that was part of Ms Joyce's
Powerpoint presentation to the Councillors on 8 May 2000 and that if indeed archaeology
and historical sites were so important to the people who filled in their questionaires and if
found to be an important consideration to put before the Councillors in terms of
weighting, then why was not more thought and more consideration given to it.
Mr. Casey concluded his submission by saying he would return to the Carrowmore
Graves judgement and that he wanted to quote from the final paragraph where Mr. Justice
McCarthy said " I would not like to end this judgement without paying tribute to the
courage of those who have at considerable monetary risk challenged the conduct of the
Local Authority in County Sligo, thereby going some way to answer the stated
observation of important archaeologists in the western world " Do the Irish have no
pride" ".
143. 6. Closing Submission by Peter Sweetman, on behalf of An Taisce :
Mr. Sweetman said that he would deal with the trees in Ardbraccan at the start of his
submission and said that one of the Beech trees in Ardbraccan had honey fungus which,
when it came into an estate, might stay dormant for a while or it might run rampant
throughout the estate. He said that no-one knew why it decided to do that but if it did
decide to run rampant, every tree around Ardbraccan House would die and that any
mitigation measures based on the survival of those trees were ill-founded. He said that
the Copper Beech, which was the most important screen at the back of the house, had
bracket-fungus and was at the end of its life and had to be assessed whether to take it
889
down now or wait for next year. He said that the small Beech in the middle of the view
had a forked leader at about 15 feet and would not grow into a substantial tree and that
the large Beech on the left as you looked from the house was mature to over mature and
might fall in the next storm. He said that if it happened that those three trees went, the
entire house and the view, which was the view used for the light in the photograph,
would then be exposed to the road from the toll plaza.
Mr. Sweetman said that the Ash trees at Durhamstown were overgrown hedgelings and
were growing on a bank, were inadequately supported and would be extremely prone to
constructionitis and he said that they had now discovered that movements of the
watertable were certain to take place on that site and said the trees could not be relied on
for any manner of screening. He said these trees also appeared to have a certain amount
of cavities in them and that Ash trees with cavities were the normal habitat of Bats. He
said that Mr. Burns was relying of the trees already in the landscape to mitigate the
impact on the landscape without doing any survey.
Mr. Sweetman said that they had heard on numerous occasions how the Council had
deliberately set out to obstruct throughout this development. He said that when Mr.
Keane could magically produce documents off the Material Contravention File which
were not on it 12 hours previously and refused to answer where he got it from or whose
possession it was in was an example of this obstruction. He suggested that Mr. Keane's
reason for refusing to answer was because the document had been deliberately suppressed
from the public. He said that the Council had worked on a need to know basis all the way
through and that this was abusing the public as it was a fundamental requirement of the
EIA process that the public be consulted. He said that Fr. Pat Raleigh had given similar
evidence of abuse by the Council to that of Ms Maher and he said that there had been
others who had also complained.
He said that An Taisce believed that some route improvement was required from Clonee
to Dunshaughlin and that Dunshaughlin needed to be by-passed and they accepted that
Navan needed some relief. He said that he had been going to say that An Taisce saw
nothing wrong with the Clonee to Dunshaughlin section and said that he really had not
looked at that section. He said that in view of the incompetence and deception in the
other sections they had looked at from Dunshaughlin to Navan and the Navan By-pass,
he could not recommend to even accept that part of the road since he saw no reason why
it should have been more competently looked at than the sections they had looked at in
detail.
Mr.Sweetman said it was absolutely clear from the evidence put before the Hearing that
the wrong route was chosen for that the Dunshaughlin to Navan section. He said the
Council continually relied on the socio-economic survey by someone who knew
absolutely nothing about socio-economics. He said that everything pointed to the Navan
By-pass going east of Navan and that the only reason for not putting it east of Navan
appeared to be that there was some clay east of a tailings pond that might be used to build
a tailings pond extension at a future time. He said that clay to build this tailings pond
could be sourced anywhere in Meath as Meath was basically deep clay soil. He said that
890
it was not a reason to destroy our heritage because the Navan mines might or might not
want to extend the tailings pond. He said he was one of the objectors to the tailings pond
and that it turned out that everyone was happy and that the conditions were basically
agreed and greatly improved the process. He said that it was a consultation process with
Tara Mines rather than a confrontation process with everything put on the table. He said
that the grass grew on one half of the tailings pond because they had spread mushroom
compost on it and planted grass and that while there was an element of cadmium
pollution there at two parts per million, the tailings pond was absolutely safe and without
any substantiation from the Council.
Mr. Sweetman said that the route selection of these two sections was fundamentally
flawed and that if the route selection from Dunshaughlin to Navan had been done
properly and proper alternatives looked at, it would have been impossible for it to come
out with the route that they now had come out with. He said that he and An Taisce
supported everything that Mr. Casey had said about the EIS, and he was just going to
extend that to the rest of the route. He said that the EIS was fundamentally flawed in law,
that it did not comply with th 1999 Regulations and did not comply with the NRA's own
road design guidelines.
He said that Ms Dempsey had said on Day one or two that the 1999 Regulations did not
apply to road designs and said he wanted to draw attention to the NRA's Project
Guidelines at page 38 and chapter 4. 3.1where the particular topic outlined were the EC
EIA Regulations SI 93 of 1999. He said one of these was archaeology and the NRA
version said that archaeology should include the necessary exploratory investigations. He
said that Ms Dempsey, Ms Gowen and Ms Joyce all said they did not do it that way but
did it afterwards. He said that was what happened at Carrickmines and was why the
Commissioner wrote once again to the Irish Government for not complying with the EIA
Directive. He said permission was given to a road without assessing the ground water and
massive problems arose and that the Glen of the Downs suddenly became an SAC and
this had not been looked at. He said that roads were no different to any other
infrastructure and were in the First and Second schedules requiring full EIA. He said that
this was also stated in the NRA guidelines which Mr. Whyatt said were in draft and said
that there were previous guidelines, version 1.0 of May 1999 which said much the same
thing including the 1999 Regulations, and there was no mention of draft on version 1.1 of
March 2000. He said this was another case where the Engineers in this project said they
knew best and did not need rules, they did not need to tell the public and did not need to
consult as they knew best and would talk down at people.
He said that the assessment of the ecology at the Boyne Valley crossing was non-existent
and that the same document said that where you were crossing an SAC detailed
mitigation measures should be put in place. He said that the "fumbled" mitigation
measures proposed at the site did not actually fit into the site relevant to the construction,
so they could not be implemented. He said that the EIS contained no details of the source
of the raw materials or of the deposition of waste and that the interactions of these was
something that was considered in the EIS and that nobody could answer questions on it at
the Hearing because everybody was passing the buck. He said that the micro-climate
891
relative to the road was not considered and there were fog patches in places and the
relevance of the Tara Mines shaft was not considered but that the mud for the tailings
pond was considered as very important. He said that there was no data for ground water
and that construction traffic was averaged over the entire route. He asked what was the
construction traffic at Ardbraccan and said nobody knew because no-one assessed it and
it was not in the EIS. He said that they said something would be done about it but that it
never was unless it was pinned down and that it could not be said what the mitigation
measures were on any point on the road because they were not in the EIS.
Mr. Sweetman said that he had to repeat what Ms Dempsey had said at the very
beginning which was that they did not put things in the EIS which they did not think were
necessary because if it was not in the EIS they could not be questioned on it and he said
that was very arrogant, but said that it might not be the exact wording but was something
on those lines and that the Inspector would read it for himself in the transcript. He said
that the information contained in the EIS relevant to the toll plazas was not, as he had
said previously and would say again, adequate to build a one-room cottage with the
information supplied and not adequate for a toll plaza. He said that he was convinced that
the 2001 Development Plan was a document that deliberately set out to deceive trhe
public and no evidence had been produced to convince him of anything else. He said they
had heard no mention of the White Quarry or Ardbraccan Quarry which was a late 17th or
early 18th century quarry out of which the stone came for some of the most important
buildings in this country such as Leinster House, Carton, the Customs House and
Ardsallagh. He said that the White Quarry had been flooded and filled in for many years
and that a cursory glance at the aerial photograph would have told the Engineering Team
that they had serious groundwater problems in that area because of its high watertable.
He said there had been evidence of PM10s and that the baseline levels of PM10s
presented was below the naturally occurring level so that they were not going to appear to
high when the evidence came in. He said that the noise data which had been collected on
the site was going to be ignored because the Engineering Team decided it did not fulfil
the criteria they had set themselves. He said the object of an EIS and assessment was that
all the relevant data be presented by the developer and that where the developer refused
to produce relevant witnesses, then it could only be stated that the relevant data was
either highly suspect or the developer was embarrassed at what might the answers might
be. Mr. Sweetman said that the no-show by Duchas at the Hearing on both ecology and
natural environment showed the sorry state this country was in relevant to its
implementation of the Habitats Directive. He said he welcomed the fact, and hoped it
would be soon, that the European Commissioner would be sending a European civil
servant to run Duchas because they were incapable of running it themselves.
Mr. Sweetman said that Mr. Perkins had his name on every document presented at the
Hearing but was nowhere to be seen as he was embarrassed at what had been put forward
and that so he should have been. He said that Mr. Murphy, who really was a developer,
was hiding under some stone because he was perpetuating a con-trick in planning terms
since this was a development by a private company looking to transfer an exemption
from the Planning Authority, and said that he did not want to tell the Hearing that
892
because he was embarrassed by it. He said that point 9 of Mr. Newman's submission
clearly stated what Mr. Lumley was trying to point out to Mr. Keane, while Mr. Keane
was being aggressive to him. He said that no-one looked at the electricity line that
crossed the Deer Park ( at Ardbraccan) and how it would cross the road and he would
love to have known.
Mr. Sweetman concluded his submission by saying that he hoped and was confident that
this road project would be the second road project in the country that would be refused
permission because it was outrageous.
145. 7. Closing Submission by Pat Butler S.C. for the Council :
Mr. Butler said that the exercise commenced on 21 August and now concluding on 21
November was, as had been restated several times, a fact finding exercise to give An
Bord all of the relevant information to allow them to make an assessment of the
environmental impacts of the development and to decide whether the scheme should go
forward. He said that his comments would only deal with facts insofar as they were
relevant to illustrate the legal issues raised by the objectors and that he would leave it to
the Inspector to balance the arguments made throughout the period of the Hearing. He
said there were two issues that he wanted to deal with at the end of his submission and
these were the route selection issue, which had been raised by various parties, and the
relationship between the Council as Road Authority and the promoters of the scheme and
the NRA.
He said that he would deal with the issues in the order they had been raised and,
commencing with the EIS, he said that Section 50 of the 1993 Roads Act as amended by
the 1999 Regulations set out what was required in an EIS and that Section 50 started off
by saying that an EIS must be prepared by a road authority for the types of development
set out in Section 50, including a motorway, in respect of the likely effects of the
proposed road development. He said that was absolutely critical in dealing with many of
the criticisms made by the objectors since it had been constantly stated and put to
witnesses appearing for the Council that what they were doing was justifying something
that they had already decided on. He said that it had frequently been explained to the
objectors that the Act specifically said that a project, the proposed road development,
must exist before the EIS was done and that therefore the EIS must by its nature and in
accordance with law deal with that road project. He said that the EIS must also look at the
alternatives that were considered but that it was not an EIS of these alternatives. Mr.
Butler said that that was the fundamental error many of the objectors had been making
throughout the Hearing when they had constantly asserted that what a proposer of a
scheme like this should do was not alone an EIS relating to the project, but one for every
alternative and he said that was not what was required.
He said that there must be a proposed road development and it was the likely significant
effects of that development that were to be considered. He said that the evidence that had
been put before the Hearing, throughout its entire length, had displayed that the likely
893
significant effects had been inquired into and that the required mitigation measures had
been set out and he submitted that was the position. He said that in the end it was still a
matter for An Bord to decide.
Mr. Butler said that much time had been spent putting the Project Engineers, and some of
the other witnesses for the Council, through extensive cross-examination relating to
matters which had led up to the decision to carry out this development and to propose the
scheme. He said they were undoubtedly entitled to go back and look at the Constraints
and other studies that had been carried out but that once the project was decided on then
it was that project which was the subject of the EIS. He said that brought up again the
proposition that the EIS was prepared to justify a proposal and insofar as that proposition
had been made, he said that he rejected it and he said that it was quite clear from the
legislation that this could not possibly be the basis on which the EIS was prepared.
Mr. Butler said that Mr. Casey in his submission had echoed some of the criticisms made
throughout the Hearing by various bodies or objectors but not to the same extent as those
made by Mr. Sweetman. He said that Mr. Sweetman seemed to have a paranoid view of
anything carried out by a public body and saw conspiracy at every turn. He said that there
had definitely a view taken by some objectors over the period of the Hearing that, in
some way, the Council had been hiding documents and had not been open. He said he
wanted to reject that view and said that it was quite clear, whatever the perception of
objectors, from listening to each of the witnesses for the Council that every attempt had
been made on their part to be open and explain and to be helpful.
He said that there had been criticism of the EIS as to its content and clarity in its function
of informing the public and said that it was interesting to note that a number of
professional witnesses appearing for objectors had invariably praised the EIS. He referred
to Mr. Conor Newman's first submission where he had stated that " Indeed the carc that
has gone into the preparation of this section of the various EIS statement is itself a
reflection of the standing of Tara." He referred to Mr. Terence Reeves Smyth's report for
Ms Maher which said " I have now read through Dr. O'Sullivan's contribution to the EIS
and feel that on the whole his report is quite good. Indeed it is superior to many other EIS
reports I have seen." He said that Mr. Peadar Creagh had made a presentation on behalf
of Raynestown when he said " The EIS is very well put together, it is hard to find fault
with it." He said those were examples where an objective view had been taken of the EIS
which found it to be a comprehensive, detailed and efficient report. He said that it was
also notable when Mr. Sean Finlay was called as a witness for Ms Maher and was asked
about the EIS that he did not say that any significant effect had not been set out in
relation to the geology, and that he had not criticised the EIS nor was a suggestion of a
criticism put to him.
Mr. Butler said that the issue of whether the traffic figures justified a motorway had been
raised at the early part of the Hearing by Mr. Frank Burke on behalf of his clients and he
said that the debate which had ensued on the previous day between Mr. Burke and Mr.
Evans had finally nailed that issue and said that Mr. Evans had made out,
comprehensively, the case for the motorway.
894
He said that the context of the Strategic Policy Guidelines (SPGs) was an issue that
concerned many people in the locality relating to the probable or possible provision of a
rail link from Navan to Dublin and why that was not considered as alternative. He said
that the legislation was quite clear and that the two words used relating to alternatives in
the Regulations were "what alternatives (if any) were considered". He said there was no
requirement to consider an alternative if that alternative had no bearing on the project in
hand and that, in any case, the SPGs themselves said in relation to rail that, until a proper
feasibilty study was carried out regarding the provision of a rail link, it was not an issue.
Mr. Butler submitted that it was quite correct that the alternative of a rail link balanced
against the provision of the motorway was not a proper matter to be taken into account.
He said that, additionally, the SPGs themselves in providing for a strategic transport
corridor clearly included the provision of a motorway and said that word was used in the
SPGs. He said it was clearly envisaged by the SPGs that, whatever about the other type of
transport links, a motor way would be provided.
Mr. Butler said that the issue of public participation had been repeatedly raised and said
that this had to be put in the context of the legislation which, in the case of Section 50,
required the specific publication of certain notices about the making of the scheme, times
for objection etc. He said that there was no requirement in law for what had now
developed as public consultation. He said there was provision in the Directive 85/337/EC
for the competent authority, in this case Ireland, to set out within its own legislation
provision for written submissions, public inquiry and time scales within which that
inquiry took place but said nothing about public consultation. He said that the system
developed in this country had gone further than the requirements, both Statutory and the
Directive, and had put public consultation into being and said that those public
consultation processes were carried out. He said that insofar as an argument was made by
the objectors that the public consultation process was not in accordance with the NRA
guidelines, he submitted that guidelines were guidelines and were not strictures or
statutory requirements. He said the guidelines were a template and an aid to help
individual local authorities to direct their affairs and said that if they diverted from them
this was not an infirmity in law, giving the example where the High Court so held in the
case of Smith and McEvoy v. Meath County Council.
He said that Mr. Sweetman had again raised the issue of the import of materials which
had been raised on a number of occasions in the Hearing and said that he was not going
to go through this in any great detail as the Inspector had heard submissions on that issue
at a very early stage of the Hearing. Mr. Butler said that the 1999 Regulations provided
for the promoter of a given scheme to be able to supplement the information during the
Hearing process and also provided that the information contained in the EIS need only be
such as was required to identify the project at the stage at which the Hearing process had
reached. He submitted that for all of those reasons and the reasons relating to future
processes dealing with planning applications etc, the EIS had adequately identified the
volumes and the effects of the import of materials.
895
He said an issue had been raised of "project splitting" and that issue had been raised in
the context of the reasoned opinion from the EC quoted by Mr. Casey and said that a
fundamental misconception had arisen about that whole concept and was constantly
reiterated by objectors. He said that the reasoned opinion was directing the Irish
Government's attention to particular issues and gave, as an example, the case of the
Ballymun Development Regeneration Scheme where the developer divided that scheme
up into 15 separate applications instead of applying for permission in one project. He said
that the purpose of dividing it was to make each application below the threshold requiring
an EIS and the Commission rightly pointed out that was not within the spirit or letter of
the Directive and should not have been allowed. He said that in the case of the M3
Scheme there were five projects merged into one big scheme and said that how this could
be argued to be project splitting was inconceivable and that, in any case, an EIS had been
prepared whereas the EC was complaining about splitting of projects to avoid preparing
an EIS.
Mr. Butler said that the position of the Elected Members had been raised and raised again
in his submission by Mr. Casey and he said he was surprised at Mr. Casey asserting that
the Elected Members had adopted the scheme, since he should know what their position
was. He said that the Elected Members did not adopt the scheme as the drawing up and
proposing of a scheme was an executive function and that Mr. Casey should know the
distinction between a reserved and an executive function. He said that the drawing up of
the scheme under the 1993 Act was not a reserved function of the Members but that the
County Manager had properly kept them informed of progress with the scheme and that it
had been presented to the members for their views. He said that the Elected Members had
voted for the provision of the County Development Plan 2001which included the
provision of a motorway in accordance with the scheme, as presented, and with a map
attached to the Plan which showed the motorway passing Ardbraccan. He said that the
Elected Members also passed the resolution amending the 2001 Plan and the Navan
Environs Plan specifically to take account of changes that had been made to the route. He
said that even if it could be said that there was some imperfection in the part played by
the Elected Members in bring forward the scheme, it was clear that they knew what was
provided for in the Plan and in the amendment.
He said that the issue relating to the Tree Preservation Order at Dalgan Park had been
raised and said that the Inspector should be satisfied from Mr. Killeen's evidence that the
Tree Preservation Order was provided for in both the 1994 plan and in the 2001 Plan.
Mr. Butler then referred to the argument made on Ms Maher's behalf about the variation
and said that the scheme and the indicative route were set out in the 2001 Plan at Section
3.5.2. (ii) at page 51 and bullet point 3 and provided specifically for a motorway from
Clonee to Kells. He said that Ms Maher had brought proceedings relating to the variation
of that Plan on the basis that she was not informed and did not know that a motorway was
to pass her property when, he said, that was quite clearly stated in the 2001 Plan. He said
that whatever arguments Mr. Casey had made in relation to what he perceived as
infirmities in the way the variation was brought in, that had no bearing on the fact that Ms
Maher and everybody in the Navan area was on notice from the 2001 Plan of March 2001
896
that a motorway was passing in the area as indicated. He said a further issue raised out of
the Plan in Ms Maher's submissions was that a Planning Application was refused in the
Ardbraccan area, with six reasons given, and that because one of those reasons was that
the setting of Ardbraccan would be affected, it had been argued from this that the placing
of the motorway in the setting of Ardbraccan was a breach of the Development Plan. He
said that argument could not have any substance when the provision of the motorway was
a specific objective in the CDP.
He said that Mr. Galligan, Ms Maher's then Counsel, had raised an issue at the start of the
Hearing about the notice published in the newspaper that the variation was about to be
debated and said that Mr. Galligan had argued the that the notice was defective as the
reason and description were not set out in the notice. Mr. Butler referred to Section 13 (3)
(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and said that this simply said the
requirement for the notice was to have the reason or reasons set out and said nothing
about a description and he said the notice was perfectly valid.
Mr. Butler said that Mr. Guthrie had been criticised for not knowing the provisions of the
SPGs and he had said that he knew of the guidelines but not their content. Mr. Butler said
the criticism had no foundation since Mr. Guthrie's function was as the Project leader and
said that the "planning" elements of the scheme were matters for the Planning Authority
and were dealt with by the Planning Officer who provided guidance for Mr. Guthrie and
other persons involved with the scheme. He said that the Planning Officer had given his
evidence relating to where the scheme sat within the context of the SPGs.
Mr. Butler referred to the matter of illegal camping raised by Mr. Laurance Ward and the
possibility of this developing along sections of the motorway and said that Section 69 of
the Roads Act provided specific machinery to deal with such situations and that there
were definitions in Section 59 for temporary dwellings which included those in carparks.
He said that Ms Ryan had raised the issue of access at Lismullin and her difficulty came
from her concern about an access being provided for, as she said, just one person and she
wanted that closed. He said that it was only in circumstances where the scheme would
deprive a person of their only access that the Council were obliged to provide an access
and that where it was stopped when that was not the only access, then it was a case for
compensation.
He then referred to Mr. Prendiville's evidence and his qualifications being called into
question and said that he accepted the Hearing was an informal one but said that
nonetheless, Mr. Prendiville's qualifications were questioned. Mr. Butler said that Mr.
Prendiville had given his evidence and the weight to be attached to that was a matter for
An Bord. He said he was drawing to the attention of An Bord that no countervailing
evidence was given that would contradict anything that Mr. Prendiville had said.
Mr. Butler said issues had been raised about the Habitats Directive and the proposal to
designate both the Boyne and Blackwater Rivers as SACs. He said that the legal
requirements for such designation were that there must be publication and there must be
confirmation of boundaries and while both Rivers had been put forward as candidates for
897
designation, neither publication nor designation of boundaries had been decided and
therefore, at present ( Note - as at 21 Nov.2002), they did not have a status in that regard.
He said that Mr. Nairn had given evidence that, even if they were SACs or had that
status, nothing that this scheme would do would affect those Rivers.
He said that the issue of Planning Permission for roads had been raised and he said that
Meath County Council were the proposers of this scheme, that they were the statutory
body entitled and required to propose such schemes and that the Council had the
Exempted qualification under Section 4 of the 2000 Act for roads in their functional area.
He said that Section 4(f) provided that any development carried out by or on behalf of the
local authority was also exempted. He said that an issue had been raised with the
Dunboyne By-pass relating to its location in the CDP and said that it was quite clear on
the Development Plan that an indicative line showing the By-pass of Dunboyne was
shown. He said that there could be no question from that of the Dunboyne By-pass being
something that the Council could not carry out.
He said that Mr. Casey had raised an issue about the Navigation Rights on the River
Boyne and said this was related to the issue on the importation of material. He said that in
the decision in Keane v. An Bord Pleanala, the Supreme Court had set out in great detail
the distinction that must be drawn between different forms of planning or licensing
regimes and gave as an example the case of someone applying for planning permission
for a public house. He said that permission did not entitle them to operate the public
house until they had obtained a liquor license. He said that it was a misconception which
had been stated throughout the Hearing that in the future some other license might not be
available to the Authority to enable the scheme to go ahead and that An Bord could not
go through with this function until that other license had been obtained. He said that in
the same way as the person proposing to build a public house might not have his liquor
license at the time he applied for planning permission did not mean that the application
could not be dealt with, the same applied for this application to An Bord. He said that all
of these licensing regimes were separate in their own right and that the same applied to
common law rights. He said that in the case of Mr. Casey's Clients owning navigation
rights that might interfere with the ability of the Council to carry out this scheme, that
was a matter that the Council would have to deal with in its own time and he said that it
was not a matter that rendered the ability of An Bord to make a decision on this scheme
redundant.
Mr. Butler said he wanted to deal with the Route Selection argument which had been
raised particularly by the Meath Road Action Group and in various guises by other
objectors and by Ms Maher. He said that Mr. Guthrie had, on several occasions, set out in
detail the chronology that had lead to the making of the scheme and that he had been
repeatedly cross-examined on why the Corridor Selection Report had followed the Route
Selection Report, with it being put to him that the NRA Guidelines said it should have
been in a different sequence. He said that Mr. Guthrie had set out in great detail why that
was so, but it seemed that no matter how often it was said that the objectors just did not
want to hear.
898
Mr. Butler said that, as had been set out in some considerable detail, there had been a
number of schemes proposed in the late 1990s and that it had then been decided these
should be upgraded into one overall scheme. He said that it was decided logically and for
economic reasons that all of the preparatory work done on individual schemes should not
be dumped and go back to square one, and that for similar logical reasons it was decided
to validate the selections which had already been made by carrying out a Corridor
Selection Report. He said that was the chronology followed and that, despite repeated
explanations, the objectors refused to accept that explanation. He said it was logical and
reasonable and that Mr. Guthrie had set out in his evidence that the Corridor Selection
Report had validated the selection process. Mr. Butler said that the entire scheme was
founded first on Government policy, second on the policy in the CDP which followed
from that, third on the Needs Study carried out in 1998 and updated and had a sequential
foundation in policy that justified the need to build and gave a legal sound base to the
building of this scheme on the route as selected.
He then referred to the relationship between the Council and the NRA which, he said, had
been brought up frequently during the Hearing and again by Mr. Sweetman in his
submission. He said that the NRA had been set up by legislation in 1993 when it was
given specific functions to oversee the implementation of the road program on National
Roads and that it was also decided that funding for that program should be directed
through the NRA. He said the fact of the Legislature doing this and setting up an
Institution to oversee the implementation of these schemes by the Local Authorities was
not a mythical structure, as it had been developed into by the objectors, but was a simple
and very obvious legal structure. He said there was a conduit called the NRA that had a
supervisory role over the development of that program, its implementation and its
funding. He said that the people given the power to carry out the scheme under that Act
were the Meath County Council. He said that in relation to contracting out of that work,
that was no different than for any other public scheme in the Country and said that if a
Local Authority wanted to build Sewage scheme or a Landfill scheme they normally
contracted this out and it was the same for this Motorway. He said that the constant
sniping at the NRA and the relationship between the Council and the NRA had no
substance, no validity and was a red herring at the scheme and the Hearing.
Mr. Butler said that there were two elements to the Hearing, the first being the
recommendation of the Scheme to An Bord Pleanala and he said that he did recommend
it to them. He submitted that the Scheme was fully in accordance with law, as being
carried out in accordance with the requirements of law, and was a proper scheme to be
approved by An Bord. He said that in relation to the EIS he also recommended that, and
submitted that it fully accorded with the requirements of law, the requirements of the
Directive and of the Regulations made thereunder. Mr. Butler concluded by referring to
the comments that Mr. Sweetman had attributed to Ms Dempsey and said that he had no
recollection of her making any of the comments she was supposed to have made. He said
that he noted Mr. Sweetman himself had now admitted that it was not an exact quote
from what she had said and he said that he thought the quality and substance of what Mr.
Sweetman had said stood by that remark.
899
(Note -- The comments attributed to Ms Dempsey appear to have been based on her
replies when being cross-examined by Mr. Burke, see Section 23.7 of this Report, and
seem to have been given a meaning that was out of context for the line of questioning
being pursued in that cross-examination.)
144. Applications for Costs :
During the course of the Hearing applications for Costs to be awarded to their clients
were made by Mr. Anderson, Solicitor on behalf of Mr. Basil Brindley, Rathbeggan
House; Mr. Comyn, Solicitor on behalf of Mr. Michael Kieran, Knockmark; Mr. Paul
Brady, Solicitor, on behalf of his Clients and Mr. Declan McGrath B. L. on behalf of
Gerrardstown Stud. Mr. Michael O'Donnell B. L. on behalf of his Clients and Mr. Alan
Park on behalf of Bellinter Residents Association made a similar application during their
closing submissions and applications were made by Mr. Brendan Halligan of Raynestown
Residents Association and Mr. Ron Pagan of the Ardbraccan/ Boyerstown N3 Group also
applied for Costs.
It had been made clear at the early part of the Hearing, when Mr. Anderson made his
application, that the issue of costs was not something which would be dealt with in the
Inspectors Report, other than to note that an application had been made, and that a
separate application would have to be made to An Bord if the matter of costs under
Section 219 of the Planning and Development Act were to be considered. This comment
was repeated by the Inspector when subsequent applications were made during the course
of the Hearing.
145. Issues Required to be Addressed under Section 50 (2) and 50 (3)
of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended :
Section 50 (2) (a) : A description of the proposed road development, comprising
information about the site, design and size of the proposed road development.
Details of the background to the proposed road development is given on pages 1-13 of
Volume, with a more detailed description given on pages 13-16 and in Volume 2 of the
EIS. The design details were expanded on by the Project Engineers in their evidence and
cross-examination.
Descriptions of the proposed development are also given on pages :-
Vol.3A -- 3-13, 194-195, 202-209
Vol.3C -- A 1-2, D 2-7, E 1& G Section 1
Vol.4A -- 2-10, 77-78, 136, 145, & 165
Vol.4C -- A 3-4, D 5-6, E 3-5
Vol.5A -- 2-8, 128- 129, 137-138
900
Vol.5C -- A 1-2, & G 5
Vol.6A -- 1-8, 93, 143-144
Vol.6A -- C 1-2
Vol.7A -- 1-5 & 109
Note -- The differences in details that arise in the Untolled Scenario for each relevant
environmental effect are given at the end of each "A" Volume and for each Report in the
Appendices in the "C" Volumes. These details are not being listed in this commentary on
Sections 50 (2) & 50 (3) since they do not affect the issue of compliance with those
Sections and would extend the commentary unnecessarily.
50 (2) (b) : A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if
possible, remedy significant adverse effects.
Amelioration measures designed to reduce significant adverse effects of the proposal are
discussed in pages 22-27 of Volume 1 and in Chapters 15 each "A" Volume of the EIS
where the mitigation measures proposed are outlined. Mitigation measures are described
on page 4 in Volume 2 and on pages :-
Vol.3A -- 14-15, 37-38, 71, 117-119, 127- 128, figs. 5.1.4 - 5.1.8, 151-153,
168-172, 183-185, 197-200, figs. 8.1-8.2, 211-213, 217-224, 233, 247, 256-258,
285-295 and shown in each "B" volume on the appropriate drawing.
Vol.3C -- A 42-46, B 8-9, C 10-15 & 26, D 18-23, figs. SLM 101-103, E 18-20, F
44-48, G Section 5 & Table 6A, I 51-62.
Vol. 4A --14-15, 35, 51-54, 82-85, 96, figs. 5.1.5-5.1.8, 105-106, 116-118, 131-
133, 139-140, 148-149. 154-157, 177-179, 191-201.
Vol. 4C -- A 19-23, B 18-22, C 9-11, D 4, E 33-34
Vol. 5A -- 15, 22, 35, 51-54, 82-85, 95-96, figs. 5.1.4-5.1.6, 104-106, 115-116,
126, 130-131, 139-140, 166, 171-176, 180, 182, 184-196.
Vol. 5C -- A 43-44, 46-47, B Section 3.7-3.9, C Section 4.7- 4.9 & 4.14, D17-21,
figs. 101-103, E 121-14, F 40-47, G 13-28, H 51-54, I 20-21.
Vol. 6A -- 13, 56-57, 75-77, 100-102, 111, 122=123, 131, 135-137, 147-148, 161,
165-178, 179-180, 2010205, 209-210, 215-222.
Vol. 6C -- A 42-46, B Section 3.7-3.9, C Section 4.7- 4.9 & 4.14, D 16-18, E 18-
20, F Table 6, G 50-51 & 53-54.
Vol. 7A -- 23-24, 40, 55-57, 74-76, 91-93, 98-99, 111-112, 128-136, 179-186.
Vol. 7C -- A 35-39, B Section 3.7-3.9, C Section 4.7- 4.8,D 14-16, E 10-12 & 19-
22, F Table 6, G 25-27, H 12-14.
Section 50 (2) (c) : The data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which
the proposed road development is likely to have on the environment.
The data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed road
development is likely to have on the environment is scattered throughout the various
chapters of the EIS :-
901
Traffic volumes --- Vol.1 -- pages 1& 13; Vol.2 -- pages 19-25 & Maps 26-31
Vol.3A -- pages 29-30; Vol.3C -- pages A 19-29;
Vol.4A -- pages 22 & 32; Vol. 5A -- pages 20-21;
Vol.5C -- pages A 5 &21, C Section 4.2;
Vol.6A -- pages 22, 25-26, 3, 87-89; Vol. 6C A 21 & 27
Vol.7A -- pages 16, 18-19, 29; Vol.7C -- pages A 20 & 25.
Flora/Fauna impacts --- Vol. 2 -- page 4; Vol.3A -- 141-149 ( bat survey 146-147),
156-157, figs. 6.1.1- 6.1.4, 163-167, 174-181, figs 7.3.1-7.3.4;
Vol. 3C -- E pages 1-12 ( bat survey E10-11);
Vol. 4A -- pages 98-104, ( bat survey 103);
Vol. 4C -- B pages 2-15, C 3-8, (protected acquatic species C 6)
Vol. 5A -- pages 98-103, 112-113 ( bat survey 102)
Vol. 5C -- E pages 1-9 ( bat survey 8 & appendix 4)
Vol. 6A -- pages 115-120, figures 6.1-6.4, 128-129;
Vol. 6C -- E pages 3-16 (protected acquatic species 14)
Vol. 7A -- pages 85-90, ( bat survey 89), figs. 6.1-6.4, 128-129
Vol. 7C -- E pages 1-8 & 13-19 (bat survey 7 & protected
acquatic species 17)
Noise impacts ------- Vol. 1 -- page 22; Vol. 3A -- pages 92-94, 101-106;
Vol. 3C -- C pages 4-7; Vol. 4A -- pages 49-51, 60-65
Vol. 5A -- pages 64-69, 74-76: Vol.5C -- C Section 4.3-4.5
Vol. 6A -- pages 69-73; Vol. 6C -- C Section 4.3- 4.5;
Vol. 7A --pages 49-55; Vol. 7C -- C Section 4.3 - 4.5.
Pollution impacts ---- Vol. 3A -- pages 65-70, 195-196; Vol. 3C -- B pages 3-8;
Vol. 4A -- pages49-51, 60-65; Vol. 4C -- C page 7;
Vol. 5A -- pages 44-47; Vol.5C-- B section 3.3-3.4; F pages 9-26
Pollution impacts ---- Vol. 6A -- pages 49-53, 62-64, 146;
Vol. 6C -- B Section 3.3 -3.4; E4 &15;
Vol. 7A -- pages 33-36; Vol. 7C B Section 3.3-3.4.
Visual impacts ------- Vol. 1 -- page 23; Vol. 2 -- pages 42-43, 45-46;
Vol. 3A -- pages 113-116, 123-126, figs. 5.1.1 - 5.1.4
Vol. 3 C -- D pages 8-17.
Vol. 4A -- pages 78-81, 89-95, figs 5.1.1-5.1.4; Vol.4C -- A 3-7
Vol. 5A -- pages 82-84, 91-94.
Vol. 5C -- D pages 9-16, figs. IMP 101-103.
Vol. 6A -- pages 97-100, 105-110, figs. 5.5-5.8; Vol.6C -- D 9-12
Vol. 7A -- pages 74-75, 79-82, figs 5.4 -5.6; Vol.7C -- D 9-12
Landscape impacts --- Vol. 1 -- page 23; Vol. 2 -- pages 42-43, 45-46.
Vol. 3A -- pages 113-116, 121-122, figs. 5.1.1-5.1.4.
Vol. 3C -- D pages 8-17.
Vol. 4A -- pages 78-81, 89-95, figs. 5.1.1-5.1.4.
902
( VP 1, Tara on fig. 5.1.3; Central core Dalgan Park
and TPO on fig. 5.1.4); Vol. 4C -- A pages 3-7.
Vol. 5A -- pages 82-84, 91-94; Vol.5C -- D p 2-9, figs 5.1-5.4.
Vol. 6A -- pages 93-97, figures 5.1-5.4;
Vol. 6C -- D pages 3-9 & 12 ( VP 32 & VQs 3 &11)
Vol. 7A -- pages 69-73, figs. 5.1-5.3; Vol.7C -- D p 3-8 & 13.
Archaeology impacts -- Vol. 1 -- page 27; Vol. 2 -- pages 42-43, 45-46.
Vol. 3A -- pages 252-256; Vol. 3C -- I pages 5-36, 63-75.
Vol. 4A -- pages 166-175; Vol. 4C -- E pages 3-30
Vol. 5A -- pages 168-170; Vol. 5C -- H pages 3-50
Vol. 6A -- pages 191-200, figures 13.1-13.4
Vol. 6C -- G pages 1-21; H pages 2-5
Vol. 7A -- pages 147-160; Vol.7C -- G pages 1-21.
Architectural impacts -- Vol. 1 -- page 27; Vol. 2 -- pages 42-43, 45-46.
Vol. 3A -- page 121; Vol. 3C -- D page 4, J pages 1-9.
Vol. 4A -- pages 186-187; Vol.4C -- A page 5, Appendix F.
Vol. 5A -- pages 90, 178-180;
Vol. 5C -- D page 6, I pages 2-21 and Appendices ( Ardbraccan)
Vol. 6A -- pages 104, 207-212; Vol. 6C -- D page 4, G p 22-48.
Vol. 7A -- pages 167-172, 175; Vol. 7C -- H pages 1-11
Community impacts -- Vol. 1 -- pages 21-22; Vol. 2 -- pages 42-46
Vol. 3A -- pages 27-36, 40-54; Vol. 3C -- A pages 30-41
Vol. 4A -- pages 23-25, 30-31.
Vol. 5A -- pages 17-20; Vol. 5C -- A pages 9-20.
Vol. 6A -- pages 2-34, 38-41; Vol. 6C -- A p 4-20 & App. A7
Vol. 7A -- pages 15, 321-32; Vol. 7C -- A pages 4-19.
Material Asset impacts -- Vol. 1 -- pages 26, 42-43, 45-46
Vol. 3A -- pages 196, 208-209, 232-235; tables 10.2- 10.5
figures 10.1.1 - 10.1.4
Vol. 4A -- pages 138, 146-147, 158, 162-163,
tables 10.2-10.5, figures 10.1.1 - 10.1.4
Vol. 5A -- pages 129, 136-138, 160-161, tables 10.2-10.5
Vol. 5C -- G pages 3-7.
Vol. 6A -- pages 144-145, 157-159, 179, 181-183,
tables 10.2 - 10.5; Vol. 6C -- F pages 1-5
Vol. 7A -- pages 110-111, 121-123, 137-140, 141-143
tables 10.2 - 10.5; Vol. 7C - Appendix F (no nos.)
Climatic impacts --- Vol. 1 -- page 25; Vol. 3A -- pages 201-303.
Vol. 4A -- pages 141-143; Vol. 5A -- pages 132-114.
Vol. 6A -- pages 151-153; Vol. 7A -- pages 115-117.
903
Water (Drainage) impacts --- Vol. 3A -- pages 180-183, 188, figures 7.3.1 - 7.3.4
Vol. 3C -- F pages 9-42
Vol. 4A -- pages 134-135;
Vol. 4C -- B pages 14-16, 18; C pages 7-8
Vol. 5A -- pages 113-114, 122, 124-125, figs. 7.1.1 - 7.1.3
Vol. 5C -- F pages 9-24
Vol. 6A -- pages 134-135, 138-140; Vol. 6C -- E p 4, 15.
Vol. 7A -- pages 97, 101-102, 105-106.
This data was also referred to at various stages during the evidence and crossexamination
of witnesses.
Section 50 (2) (d) : An outline of the main alternatives studied by the road authority
and an indication of the main reasons for its choice, taking into account the
environmental effects.
The alternatives considered are given on pages 13 to 19 of the Non Technical Summary,
Volume 1, of the EIS and are detailed in Volume 2 on pages 32 to 56 with Summary
Matrices for the alternative alignments assessed on user, engineering and environmental
aspects in each of the five Sections shown in Tables 4.1 to 4.5 on pages 57 to 59.
The locations for the initial alternative routes considered is described on pages 32 to 42
and shown on Figures 4.1 to 4.5 on pages 65 to 69, with up to 10 possible routes being
considered for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section; 6 possible routes in the
Dunshaughlin to Navan Section; 8 possible routes for the Navan By-pass Section; 6
possible routes for the Navan to Kells Section plus 2 links to the N52 and 5 possible
routes for the Kells to North of Kells Section. Four broad Corridors were identified for
each Section and these were also assessed to identify possible constraints on route
alignments within those corridors, with details given on pages 42 to 46 and shown on
Figures 4.6 to 4.10 on pages 70 to 74 and a summary of that assessment given in Table
4.6 on page 60 in Vol. 2. This suggests that the preferred corridor combination would be
Orange/Blue /Orange/Orange/Orange from Clonee to North of Kells. A further
assessment of the route option comparisons on engineering, environmental and economic
grounds is given on pages 46 to 52 from which the location of the Preferred Route
alignment is identified for each Section and this is shown on Figures 4.11 to 4.15 on
pages 75 to 79 in Volume 2 and the reasons for selecting that Preferred Route are given
in pages 46 to 52 in Vol. 2.
The Preferred Route for the M3 starts from the end of the Clonee By-pass, follows the
existing N3 to the junctions with the Trim and Ratoath roads and then swings to the west
of the existing N3, bypasses Dunshaughlin to the south and west, crosses over the N3 at
Roestown, north of Dunshaughlin, and continues northwards to the east of the N3,
passing between the Hills of Tara and Skreen, and re-crossing the N3 at Blundellstown to
the south of Navan. The M3 route continues to the southwest of Dalgan Park, crosses the
River Boyne and by-passes Navan to the south and west and stays west of the existing N3
in bypassing Kells, crosses the N52 and from there continues northwestwards as a single
904
carriageway road, still to the west of the existing N3, which it rejoins at the Meath /
Cavan County boundary north of Carnaross
Details of the alternative locations considered for the southern and northern toll plazas
are given on pages 61 to 64 in Volume 2.
Section 50 (2) (e) : A summary in non-technical language
This is contained in Volume 1 of the EIS and the summary corresponded generally with
the more detailed sections that followed in Volumes 2 to 7. However, the section on
Potential Construction Impacts at 5.5 did not contain the details of the quantity of
imported fill required to construct the embankments or of the expected consequential
truck movements to transport this fill, both of which are given at Section 3.6 in Vol. 2.
There were also short non-technical sections given in Vol. 3A on page 1; in Vol. 3C on
the first page of Appendix B, in Appendix F on pages 72-76 and in Appendix I on page
3; in Vol. 4C in Appendix D on pages 3-4 and in Vol. 5C in Appendix F on pages 49-51.
Section 50 (3) (a) ( i ) : A description of the physical characteristics of the whole
proposed road development and the land-use requirements during the construction
and operational phases.
The comments under Section 50 (2) (a) above are also applicable here with further details
given in :-
Vol. 1 -- pages 3-5, 23, 27; Vol. 2 -- pages 13-16,
Vol. 3A -- pages 3-12, 113, 194-195, 207-211, 246; Vol. 3C -- D pages 2-4
Vol. 4A -- pages 78, 136, 146-147; Vol. 4C -- D pages 9-14.
Vol. 5A -- pages 14, 137-138, 165; Vol. 5C -- D pages 3-5, G pages 6-7.
Vol. 6A -- pages 12, 143-144; Vol. 6C -- D page 3, F pages 2-3.
Vol. 7A -- pages 6, 110, 126-127; Vol. 7C -- D page 3, Appendix F
Section 50 (3) (a) (ii) : An estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and
emissions resulting from the operation of the proposed road development.
Details of the expected residues and emissions are given in the EIS under the relevant
requisite headings as follows:-
Water pollution --- Vol. 1 -- pages 24-25
Vol. 3A -- pages 167-171, 182-185, 195-196; Vol.3C -- F p 4-64.
Vol. 4A -- pages 130, 133, 137, 139; Vol. 4C -- B page 18, C page 8
Vol. 5A -- pages 115-118, 125-126; Vol. 5C -- F pages 22-39.
Vol. 6A -- pages 139-140, Vol. 6C -- E page 17.
Vol. 7A -- pages 97, 102, 105-106.
905
Air pollution --- Vol. 1 -- page 22; Vol.2 -- page 22
Vol. 3A -- pages 68-71, 73-78, figures 3.1- 3.5
Vol. 3C -- B pages 5-8, 23-26, figures 3.1- 3.4 & 17.1-17.2.
Vol. 4A -- pages 35, 41-43
Vol. 5A -- pages 49, 60-63, figures 3.3 - 3.4;
Vol. 5C -- B tables 3.12 -3.19
Vol. 6A -- pages 53-54, 65-67, figures 3.7 - 3.9
Vol. 6C -- B tables 3.12 - 3.16, figures 3.3 - 3.6
Vol. 7A -- pages 47-48, figures 3.6 - 3.7;
Vol. 7C -- B tables 3.11 - 3.13, figures 3.3 - 3.4
Soil pollution --- Vol. 1 -- pages 25, 27; Vol. 3A -- pages 196-198
Vol. 4A -- pages139; Vol. 5A -- pages 128-130
Vol. 6A -- pages 146-148; Vol. 7A -- pages 110-111
Noise pollution --- Vol. 1 -- page 22;
Vol. 3A -- page 97; Vol. 3C -- C pages 15-15, 20-27
Vol. 4A -- pages 55-56
Vol. 5A -- page 78; Vol.5C -- C section 4.6.8 - 4.8
Vol. 6A -- pages 74-75, 86; Vol.6C -- C section 4.6.8 - 4.8
Vol. 7A -- pages 54, 65; Vol.7C -- C section 4.6.8 - 4.8
Vibration --- Vol. 1 -- page 22; Vol. 3A -- pages 98-99; Vol.3C -- C p 18-19
Vol. 4A -- pages 80-81;
Vol. 5A -- pages 80-81; Vol. 5C -- C section 4.10 - 4.14
Vol. 6A -- pages 79-80; Vol. 6C -- C section 4.10 - 4.14
Vol. 7A -- pages 59-60; Vol. 7C -- C section 4.10 - 4.14
Light pollution -- Vol. 2 -- page 16; Vol.3A -- page 247.
Vol. 4A -- pages 80, 162; Vol. 4C -- A page 19.
Vol. 5A -- page 165.
Vol. 6A -- page 95, 185-186; Vol. 6C -- D page 7
Waste pollution --- Vol. 3A -- page 196; Vol. 4A -- page 139; Vol. 5A -- page 130
Vol. 6A -- page 147; Vol. 7A -- page 111
In my opinion, these are adequately addressed in the EIS and these issues were also
discussed in the evidence and cross-examination of the Council witnesses, where the
predicted emission levels and mitigation measures proposed where required, were further
expanded upon.
906
Section 50 (3) (b) : A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be
significantly affected by the proposed road development, including in particular :-
1. Human Beings, Fauna and Flora :
The effects of the proposal on Human Beings arise under a number of headings:
Traffic Volumes -- Safety issues
Details of traffic volume changes from the provision of the M3 motorway and their
effects are discussed in the following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- pages 1, 13; Vol. 2 -- pages 3-4, 19-3, 80-104
Vol. 3A -- pages 27-36; Vol. 3C -- A pages 19-23, 33-37
Vol. 5A -- pages 18-22; Vol. 5C -- A pages 23-32
Vol. 6A -- pages 30-34; Vol. 6C -- A page 21
Vol. 7A -- pages 16-20; Vol. 7C -- A page 20
The most significant impacts identified is the reduction in traffic flows on the existing N3
and in through traffic flows on the Main Street area of Dunshaughlin by 75%, in Navan
by 78% and in Kells by 90% on 2004 traffic flows and in a reduction predicted for
accident statistics of between 30% and 50%
Traffic Noise and Vibration
Details of predicted Traffic noise are discussed in the following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- page 22; Vol. 3A -- pages 92-106; Vol. 3C -- C pages 7-10, 22-25.
Vol. 4A -- pages 48-51; Vol. 5A -- pages 64-68; Vol.5C -- C section 4.6
Vol. 6A -- pages 70-75; Vol. 6C -- C section 4.6
Vol.7A -- pages 52-55; Vol. 7C -- C section 4.6
These were based on a target noise criterion of 68 dB LA10 18hour for determining
where mitigation measures involving the provision of noise barriers were required.
Details of the possible impacts of Vibrations from traffic both from construction and
operation of the road are discussed in pages :-
Vol. 1 -- page 22; Vol. 3A -- pages 98-99; Vol.3C -- C p 18-19
Vol. 4A -- pages 80-81
Vol. 5A -- pages 80-81; Vol. 5C -- C section 4.10 - 4.14
Vol. 6A -- pages 79-80; Vol. 6C -- C section 4.10 - 4.14
Vol. 7A -- pages 59-60; Vol. 7C -- C section 4.10 - 4.14
907
These indicated that during construction all practicable means, as in BS 5228, would be
used to limit vibrations from construction plant, and that when the road was in operation
ground vibrations would be very much less than those required to cause disturbance.
Air Pollution :
The impacts on Air quality are discussed in the following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- page 22; Vol. 2 -- page 4
Vol. 3A -- pages 68-71, 212; Vol.3C -- B pages 4-8; Vol.4A -- pages 34-35,41-43
Vol. 5A -- pages 47-50; Vol. 5C -- B section 3.5-3.9 & appendix 1
Vol. 6A -- pages 55-56, 65-66; Vol. 6C -- B section 3.5-3.9 & appendix 1
Vol. 7A -- pages 33-36; Vol. 6C -- B section 3.5-3.9 & appendix 1
The predictions showed that air quality in the vicinity of the motorway would be in
compliance with known future air quality criteria, and that air quality on the existing N3
would have increased concentrations of pollutants if the motorway was not constructed.
Severance :
The effects of Severance for communities and on agricultural lands are discussed in the
following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- pages 21, 26; Vol. 2 -- pages 42, 44-46
Vol. 3A -- pages 32, 207, 212, figs. 2.3-2.3.6; Vol. 3C--A p 30-37, G sects. 1 & 4
Vol. 4A -- pages 24, 148, 154-157; Vol. 4C -- D pages 16-17
Vol. 5A -- pages 20, 139; Vol.5C -- A pages 23-24, G pages 9-12
Vol. 6A -- pages 41-43, 160; Vol. 6C -- A page 21, F page 5
Vol. 7A -- pages 29-30, 124; Vol.7C -- A page 20, Appendix F
Fauna and Flora :
Both Aquatic and Non- Acquatic Fauna are affected :-
The impacts on Acquatic Fauna are discussed in the following pages :-
Vol.1 -- page 24; Vol.2 -- page 4;
Vol. 3A -- pages 164-165, 175-179; Vol. 3C -- F page 17( protected species)
Vol. 4A -- pages 113-116 ( protected species page 114)
Vol. 4C -- C pages 3-8 ( protected species page 6)
Vol. 5A -- pages 112-114; Vol. 5C -- F pages 2-39
Vol. 6A -- pages 127-129; Vol. 6C -- E page 17( protected species page 126 )
Vol.7A -- page 95-98 ( protected species page 96-97)
908
The Protected species referred to are listed in Annex 11 of the Habitats Directive and are
Salmon, Lamprey, White Clawed Crayfish and Freshwater Pearl Mussel. Evidence was
given that the construction of the bridges and culverts crossing the habitats where these
protected species existed would be arranged so that there would be no direct impact on
the habitat at those crossings.
The impacts on Non-Acquatic Fauna including Birds, Badgers and Otters are discussed
in the following pages :-
Vol.1 -- page 24; Vol. 3A -- pages 146-150 ( Bat survey page 146-147)
Vol. 4A -- pages 103-104, 112 (Bat survey page 103, 112); Vol. 4C -- B p 1-16
Vol. 5A -- pages 98-103,111(Bat survey page 102, 111); Vol. 5C -- E pages 1- 9
Vol. 6A -- pages 115-122; Vol. 6C -- E 16-17
Vol. 7A -- pages 85-90 (Bat survey page 89); Vol.7C -- E pages 3-8
In the the EIS it was stated that there were no NHA's, SAC's or SPA's affected by the
proposed road, but this was amended by the Council during the Hearing in the context of
the submission by Duchas of 22 April 2002 to An Bord Pleanala that the Rivers Boyne
and Blackwater were now proposed candidate SACs. This is discussed in more detail at
several sections of the evidence and cross-examination of Council witnesses ( See
Sections 57.8, 91.1& 110.2 ). The Council gave evidence that the construction of the
river crossings for both Boyne and Blackwater would not directly impact on the proposed
candidate SACs.
See also the reference to the Annex 11 species of the Habitats Directive referred to at
Acquatic Fauna above, which were also detailed in the EIS.
The effects on Flora arises under two headings :
Plants :- The flora along the route is discussed in the following pages with no rare or
protected species being found in the surveys along the route of the proposed road and no
NHAs, SPAs or SACs affected :-
Vol.1 -- page 4; Vol. 3A -- pages 141-146, 148-149; Vol. 3C -- E pages 2, 7.
Vol. 4A -- pages 103-104; Vol. 5A -- pages 98-100; Vol. 5C -- E pages 2-5.
Vol. 6A -- pages 115-118; Vol. 6C -- E pages 3-7.
Vol. 7A -- pages 85-87; Vol. 7C -- E pages 3-6.
Trees :- No specimen trees would be affected by the proposed road but 2402 mature
trees, 1406 of which are Ash trees would have to be removed. It is considered that the
residual impacts on hedgerows would be minor. The effects on trees are also dealt with
in the following pages :-
Vol. 3A -- pages 114, 122, 142, 145, 156; Vol. 3C -- D pages 3, 9; E pages 9, 17.
Vol. 4A -- pages 79, 81, 98, 103-104, 111; Vol. 4C -- A pages 4-5, B page 7.
909
Vol. 5A -- pages 82, 85, 100-101, 110; Vol.5C -- D page 4; E pages 5-6, 18.
Vol. 6A -- pages 94, 118, 125; Vol. 6C -- D page 3; E page 8-9, appendix 3 p 4
Vol.7A -- pages 70, 88, 94; Vol.7C -- D page 3; E page 5, appendix 3 page 25
2. Soil, Water, Air, Climatic factors and the Landscape :
Soil :
No areas of contaminated ground were identified in the assessment of Soil along the
route. Substantial quantities of soil would have to be excavated in cuttings along the route
and it is anticipated that there would be a substantial shortfall in the quantities of suitable
fill material to form the embankments, which would require over 4.5 M cubic metres to
be imported from borrow pits elsewhere from the figure given in Volume 2 of the EIS.
The figures given in Section 8.4 of Vols. 3A to 7A suggest this could be a higher
quantity but more accurate figures, based on more up to date calculations, were given in
their evidence by the Project Engineers at Sections 25.1, 50.1, 86.1 & 102.1 in this
Report.
The location of these external borrow pits and the transport of material from these to the
site and the location of possible disposal sites and transport of waste material to them was
questioned and discussed at the Hearing and is commented on further on at Sections 147
& 148 of this Report. See also comments at Section 50 (3) (d) below.
The effects on soils are discussed on the following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- page 25; Vol. 2 -- pages 16, 23; Vol. 3A -- pages 194-198, 213, 247.
Vol. 4A -- pages 137, 146; Vol. 5A -- pages 130, 137,
Vol. 6A -- pages 144-146, 158. Vol. 7A -- pages 110-111, 122
Water :
The impacts on Water are discussed in the EIS with the use of Attenuation ponds
proposed at several locations to mitigate outflow rates where this was considered to be
necessary in particular storm conditions. A Flood study using the HEC-RAS model was
undertaken for the part of the Tolka River catchment upstream of the proposed route
where there is a history of flooding in the Dunboyne and Clonee areas and mitigation
measures are identified to minimise the impact from the proposed road development on
this flooding.
The effects on Water are discussed in the following pages :-
Vol.1 -- pages 24-25.
Vol. 3A -- pages 149, 167-168, 182-187, 196; Vol. 3C -- F pages 44-60.
Vol. 4A -- pages 104, 116, 130-131; Vol. 4C -- C pages 7-8
Vol. 5A -- pages 112-114, 124-126, 130; Vol. 5C -- E pages 6, F page 11-21
910
Vol. 6A -- pages 127-129, 138-140; Vol. 6C -- E pages 12-13, 17
Vol. 7A -- pages 95-98, 102; Vol.7C -- E pages 15-16
Air and Climatic factors :
The impacts on Air quality are discussed on the following pages :-
Vol.1 -- page 25; Vol.3A -- pages 67-70; Vol. 3C -- B pages 4-8
Vol. 4A -- pages 32-35.
Vol. 5A -- pages 46-50; Vol. 5C -- B sections 3.5- 3.6, appendix 2.
Vol. 6A -- pages 55-56; Vol. 6C -- B sections 3.5- 3.6, appendix 2.
Vol. 7A -- pages 34-40; Vol. 7C -- B sections 3.5- 3.6, appendix 2.
The results of the predicted air quality impacts indicate that worst-case pollutant
concentrations would comply with the relevant EU and Irish limit values along the route
of the proposed road development and that there would be significant reductions in
pollutant concentrations in NO2, particularly in Dunshaughlin, as a result of the proposed
motorway
The effects on Climatic factors are reported in section 9 of Vols. 3A to 7A the EIS and
were not considered to be significant.
The Landscape :
Details of the visual impacts of road on the Landscape and on adjoining properties are
discussed in the following pages:-
Vol. 1 -- page 24; Vol.3A -- pages 113-117; Vol. 3C -- D pages 8-17, 23.
Vol. 4A -- pages 81-82, 89-95, (TPO impacted at Dalgan Park) Vol. 4C--A p 3-7
Vol. 5A -- pages 82-84; Vol. 5C -- D pages 3-8
Vol. 6A -- pages 93-99; Vol. 6C -- D pages 3-15.
Vol. 7A -- pages 69-75; Vol. 7C -- D pages 3-13.
Visual Quality zones in the County Development Plan at VQ 3 - River Valleys, VQ 9 -
Tara and Dunsany and VQ 11- Rural and Agricultural are affected as well as Views and
Prospects at VP 1- Tara, VP 27 at Skreen and VP 32 Blackwater Valley but there are no
areas described as Sustainable Recreational Use of Natural Assets (SRUNAs) in the
Development Plan directly impacted on by the proposed motorway.
The visual impacts are also discussed in the evidence and cross-examination of the
Council's Planning Officer and Landscape expert witness, see Sections 21.1 and 62. 1 &
62.4 of this Report.
911
3. Material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, and the
cultural heritage :
Material assets :
These arise under two headings, Agricultural and Non-Agricultural including Natural
Resources.
The effects on Agriculture are discussed in the following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- page 26; Vol. 2 -- pages 42-46
Vol. 3A -- pages 207-211, figs. 10.1.1- 10.1.4; Vol. 3C -- G sections 3 & 4.
Vol. 4A -- pages 145-148, figs. 10.1.1- 10.1.4; Vol. 4C -- D pages 5-14
Vol. 5A -- pages 136-138; Vol. 5c -- G pages 3-12.
Vol. 6A -- pages 157-161; Vol. 6C -- F pages 2-6.
Vol. 7A -- pages 121-125; Vol. 7C -- Appendix F ( unnumbered)
The effects on Non-agriculture and Natural Resources are discussed in the following
pages :-
Vol. 1 -- page 26; Vol. 2 -- pages 42-46
Vol. 3A -- pages 232-233, 246-247, figs 11.1.1-11.1. 4
Vol. 3C -- A pages 38-41; D page10.
Vol. 4A -- pages 23, 158, 161, figs 11.1.1- 11. . 4
Vol. 5A -- pages 160-161, 165-166, figs. 11.1.1 - 11.1.3
Vol. 6A -- pages 179-183, 185-187. Figs. 11.1 - 11.4
Vol. 7A -- pages 137-140, figs 11.1 -- 11.3
Architectural Heritage and Cultural Heritage:
The effects on the Architectural and Cultural Heritage are discussed in the following
pages :-
Vol. 1 -- page 27; Vol. 2 -- 42-46.
Vol. 3A -- pages 121, 277-279, photos 14.1-14.2; Vol. 3C -- D page 4, J pages 1-9
Vol. 4A -- pages 88, 186-187; Vol. 4C -- Appendix F ( no. pg nos.)
Vol. 5A -- pages 178-180; Vol. 5C -- H pages 9-10, I pages 2-21 & appendices
Vol. 6A -- pages 207-212; Vol. 6C -- G pages 21-49
Vol. 7A -- pages 167-174; Vol. 7C -- H pages 12-16.
In their submission to An Bord Pleanala of 25 April 2002, Duchas referred to the
interpretation of the definition of "architectural heritage" as defined in the Architectural
Heritage( National Inventory) & Historic Monuments Act 1999 used in the preparation of
the EIS as being too restrictive and suggested that those parts, particularly in Volumes 3
to 6, should be reviewed. Duchas suggested that, with the exception of Volume 7, the
items considered in the EIS were confined largely to country houses and some bridges
912
and that no reference had been made to vernacular structures, existing village complexes,
items of industrial heritage such as corn mills etc, bench marks, farm structures and
complexes, demesne grounds, walls, entrance gates and structures of the latter part of the
19th and all of the 20th century. The Council responded to these suggestions by Duchas
and this is detailed in Sections 60 and 60.1 of this Report. Duchas did not attend and
were not represented at the Hearing. The effects on the settings of demesnes, particularly
for Ardbraccan and Dowdstown House, were extensively discussed in the crossexamination
of the Council witnesses on this aspect.
Archaeology:
This is discussed in the following pages :-
Vol.1 -- page 27; Vol. 2 -- pages 42-46.
Vol. 3A -- pages 121, 252-256, 260-263, figs. 13.1.1 - 13.1.4, photos 13.1 -13.8
Vol. 3C -- I pages 5-36;
Vol. 4A -- pages 165-175, figs. 13.1.1 - 13. 1. 4; Vol. 4C -- E pages 3-30.
Vol.5A -- pages 168-170; Vol.5C -- H pages 3-50
Vol. 6A -- pages 191-200; Vol. 6C -- G pages 1-21
Vol. 7A -- pages 147-162; Vol. 7C -- G pages 22-31
The effects on Archaeology by the proposed route would involve the excavation and
preservation by record of a number of archaeological sites, some of which had been
identified as potential archaeological site or complexes by a Geophysical Survey
undertaken for the Council along the proposed route in the Dunshaughlin to Navan
Section and at Nugentstown on the section from Navan to Kells. The number of sites
identified as requiring to be excavated totals 20 with one of these located in the valley
between the Hill of Tara and the Hill of Skreen. The potential impacts of the route being
placed in the valley between the Hill of Tara and the Hill of Skreen from and
archaeological, cultural and historical perspectives was extensively discussed in the
cross-examination of the Council's expert witnesses, particularly Ms Margaret Gowan at
the Hearing and a verbal submission was made by Mr. Conor Newman, the former
director of the Discovery Programme on the potential impact of the route on the Tara
landscape. The Council submitted proposals for pre-construction archaeological
investigations along the route in response to the Inspector's request arising for the
concerns expressed about the potential impacts on archaeological sites both known or yet
to be identified.
4. The Inter-relationships between the above factors :
While there is no specific chapter on the appraisal of the interactions in the EIS, the Interrelationship
between aspects of the environment and their potential impact on one another
is discussed in several parts of the EIS with inter-relationship matrices being given in
Tables 1.1 and 1.3 in Volume 2. There are also descriptions of the interactions between
913
the various aspects given at the start of several of the sections within each of Volumes 3A
to 7A of the EIS. The interactions were also referred to by a number of witnesses during
evidence and cross-examination at the Hearing. The details of where the interrelationships
are discussed in the EIS are given in the following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- pages 21, 23, 27.
Vol. 2 -- pages 4, 56-54, Table 1.1 page 4, Table 1.3 page 9.
Vol. 3A -- pages 25, 115, 139, 205, 249; Vol.3C -- A 47-49; D pages 2-5.
Vol. 4A -- pages 21, 97, 144, 164. Vol. 5A -- pages 16, 97, 135, 167.
Vol. 6A -- pages 19, 113, 155, 189. Vol. 7A -- pages 11, 83, 119, 145.
I am satisfied that the inter-relationships between the various factors at 1 to 3 of Section
50 3 (b) above were adequately dealt with, between the details given in the EIS and the
evidence presented at the Hearing.
Section 50 (3) (c) : A description of likely significant effects (including direct,
indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long, permanent and
temporary, positive and negative ) of the proposed road development on the
environment resulting from :
1. The existence of the proposed road development :
The aspects of the environment affected by the existence of the proposed road
development are:-
Humans with regard to Safety, Noise, Visual Effects, Community and Severance and the
degree to which they are affected are outlined in the EIS on the following pages :-
Vol. 3A -- pages 64,70, 92-94, 116;
Vol. 3C -- B pages 8-12, 23-26; C pages 10-14, 22-25.
Vol. 4A -- pages 35, 49, 51, 75, 85.
Vol. 5A -- pages 20-22, 32, 34-40, 50, 66-67, 91-94
Vol. 5C -- A pages 25-31; B sect. 3.5-3.6; C sect. 4.7 - 4.9; D pages 9-16; G p 12.
Vol. 6A -- pages 28-34, 55-56, 74-77, 97-99.
Vol. 6C -- A pages 22-28; B sect. 3.5 - 3.6; C sect. 4.7 - 4.9; D pages 10-14.
Vol. 7A -- pages 12-22, 39-40, 54-55, 79-82.
Vol. 7C -- A pages 19-20; B sect. 3.5 - 3.6; C sect. 4.7 - 4.9; D pages 9-13.
Flora / Fauna, and the degree to which these are affected are discussed in the EIS on the
following pages :-
Vol. 2 -- page 4. Vol. 3A -- pages 149-150, 167-172, 175-179
Vol. 3C -- E pages 14-20; F pages 49-70
Vol. 4A -- pages 103-104, 116; Vol. 4C -- B pages 16-22; C pages 8-1.
Vol. 5A -- pages 103-104; Vol.5C -- E pages 10-11; F pages 2-39.
914
Vol.6A -- pages 121-122; Vol.6C -- E pages 16-17
Vol. 7A - pages 90-92, 98-99; Vol. 7C -- E pages 2-8.
Protected aquatic species, such as the salmon, lamprey, white clawed crayfish and
freshwater pearl mussel, and protected non-acquatic species, such as the otter and bats,
are discussed in the above pages.
Landscape, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage and the degree to which these are
affected are outlined in the EIS in the following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- pages 23, 27; Vol. 2 -- page 4.
Vol. 3A -- pages 115-119, 252-269, 277- 279;
Vol. 3C -- D pages 8-17; I pages 12-36, figs. 1-8 and photos 1-33
Vol. 4A -- pages 80-82, 175-177, 180-187;
Vol. 4C -- A pages 8-18; E pages 31-32; Appendix F ( unnumbered )
Vol. 5A -- pages 84-88, 91-96, 168-170, fig.5.1.3 ( Ardbraccan)
Vol. 6A -- pages 95-99, 200-202, 209-210; Vol. 6C -- D pages 7-15; G page 1-49
Vol. 7A -- pages 71-74, 161-163, 172-174;
Vol. 7C -- D pages 7-13; G pages 1-31; H pages 1-16
2. The Use of Natural Resources :
The aspects of the environment affected by the use of Natural Resources are outlined in
the following pages :-
Vol. 1 -- page 26; Vol. 2 -- pages 16, 23.
Vol. 3A -- pages 13, 196, 246-247; Vol. 3C -- G section 4
Vol. 4A -- pages 12, 138-139, 163-163; Vol. 4C -- D pages 14-19
Vol. 5A -- pages 130, 143; Vol. 5C -- G pages 8-15
Vol. 6A -- pages 144-146, 185-187; Vol. 6C -- Appendix F (unnumbered)
Vol. 7A -- pages 110-111, 141-143; Vol. 7C -- Appendix F (unnumbered)
3. The emission of Pollutants and the creation of Nuisances and the elimination of
wastes:
The aspects of the environment affected are Noise, the Air Quality and the Receiving
Waters and Receiving Soils and these are discussed in the following pages :-
Noise :
Vol. 1 -- page 29.
Vol. 3A -- pages 92-94, 96-98, 106; Vol. 3C -- C pages 7-12, 22-27.
Vol. 4A -- pages 51, 67-75; Vol. 5A -- page 78; Vol.5C -- C section 4.6 - 4.8.
915
Vol. 6A -- pages 74-75, 86; Vol. 6C -- C section 4.6 - 4.8
Vol. 7A -- pages 53, 65-67; Vol. 7C -- C section 4.6 - 4.8.
Air quality :
Vol. 1 -- page 28. Vol. 3A -- pages 68-78; Vol. 3C -- B pages 4-9.
Vol. 4A -- pages 35, 41-43;
Vol. 5A -- pages 60-63, Vol. 5C -- B tables 3.12 -3.19, figs. 3.3 -3.5.
Vol. 6A -- pages 55-56, 63-67; Vol. 6C -- B tables 3.12 -3.16, figs. 3.3 -3.5.
Vol. 7A -- pages 47-48; Vol.7C -- B tables 3.11 -3.13.
Receiving Waters :
Vol. 1 -- pages 24-25.
Vol. 3A -- pages 149, 170-171, 183-185; Vol. 3C -- F pages 58-60, 69-71.
Vol. 4A -- pages 113-114; Vol. 4C -- C pages 7-8.
Vol. 5A -- pages 114-115, 121-123, 125-126; Vol. 5C -- F pages 27-39.
Vol. 6A -- pages 129, 134-135, 138-140; Vol. 6C -- E pages 12-13, 15.
Vol. 7A -- pages 98, 102, 105-106; Vol.7C -- E pages 9-10.
Receiving Soils :
Vol. 1 -- pages 25, 27; Vol. 3A -- pages 196-197; Vol. 4A -- pages 137-138.
Vol.5A -- pages 130-131; Vol. 6A -- pages 146-148; Vol.7A -- pages 110-111.
4. Forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment:
These are described for Traffic effects, for Noise pollution, for Air pollution and for
Water pollution on the following pages :-
Traffic :
Vol. 1 -- page 13 and Vol. 2 -- pages 19-22, 24-31, 80-104.
The forecasting methods used for Traffic effects were further discussed in the evidence of
M/s Guthrie & Richardson in Sections 17.1 and 20.1 and in their cross-examination by
Mr. Burke in Sections 17.2 and 20.2 and in Mr. Burke's cross-examination of Mr. Evans
in Section 134.1 all of this Report.
Noise :
Vol.1-- page 22; Vol. 3A -- pages 93-94, 101-103; Vol.4A -- pages 48-49, 60-65.
Vol. 5A -- pages 74-75; Vol.5C -- C section 4.3-4.6, tables 4.3-4.6, appendix A
Vol. 6A -- pages 73-75; Vol.6C -- C section 4.3-4.6, tables 4.3-4.6, appendix A
Vol. 7A -- pages 61-64, 66; Vol. 7C -- C section 4.3-4.6, tables 4.3-4.6, app. A.
916
The use of the CRTN method for predicting Traffic Noise was discussed in the crossexaminations
of the Council's expert witnesses and in particular during Mr. Dilworth's
evidence and his cross-examination by Mr. Searson in Section 108 of this Report.
Air pollution :
Vol. 1 -- page 22; Vol. 3A -- pages 64-71; Vol. 3C -- B pages 1-8.
Vol. 4A -- pages 33-34, 38-40.
Vol. 5A -- pages 54-59; Vol. 5C -- B section 3.5, tables 3.6 - 3.11.
Vol. 6A -- pages 53-56; Vol. 6C -- B section 3.5, tables 3.6 - 3.11.
Vol.7A -- pages 44-46; Vol. 7C -- B section 3.5, tables 3.6 - 3.11.
Water pollution :
Vol. 3A -- pages 180-183, figs. 7.3.1 - 7.3.4. Vol. 3C -- F pages 9 - 42.
Vol. 4A -- pages 121-129. Vol. 5A -- pages 121-122, figs. 7.1.1 - 7.1.3.
Vol. 6A -- pages 128-129, 134-135, figs 6.1 - 6.3.
Vol. 7A -- pages 100-101, 105-106, figs. 6.1 - 6.3.
Section 50 (3) (d) : An indication of any difficulties (Technical deficiencies or lack of
know-how) encountered by the road authority in compiling the required
information :
In Section 8.4 on "Impacts of Development" in each of Volumes 3A to 7A of the EIS a
difficulty in identifying, at the time the EIS was written, the exact locations from where
the material to be imported to make up the shortfall in filling required to construct the
embankments would be sourced. A difficulty in identifying where unsuitable material
would be disposed of off-site was also identified. It was stated that these difficulties arose
since the decisions on these sources would largely be commercial decisions for the
contractor, who would be constructing the scheme, to make. It was suggested that local
existing licensed quarries or local borrow pits would be used. It was also stated that
where borrow pits and disposal sites were used, their use would be subject to compliance
with all relevant legislation under the Planning and Development Acts and Waste
Licensing Regulations. This matter was discussed at the Hearing on several occasions,
particularly at Section 18 of this Report. ( See also pages 922 & 923 in Section 147
below)
Difficulties are also noted in the following pages of the EIS where access disputes
prevented site access for certain inspections. An off-site inspection was then used in these
cases :-
Vol. 3C -- E page 8; F page 8; G table 6b.
Vol. 5C -- G page 1; Vol. 7C -- H page 11.
917
Section 50 (3) (e) : A summary in non-technical language of the above information :
The Non-Technical Summary, Volume 1 of the EIS, referred to in the commentary on
Section 50 (2) on page 904 of this Report also contains the relevant data from Section 50
(3) above, with the exception of the details referred to at Section 50(3) (d) above.
Comments on compliance of the EIS with the requirements of Section 50 (2) and
Section 50 (3) of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended.
During the Hearing the validity of the EIS was questioned on a number of occasions for a
variety of reasons and there were several requests for an adjournment of the Hearing on
the basis that the information available in it was inadequate or that certain matters that
should have been addressed in it had not been included. There were also questions raised
about the methodologies used in compiling some of the data, such as the noise
measurements in Dalgan Park, and on the assessment of some of the impacts in the route
selection matrices for the Dunshaughlin to Navan and Navan By-pass Sections, which it
was suggested undermined the credibility of the EIS. Questions were also raised in
relation to the availability of data so that a proper appraisal could be made by objectors of
what was being proposed and suggestions were made that the Consultation process used
in the route selection was flawed which undermined the validity of the EIS.
Another issue that was raised, principally by the Bellinter Residents Association, the
Meath Road Action Group and by Mr. O'Donnell on behalf of Dalgan Park, and to an
extent by Mr. Casey on behalf of Ardbraccan House, was that the wrong route had been
selected and that, because of this, the EIS presented by the Council should not be
approved.
These issues, as well as others, were referred to in their Closing Submissions by M/s
O'Donnell, Casey, Magee and Park and responded to by Mr. Butler in his Closing
Submission, see Section 143 above. My comments on these issues follow in Sections 147
& 148.
With regard to the section on "interactions", these were discussed at a number of stages
during the evidence and in the cross-examination of Council witnesses during the
Hearing and this was raised specifically with Ms Dempsey in the context of queries
raised by objectors, see Sections 23.7, 23.13 and 51.2 of this Report. I am satisfied, as
referred to previously on pages 912 & 913 of this Report, that the details given in the EIS
in the section on inter-relationships were adequate the and that the requirements of the
Act in respect of inter-relationships, as required in 50 (3) (b), have been complied with.
There were a number of comments made during the Hearing about the lack of references
to range of activities and the amenities available in Dalgan Park in the EIS. Specifically
there is no reference to the Conference facilities available in Dowdstown House or to the
riverside and woodland walks in the Dalgan Park grounds in the section on Socioeconomics
in either Volume 4A or 4C. There is, however, a reference to the use of
918
Dowdstown House as a Conference centre in the section on Cultural Heritage at page 186
of Vol. 4A and the SRUNA area in Dalgan Park is noted in Appendix A in Vol. 4C and
shown on figs. EIS-BSM-EX 103 / IMP 103. Mr. Guthrie stated in evidence that the route
through Dalgan Park had been assessed principally from the effect it would have on the
farming operations since the route passed through the farmland of Dalgan Park and that
both Dowdstown House and Dalgan Park had been fully assessed for the Noise, Air and
Landscape and other effects while not being specifically referred to in the socioeconomics
section. Mr. Prendiville, in his direct evidence to the Hearing, also referred to
the Conference Centre and the walks in Dalgan Park and in his cross-examination
accepted that Dalgan Park should have been assessed in both the Agricultural and Socioeconomic
section in Vol. 4A. ( see Section 56.1 & 56. 4 of this Report )
The absence of a reference to some of the local community facilities in the Ross Cross/
Collierstown/ Skryne area from Table 2.6 in the Socio-economic section in Vol. 4A was
also raised at the Hearing and these were acknowledged by the Council. (see Section 56.5
of this Report)
For the reasons which I outline in Sections 147 and 148 I am satisfied that the arguments
advanced in questioning the validity of the EIS are not well founded. I am also satisfied
that the omissions referred to regarding Dalgan Park and Dowdstown and in the
Collierstown area do not materially affect the overall assessment of the effects of the
proposed road development on the environment.
Having regard to the evidence on EIS content outlined in the commentary on the subsections
of Section 50 (2) and 50 (3) above, I am satisfied that the EIS submitted to An
Bord Pleanala presented sufficient information to comply with the requirements of
Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended.
146. Comments on Written Objections and Submissions made to An Bord Pleanala
prior to the Hearing :
As outlined in Sections 6 and 13 of this Report, there were effectively 311 objections
made to An Bord Pleanala in respect of the Motorway Order, and 76 submissions in
respect of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Road Development were received
within the prescribed time, with One late submission. 22 of those who made objections to
the Motorway Order related more to the environmental impacts of the Road Development
in the content of their objections and 7 of the submissions made in respect of the Road
Development were more appropriate to the Motorway Order. During the course of the
Hearing 124 of the objections to the Motorway Order were withdrawn on the basis of
agreements having been reached with the Council and the names of the landowners
involved are listed in Section 9 of this Report.
919
1. Written Objections against Land Acquisitions :
A summary of the objections received against the Land Acquisition is given in Section 13
of this Report but only for the Plots for which the objection was not withdrawn, either at
the opening of or during the Hearing. An examination of the Written Objections indicated
that the main issues were :-
· Alternative route available / Wrong route selected
· Proposal contrary to Law and Development Plan
· Motorway near Tara not justified
· Impacts of Interchanges / Roundabouts
· Closure of R125 ( Leshamstown Lane issue)
· Scale of Dunboyne By-pass
· Excessive land take
· Severance and access issues
· Animal Disease issues / Shared underpasses
· Drainage issues
· Flooding issues
· Effects on services, e.g. water supplies, utilities etc.
· Screening of property
· Concerns about problems from roads being left as cul-de-sacs
· Effects on driveways
· Inadequate Boundary treatment proposals
These issues are discussed in the evidence and cross-examination of Mr. Guthrie, Ms
Joyce and Mr. Evans, the Project Engineers as well as that of Mr. Killeen, the Council's
Planning Officer, particularly in Sections 17, 19, 21, 25, 50, 86 and 102 of this Report as
well as in the evidence and cross-examination of the Council's other witnesses. I am
satisfied that from the evidence at the Hearing all of the issues raised by the objectors to
the Motorway Order were adequately addressed. I am also satisfied that the Council
presented sufficient evidence to justify all of the acquisitions that were included in the
Order.
2. Written Submissions on Environmental Impact Statement :
76 submissions were made to An Bord Pleanala within the prescribed time before the
Hearing and there were 22 submissions included in the objections made to the CPO that
related more to the environmental impacts. A summary of these submissions is given in
Section 13 of this Report. An examination of the written submissions indicated that the
main issues were :-
· Alternative route available / Wrong route selected
· Proposal contrary to Law and Development Plan
· Adequacy of the EIS
920
· Noise levels
· Air Pollution
· Light Pollution
· Archaeological effects
· Cultural Heritage effects
· Effects on Dowdstown/ Dalgan and Tara/Skryne
· Effects on Ardbraccan / Boyerstown
· Inadequate provision for Alternative Transport modes
· Provisions for Pedestrians and Cyclists
· Effects on services, e.g. water supplies, utilities etc.
· Effects on Businesses
· Need for a Bat Survey
· Screening of property/ Privacy issues
Some of the issues raised in respect of the EIS were also raised in respect of the
Motorway Order. I am satisfied that all of the issues referred to in the submissions made
prior to the Hearing were adequately addressed during the evidence given at the Hearing,
and in the cross-examination of the Council witnesses at the Hearing.
147. Comments on Submissions made on Legal Aspects of Council's proposal :
As was referred to in the commentary on the compliance of the EIS with the requirements
of Sections 50 (2) & (3) of the Roads Act 1993, as amended, the validity of the EIS was
questioned on a number of occasions during the Hearing both from legal or quasi-legal
aspects and also on the basis of the wrong route having been selected. There were also
concerns expressed about aspects of the Public Consultation and suggestions that these
perceived "defects" had an effect on the selection of the preferred route. In this Section
the submissions relating to the legal or quasi-legal aspects are dealt with and the issues
raised relating to route selection, public consultation and information are dealt with in
Section 148.
At the outset of the Hearing and as detailed in Section 14 of this Report Mr. Galligan
S.C., appearing then of behalf of the owners of Ardbraccan House, sought an
adjournment on the basis of a challenge that had been made in the High Court to the
validity of the County Development Plan (CDP) of 2001 and submitted that, as this had
not then been ruled on by the High Court, the Hearing should be adjourned as he
contended that An Bord could not determine the application in the event of the Court
ruling that the CDP was invalid. Mr. Galligan further submitted that there was no
reference in the CDP to the M3 Scheme being a tolled motorway and that should have
been referred to as an objective in the CDP itself. He also referred to there being no
reference to a tolled scheme in the copy of the CDP purchased by his Client, Ms. Maher,
on 19 August 2002 from the Council Offices and that that copy did not contain the
variation adopted in February 2002. He also referred to the newspaper advertisements of
December 2001 for this variation which did not contain a specific reason for the variation
which, he submitted was a breach of the requirements of Section 13(3) of the Planning
921
and Development Act 2000 and he subsequently handed in a copy of this advertisement
which is listed in Appendix 4 of this Report at Day 4 during his cross-examination of Mr.
Killeen, the Council's Planning Officer.
My ruling rejecting Mr. Galligan's request is given in Section 14.9 of this Report and
followed from Mr. Galligan's admission that he had failed in his application to obtain
injunctive relief in the High Court. From a recent Notification on the outcome of Legal
proceedings ( 06/06/03 ) it appears that this application to the High Court challenging the
validity of the CDP has now been determined by the action being withdrawn. It should
also be noted that another challenge to the validity of that CDP, but based on somewhat
different grounds -- Smith and McEvoy v. Meath County Council -- was dismissed by
the High Court in October 2002.
As will be described subsequently in Section 149 of this Report, the CDP of 2001 clearly
makes provision for a motorway between Clonee and North of Kells and the EIS in the
Non-technical summary, Vol.1, and in Vol. 2 refers to the intention of the M3 scheme to
be progressed as a Public Private Partnership (PPP) with the concessionaire being able to
recoup some or all of the construction / operation costs through the collection of tolls.
The EIS goes on to point out that the making of a Toll Scheme would be determined in
accordance with the procedures in the Roads Act 1993 and the Planning and
Development Act 2000 which would be a separate procedure and this, in my opinion,
removes any necessity for a reference to tolling having to be included in the CDP itself.
The other issue he raised, that of the lack of a reason for the Variation on the
advertisement, was discussed in detail in Mr. Galligan's cross-examination of Mr. Killeen
in Section 21.8 of this Report when Mr. Killeen stated that the reason was given in the
detail in block capitals on the advertisement dated 19 December 2001. In my opinion this
complies with the requirements of Section 13 (3) (a) of the Planning and Development
Act 2000
Mr. Casey of Casey & Co. Solicitors, who appeared for Ms Maher at the later part of the
Hearing, also referred to the same Variation of February 2002 to the CDP and to the
advertisement of its adoption in both his Preliminary Submission, detailed in Section
121.1 and in his Closing Submission, detailed in Section 143.5, both in this Report.
In his closing submission Mr. Casey submitted that the time lapse between the adoption
of the Variation on 4 February 2002 and the advertisement to that effect on 29 May 2002
amounted to a denial of rights for the public to participate (a) in the routing and
positioning of the road, (b) in the CDP and (c) in the Variation; that it was not possible
for the public to make reasoncd and technically legal submissions against the CPO/EIS
in the absence of they being aware of the passing of the Variation and that this amounted
to a denial of public rights of participation in the process leading to the Hearing and any
adoption by an Bord of the scheme. It should be noted that the CDP of 2001 was adopted
in March 2001, some 12 months before the Motorway Order and EIS were published and
this identified the Council's intention to construct a motorway from Clonee to Kells,
including By--passes of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells.
922
Mr. Casey submitted that the Navan Environs Plan of 1997 was an "Area Plan" made
under the 1963 Planning and Development Act which lapsed when the 2001 CDP Plan
was made since it was part of the infrastructure of the 1994 plan. He submitted that there
was a material lacuna in Part 2 of the 2001 CDP where there was no mention of Navan
and its Environs in that document and that it was questionable in there was any variation
of the Navan Environs Plan of 1997 made on 4 February 2002 as he suggested a
variation could not be made to a Plan that did not exist. While Mr. Casey's contention
might be an arguable point, it should be noted that the CDP Rural Detail Map of the
Navan Area Infrastructure Map for Variation no. 2 to the CDP of 2002, adopted on 4
February 2002, clearly shows the route of the M3 extending from the Roestown crossing
on the N3 to the north of Dunshaughlin to the N 52 By-pass of Kells. Since this is part of
the 2001 CDP as Varied, in my opinion that overcomes whatever "lacuna" might exist
about the 1997 Navan Environs Plan as suggested by Mr. Casey.
In his preliminary submissions and as detailed in Sections 121 to 125, Mr. Casey
suggested that a number of statutory bodies, specifically Navan, Kells and Trim UDCs
(as they then were), were not circulated with details of the proposed variation to the 2001
CDP and he submitted that this lapse questioned the validity of the CDP and that the
Council could not propose a scheme that was materially in contravention of their own
Plan. It transpired that this notification had been issued and that the details were on a
computerised record and not in a hard copy format on the public file. Mr. Casey went on
the submit that since the motorway scheme was a tolled scheme and that a letter to the
Council from the NRA of 28 February 2001 showed it as being driven by the NRA, that
in the absence of a Five Year Plan by the NRA under Sections 17/18 of the Roads Act
1993 made the scheme ultra vires to both the NRA and the Council. Mr. Casey drew
attention to an application pending in the High Court for judicial review relating to the
powers of the NRA and Councils in respect of road schemes proposed by them, Joan
Finlay v. Laois County Council and the NRA.
Arising from questions raised during the Hearing about the role of the NRA in the
proposed motorway scheme, Mr. Butler had already stated that the scheme was being
promoted by the Council in its own right as the Roads Authority and in his closing
submission Mr. Butler repeated this since Mr. Sweetman in his closing submission had
also raised the issue of the NRA/Council relationship. On the basis of the situation
outlined by Mr. Butler it appears that the issue of the Motorway Scheme being ultra vires
to the Council does not arise.
Mr. Sweetman sought an adjournment of the Hearing on the issue of the sourcing of
imported fill material and off-site disposal locations and submitted that there was
inadequate information in the EIS to allow the public to assess the implications of traffic
movements and other effects. He suggested that An Bord Pleanala had previously ruled
that such additional information had to be provided in a similar situation to this. Mr.
O'Donnell and Mr. Galligan supported this application with Mr. Galligan suggesting that
it was project splitting to exclude the extraction of materials for the construction from the
EIS. This issue is detailed in Sections 17.9 and 18 in this Report.
923
The case referred to by Mr. Sweetman was that of the "Waterford By-pass Scheme and
N25 Waterford By-pass (No.1) CPO 2002" about which An Bord wrote to Waterford
Corporation on 11 March 2002 regarding a number of matters where additional
information / clarification was required, one of these relating to the quantities of surplus
material generated and general proposals for its disposal. As outlined in Section 18.3, in
the light of the information outlined at section 8.4 in each of Vols. 3A to 7A of the EIS
on the likely quantities of imported fill and the need for further legislative procedures in
relation to non-licensed sites and that the Council were assembling information on this
issue, I ruled that there was sufficient information available in the EIS, as presented, to
allow the Hearing to proceed.
A map identifying possible locations for borrow pits along the proposed route and the
locations operational quarries and gravel pits and of licensed waste sites was submitted
by the Council on Day. There were discussions about this issue in Ms Dempsey's crossexamination
by M/s. McGrath and Burke in Sections 23.3 and 23.7 and later in her crossexamination
by M/s. Sweetman and O'Donnell in Sections 51.1and 51.2 and concerns
were raised by other objectors about possible locations near them. The issue was not
raised in any of the closing submissions. Mr. Bergin, Consulting Engineer, giving
evidence on behalf of Dalgan Park questioned the transportation implications and
suggested it could take up to 313 return trips daily for a period of 30 X 6 day weeks using
10 cu. metre lorries to transport the 1.2 M cu. metres of fill and 0.49 M cu. metres of
disposed material for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section. Mr. Lumley giving evidence
on behalf of An Taisce said that the landscape impacts of the quarrying and extraction
sites should have been addressed.
Each of the Project Engineers when giving evidence about their sections gave details of
the most recent calculations for quantities for those sections which total circa 5.33 M cu.
metres of imported fill being required and circa 1.46 M cu. metres of unsuitable material
being disposed of off-site. The Council gave an undertaking that the access routes for this
material into and out of the site of the proposed M3 would be generally restricted to the
use of either the National roads, N3/ N51/ N52 and Regional roads with only certain
specified sections of Local (County) roads being used.
Having regard to the fact that any off-site location for use as either a source for filling or
as a disposal site for unsuitable material that is not already licensed under either the
Planning Acts or the Waste Licensing regulations will be required to go through a
regulatory procedure which provides for input by the public; that the "development site"
extends from Clonee in the south of the county to the Cavan border over a distance of
some 60 kms; that the issue and the difficulties of identifying locations in the context of
the PPP type contract was set out in the EIS, and to the extent of the submissions and
discussions on the issue at the Hearing, I consider that matter has been adequately
addressed and that further information is not required to enable a decision to be taken on
the Application for Approval of the Road Development.
924
On completing his cross-examination of the Council's witnesses and before presenting
any evidence on behalf of his Dalgan Park Clients, Mr. O'Donnell sought an adjournment
of the Hearing and submitted that the Council should go back and prepare the various
headings in the EIS in a manner that would, he said, allow for a proper assessment to be
carried out on an appropriate EIS. In his submission, which is dealt with in Section 63 of
the Report, Mr. O'Donnell questioned the competence of the various witnesses that had
given evidence for the Council on the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section in relation to the
approach taken, the level of detail addressed and the conclusions reached and suggested
that, in most of the areas discussed, there had been a more appropriate route considered at
the route selection stage. Mr. O'Donnell referred particularly to the expert witness on
noise and to the witness on the socio-economic section where, having identified that thc
latter witness did not have either sociology or economics qualifications, then declined to
ask him any questions. Mr. Butler accepted that Mr. O'Donnell was entitled to criticise
the evidence being put before the Hearing but rejected the submission that the evidence
presented by the Council did not conform to the legislative requirements or was
insufficient to allow An Bord to make an assessment. Mr. O'Donnell repeated much of
these criticisms in his Closing Submission.
At the time and as set out in Section 63 I stated that neither Mr. O'Donnell or Mr.
Sweetman, who had supported his submissions, had offered any rebutting evidence and
that until all sides had been heard the points being raised could not be properly
considered. On that basis and in equity to the other objectors who wished to make
submissions and to cross-examine the Council witnesses, Mr. O'Donnell's request for an
adjournment was not acceded to.
As can be seen from the list of Council witnesses in Section 7 of this Report, different
expert witnesses appeared for the Council in some of the specialist environmental
disciplines in the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section as compared to the other Sections and
this gave rise to some concerns being expressed by objectors about consistency in the
responses to their queries. Some witnesses were better able than others to respond to the
questions posed and as Mr. Summers, the noise expert who dealt with the Dalgan Park
area, had not personally been present when the noise measurements were taken for the
Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and from which the noise model used to predict future
noises levels was developed, he had some difficulty in dealing with the questioning he
received on the noise criteria and levels being predicted. Mr. Dilworth, who was the noise
expert that dealt with the other Sections, subsequently gave evidence of having reviewed
the Dunshaughlin to Navan predictions with Mr. Summers and, other than for a revision
for the effects of local traffic on the Ardsallagh Road itself as detailed in the document
handed in by the Council on Day 28 for Tables 4.7 and 4.8, found these to be correct.
The section on Socio-economics in the EIS in Vol. 4A sets out the basis for the
assessment which gives particular attention at local level to the areas of journey time,
access to community facilities and effects of the development on the existing road
network and indicated that the methodology used in the assessment was broadly based on
the guidelines given in Chapter 11 of the UK DMRB of 1994 and the EPA advice notes
and draft guidelines of 1995. It would seem from the basis given for the socio-economic
925
in the EIS that Mr. O' Donnell's requirement for a witness to have either sociology or
economic qualifications to deal with what are, generally, the effects from possible
severance of access to community travel patterns appears to have been an un-necessary
criterion and could be likened to using a sledge- hammer to crack a nut. While Mr.
O'Donnell called a number of witnesses on behalf of Dalgan Park, no specific evidence to
rebut either the details in the socio-economic section in Vol. 4A or Mr. Prendiville's
direct evidence were given other than for references to the lack of inclusion of the
activities and facilities within Dalgan Park / Dowdstown house by Fr. Pat Raleigh SSC
and Mr. Ger Clarke. While Fr. Sean McDonagh SSC made a submission on " Motorway
Madness", see Section 24 of this Report, this was aimed more at national policy issues
and did not address the local community access impacts.
I am satisfied that, notwithstanding the views expressed by Mr. O'Donnell about the
competence of the Council witnesses in his submissions, and the concerns expressed by
the Bellinter Residents about the lack of references to the activities and facilities within
Dalgan Park in the EIS and their concerns about the noise measurements taken there, the
data presented in the EIS and supported by the direct evidence offered by the Council is
of sufficient detail and its conclusions are sufficiently clear so that a decision can be
made on the likely effects on the environment by the proposed road development.
Mr. Casey, supported by Mr. Sweetman, referred to the supporting data by way of
borehole logs, trial pit logs and corehole logs with the results and data relating thereto
and said that this was information required to be provided as part of the EIS to comply
with the content of Article 5(3) of Directive 85/337/EC as amended by 97/11/EC which
refers to "data required to identify and assess the main effects -- likely -- on the
environment". Mr. Casey submitted that the absence of this data from the EIS and the
lack of details on the interactions made it impossible for An Bord to come to the
conclusion that the EIS and the information contained therein complied with the
requirements of the 1997 Directive or 1999 Regulations. Mr. Lumley for An Taisce and
Mr. Conor Newman made similar comments about the absence of the Geophysical
Report and Data Images from the EIS with only the interpretative drawings ( which are a
form of summary ) being given there.
The requirements of Directives 85/337/EC and 97/11/EC are incorporated into the
amended Roads Act 1993 by SI 93 of 1999 and the requirements for "data" are set out in
Section 50 (2) (c) which reads " the data required to identify and assess the main effects
which the proposed road development is likely to have on the environment" . I would
draw attention to the proviso that is given at the end of Sections 50 (2) and (3) which
reads " to the extent that such information is relevant to a given stage of the consent
procedure and to the specific characteristics of the proposed road development or type of
road development concerned, and of the environmental features likely to be affected, and
the road authority preparing the environmental impact statement may reasonably be
required to compile such information having regard, inter alia, to current knowledge and
methods of assessment."
926
As referred to in the commentary at Section 143 of this Report, the data required in
Section 50 (3) (c) is scattered throughout the EIS and these locations are listed in this
commentary. Details of the number of boreholes and trial pits with a summary of the
findings appears in Section 8 on Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology in each of Vols. 3A to
7A and more extensive details on the possible effects on wells and watertables is given in
Vols. 3A and 5A. The area at Bohermeen, which gave rise to Mr. Casey's questioning of
Ms Joyce, is specifically referred to in Vol.5A at 8.4.4 and 8.5. Having regard to the
content of Section 50 of the Roads Act 1993, as amended, I am satisfied that it would not
be reasonable to require that the records of the individual borehole, trial pit or corehole
logs from the site investigations carried out, or for the detailed results of the geophysical
surveys, would be included in the EIS for a road development of this nature. I am also
satisfied that there would be no difficulty in identifying and assessing the main effects
likely to impact on the environment without having sight of these individual records. It
should be noted that the borehole logs were available at the Hearing from August to the
end of October and that the details of the Geophysical survey were available, if requested,
from the Project Archaeologist.
Mr. Sweetman had referred to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and that the
effects of Articles 6 in the context of the Boyne and Blackwater rivers being designated
as proposed candidate Special Areas of Conservation brought them into consideration as
Natura 2000 sites and that this required the mitigation measures to be detailed. The
notification of this designation was made after the EIS had been published and is
contained in the submission from Duchas to An Bord in their letter of 22 April 2002. This
letter did not appear to have come to the Councils attention until August. This issue was
discussed on several occasions during the Hearing, see Sections 57.7, 57.8 and 110.2.
The Council submitted proposals for specific mitigation measures for the River Boyne
crossing in documentation submitted on Day 28 which appear to meet the requirements
for such sites, similar arrangements applying to the Blackwater crossing. Mr. Butler also
referred to this matter in his closing submission. I am satisfied that the construction
methods proposed for the road crossings of both rivers will have no significant impact on
the habitats at those locations and there would appear to be no impediment in granting an
approval in terms of the requirements of Article 6 of the Habitat Directive for Natura
2000 sites.
Mr. Sweetman referred on several occasions to the proposer as being "an animation of the
State" and that because of being this, the Directive had direct effect and that the EIS had
then to be assessed in terms of European law. It was not clear if he was referring to
Meath County Council in this context since he had also referred to the NRA as being the
driver or promoter of the scheme on several occasions as well. Mr. Butler, on several
occasions during the Hearing and in his closing submission, made it quite clear that this is
a scheme being promoted by Meath County Council in its own right as a Road Authority.
It would seem from this that the "direct effect" suggested by Mr. Sweetman does not
apply since Section 47 of the Roads Act sets out the powers of a Road Authority to make
a motorway scheme and Sections 49 and 50 set out the procedures to be followed
thereafter, including the requirements for an EIS.
927
148. Comments on Submissions made on Route Selection, Consultation and
Information aspects of Council's proposal :
The Route Selection process dominated much of the cross-examination of the Council
witnesses for the Dunshaughlin to Navan section and was also discussed in the Ardbracan
module of the Navan By-pass Section. Mr. Park, in his closing submission for the
Bellinter Residents Association, said that the main thrust of their position was their
disagreement and dissatisfaction with the Route Selection process and their belief the
process did not fairly address the various options and that the wrong conclusion had been
reached. This dissatisfaction had previously been outlined in their main submission, see
Section 70 of this Report, and in the cross-examination of Council witnesses, principally
of Mr. Guthrie in Section 50 of this Report. The Meath Road Action Group both in their
main submission, see Section 71, and in Mr. Magee's closing submission stated that their
objection to the proposed M3 was based on their assertion of the wrong route having
been chosen.
The National Roads Project Management Guidelines, NRA/8, version 1.1 of March 2000,
in which a phased approach to the planning of projects is outlined, was first referred to by
Mr. Galligan when appearing on behalf of the owners of Ardbraccan House when he
asked why those Guidelines had not been followed ( See Section 17.7). and this aspect
was, later on, also raised by Mr. Magee (See Section 50.6) Mr. Casey in his closing
submission also referred to these Guidelines but used the 1999 version.
The Guidelines themselves form an extensive document and cover all stages of the
project planning and management of major road projects, including financial
management, from inception to the completion of the Final Account. The guidelines set
out a program of events that commences with a "Constraints Study" period which
includes a "First" Public Consultation followed by a "Route Selection" period that
includes a "Second" Public Consultation. It should be noted that there are Four further
"periods" described in the Guidelines including details of Statutory procedures to be
undertaken, Contract Document procedures and Financial Reporting.
As part of the preparatory work for each of the Section, which initially was undertaken as
a series of discrete schemes that could be linked in the future, a Constraints Report and a
Route Selection Report were produced, these Reports being produced in 1999, 2000 and
2001for the various Sections. ( Copies of these were handed in and are listed at various
Days in Appendix 4 of this Report). When it was decided to propose single scheme from
Clonee to North of Kells, which followed from the NRA letter of June 2000, a "Corridor
Selection" Report was produced which is dated January 2002 but seems to have been
available in draft form before this. This Corridor Selection Report is referred to at Section
4.3 in Vol. 2 of the EIS where there is a description of the analysis and comparison of
four broad corridors, Orange, Green, Blue and Pink for each Section and from this the
conclusion was drawn that the preferred "Corridor" combination from Clonee to North of
Kells was Orange/Blue/Orange/Orange/Orange. Mr. Guthrie was cross-examined at
length by Mr. Magee ( See Section 50.6 ) and others about the reasons for producing and
928
publishing this Corridor Selection Report in January 2002, which came after all of the
individual Route Selection reports for the separate Sections during 2000 and 2001, and on
the apparent non-compliance with NRA Guidelines. Mr. Guthrie had accepted Mr.
Galligan's suggestion that these Guidelines had not been followed (See Section 17.7).
Mr. Butler in his closing submission referred specifically to the argument advanced by
objectors of the Corridor Selection Report following the Route Selection Report when the
NRA Guidelines suggested a different sequence should have been followed, and he set
out the reasons for the chronology followed by the Council which are logical in the
context of the way the scheme was developed over 1999 to 2002. The details of the
alternative options that were considered are set out in Chapter 4 in Vol. 2 of the EIS, and
these include the comparison of corridors and of routes. However, it is apparent from the
content of the cross-examination on this issue that the timing of the Corridor Selection
Report created a perception for residents along parts of the route to which the Council
had some difficulty in responding to their satisfaction.
The other aspect of the Route Selection process criticised was the Summary Matrices
used from which the Preferred Route was selected both in Tables 4.1 to 4.5 in Vol.2 of
the EIS and in the Route Selection Reports for the Sections themselves, which are not
part of the EIS. As can be seen from the cross-examination by the Bellinter Residents
Association, Meath Road Action Group and Mr. O'Donnell on behalf of Dalgan Park, this
followed from the reports and recommendations on individual environmental aspects in
the various route options considered for the Dunshaughlin to Navan section where a
number of these indicated that a route to the east of Skreen would have a lessor impact,
from the point of view of that environmental aspect only, than that of a route between
Hill of Tara and the Hill of Skreen. ( See Sections 50. 14, 50.22, 57.5 and 61.8 as
examples of this). In their closing submissions both Mr. Park for Bellinter Residents and
Mr. Magee for the Meath Road Action Group highlighted again their criticisms of these
Matrices, which they suggested were incorrectly used to select the wrong route.
At an early stage of the Hearing Mr. Guthrie was asked if there had been a weighting
applied to the different elements in the route selection process and he had replied that it
would have been difficult to produce a uniform ranking or weighting system across a
range of environmental impacts that would be acceptable to everyone. Nevertheless much
of his cross-examination by the Bellinter Residents members was aimed towards
establishing that some form of ranking had been used, incorrectly in their view, in the
selection of the Preferred Route. Mr. Guthrie accepted that there was an element of
ranking or weighting for the same factor as between the different route options being
considered in a particular Section. However, he did not accept that the use of such a
ranking had the same effect as placing a numeric value on each factor and then adding
these up across the summary matrix to get the preferred option. ( See Section 50. 22 of
this Report).
The considerations used in determining the Preferred Route for each Section are set out in
Vol. 2 of the EIS at Section 4.4 and was also outlined in Mr. Guthrie's direct evidence at
Section 17.1 and each summary matrix has a footnote stating that it is only indicative of
929
possible impacts. However it is clear from the concerns expressed, particularly from
residents in the areas from Collierstown to Dalgan to Bellinter/ Ardsallagh and also in the
Boyerstown /Ardbraccan area, that the pictorial representation conveyed by the matrices
shown in Vol. 2 of the EIS did not adequately convey the intent of what the authors of the
Vol. 2 matrices meant them to represent.
Mr. Guthrie explained in his direct evidence and in cross-examination the context in
which the route corridor alignments had been assessed and how the decision by which the
preferred route was selected came from a balancing of the various factors involved. The
Dalgan Park, BRA and MRAG objectors submitted that since Archaeology, Ecology, Air
Quality and Landscape impacts as identified in the Route Selection Report were all of a
lessor impact on a route to the east of Skreen than those for a route to the west of Skreen.
They also pointed to the route to the west of Skreen passing between Tara and Skreen
and submitted that the eastern route, or the Pink route, should have been the route
selected. Mr. Guthrie pointed to the fact of the Pink route being closer to more properties
than were on the Blue route, with consequentially more potential for noise, air and visual
impacts. He said this was the principal factor that outweighed the apparent advantages of
the Pink route, but had difficulty in convincing the objectors that the Blue 2 route was the
better option selected. A somewhat similar argument was made by Mr. Casey that a
route to the east and north of Navan should have been selected, again based on factors
identified in the Route Selection Report for the Navan By-pass, which would have taken
the motorway well away from Ardbraccan House. Ms Joyce outlined the factors for that
Section that had been balanced against those he had advanced.
A further source of contention raised by the Bellinter Residents Association about the
Route Selection process related to the interpretation placed by the Council on the
preferences expressed in questionaires returned by people who attended the public
Consultation exhibitions. In cross-examination by Mr. Park, see Section 50.14, Mr.
Guthrie said that about 30% favoured a route east of Skreen, 30% favoured west of Tara
and 40% favoured a central route and that when these were further analysed, some 56%
favoured a Blue or Pink route. In the BRA submission, see Section 70, Mr. Parks set out
their analysis of the returns which showed that the Pink route or eastern was the least
opposed and that the Blue or central route was the second most strongly opposed. Mr.
Hamill, also of the Bellinter Residents Association, gave figures to indicate that the
number of first preferences from those who favoured the eastern routes was double any
other option, see section 50.23. Mr. Guthrie submitted a written comment on the project
teams statistical analysis of the preferences, which was handed in on Day 28 and is listed
in Appendix 4 of this Report. This followed from his cross-examination by Mr. Park and
the Project Team concluded that the public favoured a central corridor of either the Green
or Blue options and since the Green option had a direct impact on Tara, the Blue corridor
of D for a western bypass of Navan or E for an eastern bypass of Navan became the more
favoured option. Their analysis showed the eastern or Pink corridor to be the next most
favoured choice.
While it is clear from the submissions made by objectors from the Dalgan Park, Bellinter/
Ardsallagh and Boyerstown/ Ardbraccan areas that they considered the wrong route had
930
been selected, it is equally clear that alternative routes were fully considered by the
Council in the process that lead to the "Preferred Route" being proposed as the road
development for which the EIS was prepared. I am satisfied from the evidence in the
documents and given at the Hearing that the requirements of Section 50 (2) (d) of the
Roads Act 1993, as amended, were fully complied with for this proposed road
development.
It is evident from the cross-examination of Council witnesses by objectors from several
of the areas along the route from Clonee to Kells that the Public were not satisfied they
had been adequately informed on the decision to construct a motorway as the
improvement for the N3. The Public Consultation Exhibitions for the various Sections
took place as follows :-
First Second
Clonee to Dunshaughlin June 1999 December 1999
Dunshaughlin to Navan December 1999 May 2000
Navan By-pass February 2000 May 2000
Navan to Kells February 2000 May 2000
Kells to North of Kells September 2000 May 2001
At the May 2000 exhibitions the proposals as shown in the brochures for the N3 referred
to an off-line route and to a dual carriageway situation and with possible locations for
interchanges also being shown. With the exception of the exhibitions for the Kells to
North of Kells Section, all of the other exhibitions pre-dated the NRA letter of June 2000,
which designated the N3 as one of the projects being considered for a PPP scenario and
that such schemes would be developed as motorways or high quality dual carriageways
and that tolling would also be considered.
As Mr. Butler pointed out in his closing submission, there is no specific requirement in
the Roads Act 1993, as amended, for Public Consultation, per se, in the preparation of
Motorway Orders, CPOs or EISs. However, a system of Public Consultation has been
developed for these type of major projects where an EIS is required and this was what
was followed in the case of the M3. The NRA Roads Project Management Guidelines
previously referred to also includes for Public Consultation Exhibitions in the steps the
Guidelines set out to be taken as part of the planning phases.
The Council would say that the County Development Plan adopted in March 2001 and
the Variation adopted in February 2002 did provide for a consultation procedure on the
motorway proposal and evidence was given that the footprint for the M3 was generally
similar to that envisaged for the N3 dual carriageway with interchanges and limited
access that was shown at the May 2000 exhibitions. However, a number of people at the
Hearing made the point that they had been consulted about a dual carriageway proposal
and not about a motorway and suggested that the motorway was a very different concept
to what had been shown, as they perceived it.
931
A further exhibition in the latter part of 2001 when the adjustments to the route had been
incorporated, and when the Corridor Selection Report was apparently available, could
have provided for some of the concerns expressed at the Hearing to be ventilated, and
might possibly have satisfied some of those queries. It would also have provided an
opportunity for residents adjacent to the route, but whose property was not being included
in the Order, to become informed of any adjustments being made to the route alignment
as "design refinements". Some of those who made submissions to the Hearing referred to
adjustments in the route that were made to minimise or avoid impacts elsewhere after the
exhibitions of May 2000, and which they did not become aware of until the Scheme was
published in 2002. Adjustments to the line adjacent to the Trevet road and Lismullin
areas are examples of this where comments were made at the Hearing.
The issue of availability of documentation and information from the Council was raised
by a number of people, particularly at the early stages of the Hearing. Mr. Butler in his
closing submission referred to this and pointed out that the Council's witnesses had made
every effort to be open and helpful in providing details of what was being proposed. It
was apparent at the Hearing that that was so, but many of the points made about the
perceived difficulty in obtaining answers to queries raised with the Council related to the
period while the scheme was being prepared and before the Hearing commenced.
This issue is not a matter for consideration in relation to the Road Development itself.
However, from the frequency it was raised at the Hearing it is something that the Council
might wish to consider in the context of the procedures used when responding to queries
from the public, and as a part of their focus on customer service.
149. Comments on Council's application for Confirmation of Motorway Order
and Approval of Road Development :
1. Motorway Order :
The Council's evidence in relation to Planning issues referred to the Transportation
policies in the 1994 County Development Plan at 2.4 which included the provision that
the Council would implement the relevant road development proposals that formed part
of the programs submitted to the Commission of the European Communities to facilitate
regional and national development. This was further detailed in the Roads Program
objective at 3.7.2 which stated that National Primary and Secondary roads would be
improved and Motorways provided in locations in line with national road policy and
programs submitted to the Commission of the European Communities.
The Transportation policies in the 2001 County Development Plan are set out at 2.7.1 and
aim to create compact and self-sustaining urban structures to minimise transport needs; to
permit the efficient movement of goods and persons in the interests of commerce and
enterprise and to check commuting patterns that were dependant entirely on the use of
the private car by providing high quality public transport alternatives as promoted in the
Dublin Transportation Initiative (DTI) Report and by a spatial policy based on the
932
Strategic Policy Guidelines (SPGs). In relation to Roads, the objectives in the 2001 Plan
included specifically for the an extension of the Clonee By-pass to the end of the
proposed Dunshaughlin By-pass, by-passes for Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells, the
realignment of the N3, on an off-line route, between the ends of the Dunshaughlin and
Navan by-passes, the ends of the Navan and Kells by-passes and from a point on the N52
to a point on the N3 north of Carnaross, as well as a by-pass of Kells for the N52. The
locations for proposed Interchanges and Link roads serving Dunshaughlin, Navan and
Kells are also referred to in this objective. There is also a specific objective at 3.5.2 (ii)
under Roads and Parking which provides for a new motorway on the N3 to Kells
including bypasses of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells and, separately, for a western
relief route on the R157 for Dunboyne.
The need for improvements to the N3 as a dual carriageway from Clonee to Kells with
dual carriageway bypasses for Dunshaughlin and Navan and as a wide two lane from a
bypass of Kells northwards was identified in the Roads Needs Study published by the
NRA in 1998. The National Development Plan 2000-2006 includes a reference at 4.12 to
the N3 being a route where further major improvements formed part of the development
strategy for national primary roads.
Under the heading of Public Transport, the 2001 County Development Plan provides for
a detailed feasibility study into the provision of a rail link between Dublin and Navan via
the former MGWR Clonsilla/Kilmessan route or with possible linkages to the south
Meath fringe and at 3.5.2(i), there is an objective for the provision of a heavy rail link
between Navan and Dublin and co-operation with CIE to identify a preferred alignment.
The Strategic Planning Guidelines (SPGs) published in 1999 identifies the Dublin to
Navan corridor as a future Transportation Corridor, both in the text at page 7 and on Map
2 at page 9 in the Executive Summary and the then proposed N3 dual carriageway to
Navan was listed as "essential to strategy" in Table 9.5 in the principal road infrastructure
requirements on page 104 in Chapter 9 of the main report. The N3 Clonee to North of
Kells is also referred to as a strategic route of national importance at pages 15 and 24 of
the summary report of the DTO report "Platform for Change".
In giving evidence on behalf of Dalgan Park, Mr. Jack O'Sullivan, Environmental
Consultant, quoted extensively from the 2001 County Development Plan on the proposals
outlined therein to enhance public transport and develop a high quality rail link in support
of the proposals in the SPGs and said there was no reference to an upgrading of the N3 to
motorway status in Section 2.6.5.1 which deals with " Development Corridors and their
Management" as a transportation objective. ( See Section 64.1 of this Report) He also
suggested that the Variation to the Development Plan adopted in February 2002 was
inconsistent with the other transportation policies in the Development Plan and said that
An Bord should consider this as an isolated and out of context reference which should
get far less attention than the remainder of the Plan. However, in subsequent crossexamination
he accepted that the reference to the motorway at Section 3.5.2 (ii) was an
objective in its own right and that it was not necessary for this to be repeated elsewhere in
the Development Plan.
933
Mr. Casey also referred to the Variation adopted in February 2002 and suggested that
there was a lacuna in part 2 of the 2001 Development Plan coming from his suggestion of
a lapse of the 1997 Navan Environs Plan, and said that this left a "gaping hole" in the
2001 Development Plan. ( See his Closing Submission).
It should be noted that the Variation to the 2001 Development Plan, adopted in February
2002, was made to take account of minor adjustments to the route of the motorway which
was itself already included in the 2001 Development Plan adopted in March 2001. Mr.
O'Sullivan's suggestion of inconsistency seems to have come from a misunderstanding of
the intent of this Variation, since the fact of the motorway objective already being in the
Plan makes it part and parcel of the overall Development Plan policies. Mr. Casey's
questioning of the viability of the 2001 Plan also appears to be groundless for the same
reason, with the motorway already being an objective of the 2001 Plan and the route fully
described therein, and with the Variation being made only to reflect some adjustments in
the location of the route at Dunshaughlin and at Navan.
Mr. Killeen, the Council's Planning Officer, in his direct evidence ( See Section 21.1)
referred to the provisions in Section 3.5.2 in the 2001 County Development Plan which
highlighted that the development of transportation networks in the county would require
an approach that was fundamentally based on the principles of sustainable development
and that there would be a coincidence between the Development Plan policies, the
strategies of the DTO and the SPGs He referred to the policy in Section 3.5 for Roads in
the 1997 Dunboyne Development Plan to reserve a routes as indicated on Map 2 for the
Dunboyne relief road with a specific objective for this bypass and relief road to the west
and north of Dunboyne at 4.1 in Section 4 of that Plan. He explained that the line of the
relief road as it affected the property in Plot 326, where an objection had been made by
the owners M/s Henshaws, was altered slightly from that shown in Urban detail Map 13
of the 2001 County Development Plan but this was not a material alteration and it was
not necessary to include this in the Variation made in February 2002. He referred to the
Navan Environs Development Plan of 1997, which was varied in February 2002, as a
having a specific development policy and objective for a bypass route to the south and
west of Navan and he referred to the policy and objectives in the Kells Development plan
of 1995 as varied in 1996 and again in the 2001 Kells Development Plan to provide for
bypasses of both the National Primary and Secondary routes around the town.
Mr. Killeen also referred to the Rural Detail Map in the 2001 County Development Plan
that showed the "Areas of Visual Quality" with the landscape classification for the county
with the Eleven areas of visual quality (VQs) as identified in the 2001 Plan. The proposed
M3 traverses areas designated VQ 3-- River Valleys; VQ 9 -- Tara and Dunsany district
and VQ 11 -- Rural and Agricultural. Mr. Killeen said that both VQ 3 and VQ 9 were
very sensitive to all categories of development and that the location of the proposed
motorway route in the low-lying areas as it traversed VQ 3 and VQ 9 was, in his opinion,
the optimum location. The route of the proposed motorway and its associated link roads
was superimposed on this Map at my request and the locations of affected Listed Views
and of the Tree Preservation Order at Dowdstown were also marked on this Map and
934
those aspects will be dealt with in the comments on the Road Development. This Map is
listed at Day 10 in Appendix 4 of this Report.
It is clear from the objectives in the various Development Plans referred to above and, in
particular, in the Meath County Development Plan of 2001 as varied, and to the
strategies outlined from the National Development Plan 2000- 2006, in the Strategic
Policy Guidelines and in the DTO "Platform for Change", that the proposal to construct
an off-line roadway as an improvement for the N3 as a Motorway from Clonee to Kells
and to continue as a new off-line road from Kells to rejoin with the existing N3 at the
county boundary north of Carnaross, including a Bypass of Kells on the N52, conforms to
the Transportation Policies and Objectives of the Development Plan. Having regard to
this and to the Certificate submitted by the Council's Planning Officer that the proposal
was consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and
having inspected these lands myself, I am satisfied that the acquisition of the lands set out
in the Motorway Order conforms to the objectives of the Meath County Development
Plan.
In the 1998 Roads Need Study it was stated that the Clonee By-pass section of the N3
was already at motorway standard and the Study suggested that a dual carriageway was
required from the Clonee By-pass to Navan, a dual carriageway by-pass of Navan and a
dual carriageway from Navan to Kells, with a wide two lane road northwards from Kells.
As stated in Mr. Guthrie's evidence traffic counts taken by the Project Team subsequent
to their appointment in 1999 showed that the traffic predictions used for the N3 in the
Roads Needs Study had been overtaken by increased growth in traffic, and that the levels
now justified a motorway from Clonee to Navan . The relevant traffic flows, taken from
Vol. 2 and from the document handed in by Mr. Guthrie on Day 5 ( as listed in Appendix
4 of this Report) are set out below :-
AADT in 2024 Motorway capacity
Clonee to Dunshaughlin
(a) Clonee to Pace 64400*
(b) Pace to Dunshaughlin 54700 56500 (commuter)
Dunshaughlin to Navan
(a)Dunshaughlin/ Blundellstown 44000 56500 (commuter)
(b)Blundellstown/Kilcarn 53100 56500 (commuter)
Navan By-pass 30200 43500 (rural )
Navan to Kells 30300 43500 (rural )
Kells to north of Kells 14600** 13800 (rural for LoS D)
*The section from Clonee to Pace is a dual carriageway with an additional weaving lane,
and from ** Kells to North of Kells it is a wide single carriageway.
From the Pace Interchange to the Kilcarn Interchange, south of Navan, a motorway is
proposed providing a Level of Service C with a capacity of 56500 AADT when
considered as a commuter road, (Note that as a rural road its capacity for LoS C is
43500) and the provision of a motorway there is justified by the predicted traffic flows.
935
The predicted design year flows of 30200/30300 AADT for the section from Kilcarn
Interchange to Kells could be accommodated on a grade separated dual carriageway since
they are 30% below the capacity of a rural motorway at level of service C and this was
the thrust of the argument advanced by Mr. Frank Burke, Consulting Engineer, in his
submission on behalf of Ms Maher, Ardbraccan House and in his cross-examination of
Mr. Evans, see Section 134.1 of this Report and he had also raised this in his earlier
cross-examination of Mr. Guthrie, see Section 17. 2. of this Report. I also raised this issue
with Mr. Evans, see Section 115 of this Report.
In his evidence on behalf of Dalgan Park, Mr. Healy questioned the absence of an
assessment for induced traffic in the modeling undertaken for the proposed M3 and
quoted from the procedures used in the UK where the impact of induced traffic was
required to be assessed for all major road proposals and suggested that variable demand
methods should have been used in the traffic forecasts made for the M3, see Section 69.1
of this Report. Mr. Burke, when giving evidence on behalf of Ardbraccan, suggested that
there had been an over-estimation in the growth factors used in the Dr. O'Cinneide
Report, on which Mr. Richardson's forecasts were based, which lead to a 15% overestimation
in the base year model for the Kells area. Mr. Burke also suggested this overestimation
could allow for induced traffic to develop, see Section 134.1 of this Report.
While no specific assessment for induced traffic was included in the traffic forecasts
developed by either Dr. O'Cinneide in his reports or by the Project Team, the SATURN
model used by the Project Team allowed for a more extended network to be modeled
than was in Dr. O'Cinneide's model and it also took trip distribution changes into account,
which was not possible in Dr. O'Cinneide's model. The SATURN model is a robust
model that has been used extensively for traffic forecasting on many recent road
proposals in Ireland and the map showing the area modeled for the proposed M3, at
Figure 3 in Mr. Richardson's Brief of Evidence, includes the N2 from Dublin to Ardee to
the east of the route as well as areas to the west of the proposed route. In crossexamination
Mr. Healy accepted that the area modeled was more extensive than he had
thought initially. Having regard to the evidence provided in the EIS and given at the
Hearing, I am satisfied that traffic forecasting methods used by the Project Team, on
which their recommendations for a motorway were based, are sufficiently robust and that
the traffic predictions can be accepted without requiring a specific assessment for the
possible effects of induced traffic in this proposal.
Mr. Evans pointed out that the cross-section width used for the motorway was 27 metres
which was slightly less that the width of 27.5 metres proposed for a reduced width dual
carriageway in the Roads Needs Study; that there were driver behaviour issues in having
a "standard" dual carriageway following immediately from a "standard" motorway where
the only difference was in the colour of the road signs and that having a consistency in
road type as far as the N52 junction, where a clear division was being provided with the
twin roundabout junction was a more sensible and safer solution rather than follow the
options being advocated by Mr. Burke. The continuation of the motorway to Kells also
facilitated the decision of the M3 project as a PPP but Mr. Evans said that was a
secondary reason with the issue of driver safety as the primary reason.
936
Having regard to traffic flows predicted for the various sections of the N3/ M3 and to the
reasons outlined at the Hearing, particularly in the discussion between M/s Evans and
Burke, I am satisfied that the designation of the proposed road from Pace Interchange to
the N52 Junction as a motorway is justified on road design, traffic safety and capacity
grounds.
The predicted flows in 2024 for the Link roads are as follows :-
Dunboyne By-pass (R157) 9700 AADT
Trim Road Link at Dunshaughlin R125 18700 AADT
Kilcarn Link at Navan 22800 AADT
Athboy Road Link at Navan (N51) 33500 AADT
Kilmainham Link at Kells 4600 AADT
N52 Bypass of Kells 10700 AADT
The link roads at R157 and R125 are both wide single carriageways with a level of
service C (10000) on the R157 and level of service D ( 17900) on the R125, both for
commuter road scenarios. In the case of the Kilcarn and Athboy N51 Links to Navan,
dual carriageways are being provided where a level of service of C ( 34600) for a rural
road applies. Level of service D applies on the Kells N52 bypass in a rural road scenario.
Objections to the concept of a motorway were made by a number of objectors to the
Motorway Order and included in many of the submissions to the Road Development.
Some of these were to the concept itself such as that from George & Mary Begley,
Collierstown; the Columban Missionaries, Dalgan Park (Plot 1094); An Taisce and
Seamus Farrelly, Hill of Skryne. Others objected to the general location of the proposed
M3, including the above named as well as the following :- Bellinter Residents
Association (BRA) and individual residents from Bellinter/Ardsallagh areas; Canavans,
Collierstown (Plot 1067); John Wilkinson, Baronstown (Plot 1074/1075); Mahers,
Ardbraccan; John Delaney, Grange, Bective and Brian Smyth, Tankardstown, Navan.
There were also an alternative route suggested by the Meath Road Action Group
(MRAG) and this was supported by Mahers of Ardbraccan; R. Pagan of the Ardbraccan/
Boyerstown Group and the BRA. There were references to an "alternative being
available" from the following which, while not followed up by evidence at the Hearing,
appears to be the alternative suggested by the MRAG :- SERLA Print Ltd.(Plot 308);
P.Yorell, Dunboyne (Plot 293); Bective GFC (Plot 1138); J. Wilkinson, Baronstown,
(Plot 1074/1075); Tara Mines (Plot 2221); Sean Murtagh, Boyerstown (Plot 2181);
P.Carry, Drumbaragh (Plot 4016); M. Muldoon, Ballylist ( Plot 4039).
The Bellinter Residents Association referred to a possible alternative that would run to
the east and north of Dalgan Park which they had previously suggested to the Council
and I asked Mr. Guthrie about the investigation of the alternative, see Section 115 of this
Report. In a response submitted with other documents on Day 28. Mr. Guthrie confirmed
that no specific study of that suggestion had been made but said that it was similar to the
alignment assessed as part of route B3 in the route selection process. This would have
required a crossing about 16 metres above the valley floor, where the river valley is
937
relatively wide, and would require a substantial cutting east of the N3 to limit the height
of the river crossing which would be at grade on the west bank where it would cross the
main access to Ardsallagh House. The bridge crossing itself would be some 300 metres in
length and would be a prominent structure, with a significant visual impact, and would
require substantial approach embankments and cuttings on both sides of the valley.
Alternatives in the Ardbraccan area were referred to in Ms Joyce's direct evidence at
Section 86.1. and I subsequently questioned her on these, see Section 115. Ms Joyce
confirmed that they had examined a number of alternatives which are shown on the maps
included in the book of additional drawings which she had handed in, with other
documents, on Day 20 to the Hearing ( These are listed at Day 20 in Appendix 4 of this
Report). Some of the alternatives examined were suggested by Mr. & Mrs. Maher of
Ardbraccan House, some were suggested on their behalf by Mr. Frank Burke Consulting
Engineer and some were suggested by other residents in the Ardbraccan area. The
conclusions reached were that the Preferred Route impacted significantly less on houses
with only 5 houses within 100 metres while all other routes had higher numbers of houses
adjacent to them and there were also lessor impacts on flora/fauna habitats and potential
archaeological sites on the Preferred route by comparison to the alternatives considered. I
am satisfied that possible alternative locations for a route for the motorway in the vicinity
of Dalgan Park and of Ardbraccan were given adequate consideration by the Council in
the selection process for the route.
All of those who objected to the concept of a motorway also objected or made
submissions about the effects of the Road Development and their objections/submissions
will be dealt with in more detail in my comments on the Road Development. However, I
am satisfied, from the evidence presented by the Council and as referred to above on the
levels of traffic predicted, that the upgrading of the N3 by an off-line motorway along the
route proposed is justified. I am also satisfied, from the evidence presented and from the
cross-examination of the Council's witnesses, that possible alternative locations to the
route finally proposed were given careful consideration. In addition to the details of
alternatives presented in Vol. 2 of the EIS, evidence was given by the Project Engineers
-- Mr. Guthrie in Section 17.1 & 50.1, Ms Joyce in Section 25.1 & 86.1 and Mr. Evans in
Section 102.1 -- on the various alternatives considered in their respective Sections, both
for the mainline and, where appropriate, for the Link roads. I am satisfied, as previously
referred to in Section 145 on the requirements of Section 50(2)(d), that possible
alternatives were adequately considered.
The Meath Road Action Group in their submission to the Hearing, see Section 71 of
this Report, outlined their proposal that there should be a new route which combined the
N3 and N2 routes to provide for through or long distance traffic as an alternative to
upgrading the N3 by the M3 proposal of the Council. They did acknowledge that even
with their proposal some upgrading from Clonee to Dunshaughlin on the N3 and to
Ashbourne on the N2 would still be necessary and were, essentially seeking that their
proposal be fully investigated/assessed before a decision was made on the M3 proposal.
They said that the NRA response of this combination of the N2/N3 not being in the
938
Roads Need Study was not a valid objection as the Roads Needs Study was now
outdated.
There is no provision in the Meath 2001 County Development Plan for such a proposal
which contains proposals at Section 3.5.2 (ii) for improving both the N3 and N2 as
separate schemes. At my request, the Council made inquiries with Fingal County Council
whose response was referred to in a document handed in by the Council on Day 25. This
confirmed that there was a study in progress on how lands at Abbotstown might be
accessed from the M50, as part of the Campus Stadium Ireland Project, and this was
considering the possibility of a grade separated junction on the M50 between the existing
N2 and N3 junctions but only as a means of accessing the Abbotstown lands and that
there were no plans to link such a junction with an additional radial route emanating from
Dublin. No separate study to investigate the provision of an interchange junction on the
M50 between the existing N2 and N3 junctions had been carried out. Fingal suggested
that it was doubtful there was sufficient space on the M50 between the N2 and N3
junctions to service a combined N2/N3 radial route if the Campus Stadium Ireland
proposal went ahead at some future date. Having regard to this information from Fingal
and the fact of there being no provision for such a combined route in the County
Development Plan, I do not consider that the MRAG proposal for a combined N2/N3
scheme can realistically be seen as a viable alternative to the M3 as proposed in view of
the uncertainties associated with a junction onto the M50. On that basis I am not
recommending that a decision on the application for Approval to the M3 proposal be
deferred pending a study of the MRAG proposal.
There were also objections to the location and scale of the proposed Dunboyne Bypass,
R157, from the following :- Newtown Bridge Residents Association; David Deasy,
Lorrha Lodge; Owen McBreen Summerhill Road and Bernard Walsh & Emer Ni.
Mhaoldoimnaigh, Newtown Cottage (Plot 331) all of Dunboyne. Ms Joyce in her
evidence in when cross-examined by M/s Walsh & McBreen outlined the reasons for the
use of a wide single carriageway road for the Dunboyne bypass, which has the 10 metre
wide road instead of the 7.5 metre width advocated by the Newtown Bridge residents, see
Sections 25.1, 25.7, 25.12 & 25.13 of this Report. As can also be seen from the details of
predicted traffic flows given above, the predicted AADT of 9700 is almost at the limit
for a Level of Service C on a wide single roadway and if their request for a reduction in
width were agreed to, there would be severe traffic congestion on the Bypass well before
the design year of 2024. I am satisfied that the proposal to construct the Dunboyne
Bypass as a wide single cariageway is justified.
The other objection by the Newtown Bridge Residents, including that of Deasys,
McBreens and Walshs, was to the size of the Roundabout proposed at the Newtown
Bridge junction of R 157 and R 156 which they wanted reduced from the 60 metre
diameter in the Motorway Order to a diameter of 30/32 metres, which would use less
land from adjoining properties. From the evidence given and cross-examination on the
roundabout issue it is clear that the smallest diameter roundabout that could be provided
here would be one of 50 metre diameter and that a reduction in diameter would not affect
the landtake from Plot 331, the nearest to the Roundabout. Having regard to the fact of
939
there being a relatively high Heavy Goods Vehicle content in traffic flows on the R157 I
consider that a Roundabout of inscribed circle diameter of 55 metres, instead of the 60
metres originally proposed should be adequate at the Newtown Bridge junction, which
would still permit for normal tracking of articulated vehicles and for the number of
acceses required off this roundabout.
Mr. Micheal Kieran, Knockmark (Plot 172), supported by an objection from Mr. Eddie
Bannon, Knockmark (Plot 174) proposed an alternative route for the R125 Link road to
Dunshaughlin. This proposed a new route from the roundabout at the Dunshaughlin
Interchange to link with the Trim road R 154 at a new junction on the eastern side of
Kilcooly village rather than at the existing Merrywell junction which is to the west of
Kilcooly. This is shown on a map prepared on his behalf by Mr. Frank Burke, Consulting
Engineer which was handed in by Mr. Comyn, Solicitor, when making a submission on
behalf of Mr. Kieran on Day 11, see Section 43 of this Report.
The benefits of this alternative for Mr. Kieran and his immediate neighbours would be to
remove the need for a shared underpass and service roads and would also reduce the
severance impacts. In Mr. Bannon's case it would remove his land from the Order. His
solicitor suggested their alternative would cost less to construct than the Council's
proposal and have less of an impact on a possible reopening of the disused railway line.
The Council suggested the alternative would increase the possibility of Leshamstown
Lane being used as a "rat-run", that it would increase journey time for those using it who
lived west of the Merrywell junction on the R154 and that it would bring more traffic
through Kilcooly where the houses fronted directly onto the R154 and where there was
very limited space for footpaths or widening. While not directly referred to, it also
appears from the map submitted to involve lands not included in the Order. Mr. Kieran's
alternative route has also to be considered in the context of the proposed closure of part
of the existing R125, and the objection by Residents in the Leshamstown Lane area to
this closure.
A number of residents along and in the vicinity of the Leshamstown Lane outside
Dunshaughlin objected to the proposed closure of part of the R125. These were Bridget
Bowens, Carmel & Patrick Carroll, Mr. & Mrs Caton, William & Bridget Crowley, Shay
Fitzpatrick, James Finlay, Ann & Anthony Devey, Paula & Alex Doyle, Colm & Mary
Murphy, Leo Lawlor, Paul Manck, Annete & Enda McDonough, Walter Smyth, Mary
Keane, Brendan & Dolores Murlphy, Jack Irwin, Frank Fitzmaurice, Andy Morgan, and
Barbara Finlay. During the Hearing a submission of their behalf was made by M/s Finlay
and Murphy on Day 7, see Section 40 and they also made a closing submission on day
23, see Section 143.1. Their objection is effectively an objection to the proposed
Extinguishment of the Public Right of Way listed at 4 & 5 in the Third Schedule of the
Motorway Order ( See Appendix 6 of this Report).
The Leshamstown Lane residents had three main points in their objection to the closure
the first being that the Lane would be used as a short-cut by people in the Warrenstown
and Drumree areas to get to Dunshaughlin rather than go around by the new link; that it
affect people who traditionally came from Dunshaughlin out to the GAA club in Drumree
940
which was a nursery for many other GAA clubs and that the Lane was too narrow for the
extra traffic that would be forced to use it. The Council in their response contended that
the new route would be well signposted and that people would find it generally shorter to
use the new link road to get to and from Dunshaughlin with test trips from Knockmark
crossroads showing that it was marginally shorter in travel time going by the new link to
Dunshaughlin and that the extra volumes of traffic that might use Leshamstown Lane
would not be significant. The Leshamstown Lane residents objected to traffic calming
measures that would involve speed ramps and wanted the existing R125 kept open even if
only by way of a single lane bridge.
When I questioned Ms Joyce on the traffic implications, see Section 115, she
acknowledged the Council's assessment was for a possible doubling in traffic from the
present flow of about 240 cars daily to a possible 500 cars daily assuming 10 movements
per day from houses in the locality and 80% of these going towards Dunshaughlin. These
levels are still relatively low and less than one car per minute on a 10 hour day. The
existing R125 through Drumree Village is not suited to the expected levels of traffic if
the road remained open and a bridge could cost up to € 900000 even for a reduced width.
There is no provision in the landtake for a bridge crossing the motorway and Ms Joyce
confirmed that there was a difficulty in the width being available for the approaches
within the existing road space.
Having inspected the existing R125 and Leshamstown Lane prior to the Hearing and
having revisited the locality after the initial submission by the Residents and Mr. Kieran
and having looked at Kilcooly village on the R154, I consider that if Mr. Kierans
alternative was adopted it would (a) cause a traffic problem in Kilcooly for which no
solution has been proposed and (b) increase the likelihood extra traffic using
Leshamstown Lane in the event of the alternative being adopted and the existing R125
being closed. I also consider that the increased traffic, which is likely to use the existing
R125 if the public right of way remains in place, would be detrimental to the existing
houses fronting onto the R125 particularly in the Drumree village area. Accordingly I do
not recommend that the alternative route for the R125 suggested by Mr. Kieran be
adopted. I recommend therefore that the Public Right of Way be extinguished on the
particular section of the R125 as set out in the Third Schedule of the Motorway Order and
as delineated on the Map attached to the Motorway Order. I accept that this will increase,
to some extent, traffic flows along Leshamstown Lane and will suggest some mitigation
measures for this in my comments on the Road Development.
Gerrardstown Stud (Plot 1056) proposed a modification in the route of the M3 where it
passed through their lands which is generally set out in the objections made on their
behalf to An Bord Pleanala and summarised in Section 13 of this Report. Detailed
submissions were made on behalf of Gerrardstown Stud to the Hearing on Day 21 and are
set out in Sections 73 to 78 of this Report.
The proposed route had been adjusted where it passes through the lands of Gerrardstown
Stud to minimise the impact on an area of archaeological importance known as "Area
26"which affected a part of the Studs lands used as breeding paddocks which are close to
941
the stud yard and thus convenient for their management. The stud had proposed a number
of alternatives to the Council prior to the Motorway Order being published but the
Council were not prepared to accept the modifications suggested as these impacted on
Area 26. The stud then developed Route D as an alternative route that was slightly west
of the Council's route referred to as Route A in the comparison. This alternative, Route D
was generally parallel to the Council Route A and at some 200 metres distance from it
and went through three "landscape features", which consist of tree covered enclosures
that the Council's archaeologist thought might be of some archaeological or historical
significance. The alternative route D made use of a number of reverse curves to shift the
route to its alternative location while maintaining the same skew while crossing the N3 at
Roestown. The alternative route increased the severance on an adjoining non-residential
holding and passed through five other land holdings, all of which were not included in the
Motorway Order, while greatly reducing the severance impact on Gerrardstown stud
itself. Mr. McGrath B. L. who appeared for Gerrardstown Stud gave details of written
consents from five of the six landowners affected by Route D to the proposed alternative
route and had correspondence from the sixth landowner who indicated they were not
objecting but had not given a written consent by Day 21 of the Hearing.
The Council's principal objections to the alternative Route D proposed by Gerrardstown
were its impact on the three "landscape features" and to the additional curves introduced
to gain the required shift giving the route a degree of sinuosity that they would prefer to
avoid if possible. While the geometric design of Route D was accepted as meeting the
required standards, the Council did not see it as providing a significantly better option
than their own route, Route A and suggested that in general terms Route D could have a
greater noise impact on a nearby house and that there would be a visual impact from the
noise barrier which Route D would require as mitigation.
In his final submission Mr. McGrath suggested that their alternative route could be dealt
with by way of a modification under Section 49(3) of the Roads Act 1993 and he
suggested that the absence from the Roads Act 1993 of the restrictions set out in Section
5 (3) (a) of the Third Schedule of the Housing Act 1966 which effectively was the
foundation of the provision where land outside a CPO could not be brought into a CPO.
Mr. McGrath submitted that this "absence" from the Roads Act 1993 removed the bar on
An Bord from doing what he was suggesting, namely, a modification to substitute Route
D in place of Route A in confirming the Order. In my opinion Mr. McGrath was mistaken
in his assumption that the lack of a reference in the Roads Act 1993 to the restrictions
outlined in the Third schedule of the Housing Act gave a facility to include lands that are
outside the original Order in any approval of that Order. The Housing Act 1966 is the
basis for all provisions for compulsory acquisition of lands by local authorities for the
purposes of works to be undertaken by them and it underlies the provisions for
compulsory purchase, whether by motorway or compulsory purchase order, in the Roads
Act 1993, as amended. It is also notable that the recital to the Motorway Order includes a
reference to section 86 of the Housing Act 1966. In my opinion it is not permissible to
include lands in an Approval of the Motorway Order that were not included in the
original Order and therefore, Mr. McGrath's submission can not be put in place.
942
The Council did not recommend the Route D be substituted in place of the route they had
proposed which affects Plot 1056 and gave evidence that they did not see Route D as
being a better route. I agree that the use of reverse curves on a section of motorway,
where a speed limit of 120 kph applies, should be avoided unless there is no alternative
available and this situation does not apply in this case. On that basis I recommend that the
Route as proposed by the Council should remain unaltered and in the circumstances I
consider this is a case where the effects of the Motorway Order on Plot 1056 are best
dealt with by monetary compensation.
The Farrellys of Woodpole (Plot 4035/4036) and Whelans of Calliaghstown (Plot 4003)
suggested that the Route could have followed the N3 north of Kells; Mr. Gavigan of
Kells (Plot 3075) objected to the location used for the N52 Bypass route to cross the R
163 and Mr. Ormiston of Blackwater House, Kells (Plot 3094) also objected to part of the
route used for the N52 while Mrs. Madden of Kilmainham (Plot 3039) objected to both
the M3/N3 Link and to the route for the N52 By-pass.
No further evidence was offered on their behalf at the Hearing and having considered
what was set out in their original submissions to An Bord I am satisfied that the route
proposed by the Council for both the new N3 North of Kells and the N52 Kells Bypass
are the most suitable and I am satisfied that the routes selected should remain unaltered. I
consider that the effects of the location of the road on the respective lands can be
mitigated by compensation.
At the end of the Hearing there were 195 objections to the Motorway Order that had not
been withdrawn, including some submissions made to the Road Development that were
more appropriate to the Motorway Order. A summary of the objections/submissions is
given at Section 13 of this Report and set out hereunder are the Plot numbers, names and
addresses of (1) those who cross-examined Council witnesses at the Hearing, (2) those
who made verbal or written submissions to the Hearing and (3) those whose original
objection/submission was left stand, or who did not attend or ask questions.
1. The following 34 objectors questioned or cross-examined Council witnesses :-
CLONEE TO DUNSHAUGHLIN
121 Tom & Mary Byrne, Ashling, Roestown, Dunshaughlin
149/160 Michael & Mary Morrin, Johnstown House Johnstown Dunshaughlin
172 Michael Kieran, Knockmark, Drumree
255 David Robinson, Rathbeggan, Dunshaughlin
294 Reps Patrick Peters --- Theresa & Colum Peters, Piercetown, Dunboyne
326 Peter & Edward Henshaw, Benettstown, Dunboyne
331 Emer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh & Bernard Walsh, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
470 Anthony J. McDonnell, Knockmore, Ballina & P. J. Roche, Glascarn, Ratoath
DUNSHAUGHLIN TO NAVAN
1056 Gerrardstown Stud, Gerrardstown, Dunshaughlin
1062 1074 & 1075 James Swan, Skryne, Tara
1063 James J. Swan junior, Skryne, Tara
943
1064 The Limestone Land Co. Ltd. c/o Tara Stud, Clowanstown, Tara
George & Mary Begley, Collierstown, Tara
Liam Doyle & Grace Martin, Branstown, Tara
1074 /1075 John Wilkinson, Barronstown, Tara
1083 Phillip & Margaret Ryan, Lismullin, Navan
1090 Reps Mary E. McCarthy, c/o Cathal McCarthy, Philpottstown, Garlow Cross
1094 Rev. Peter O'Neill, Missionary Society of St. Columbans, Dalgan Park, Navan
Bellinter Residents Association per Alan Park, Bellinter Cross, Navan
Represented by Paul Brady, Solicitor :-
1111 Brian & Jean Malone, Ardsallagh, Navan
1122 Emmet Clarke, Ardsallagh
Frank & Marie Clarke, Ardsallagh (shared entrance with Plot 1122)
1125 Joseph & Patricia Fitzsimons, Ardsallagh
1126 Robert Fitzsimons, Ardsallagh
1127 Thomas & Anna Farrelly, Ardsallagh
1128 John T. & Breda Connolly, Ardsallagh
1130 /1144 John Columba McEvoy, 34 Market Square, Navan
1136 Sean Carty, Cannistown
NAVAN BYPASS
2181 Sean Murtagh, Boyerstown, Navan
S.J. Maher, Ardbraccan House, Navan
NAVAN TO KELLS TO NORTH OF KELLS
3047 Henry Newman, Gardenrath Road, Kells
3053 Henry & Una Newman, Gardenrath Road
4019 Michael & Bernadette Meegan, Drumbarragh, Kells
4062 Ms Betty Newman Maguire, Castlekeeran, Carnaross
2. The following 30 objectors made additional verbal or written submissions at the
Hearing :-
CLONEE TO DUNSHAUGHLIN
*119 Joseph & Ann McKillen, Roestown, Drumree
*150 Derek Gray, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
*155 Valerie Sunner, Knockmark, Drumree
162 Michael & Maureen Duffy, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
*163 Sean & Bernadette Joyce, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
*166 Pat Summerville, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
183 Gerry & Catherine Carry, Crosskeys, Drumree
188 Thomas McManus, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin.
*230 Peadar & Pauline Creagh, Raynestown
*257 Sylvester McAuley, Roselawn
*329 Tom & Loreto Doherty, Newtown, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
340 Sean Boylan, The Bungalow, Dublin Road, Dunboyne
*342 Sean Delaney, Bracetown, Clonee
352. Vincent McDonnell, Knockmore, Ballina, Co. Mayo.
944
353 Anthony J. McDonnell, Knockmore, Ballina
371 Strandfair Holdings -- Finnian O' Cinneide, Loughsallagh, Clonee ( as occupier)
429 Mary Redmond, Barnaderg, Drumree
DUNSHAUGHLIN TO NAVAN
Geraldine Hennessey, Spearsview Cottage, Cooksland, Dunshaughlin
*1087 Patrick & Susan Meehan, Lismullin, Garlow Cross, Navan
NAVAN BYPASS
2103 Mark Corley, Grange, Bective, Navan
*2114 Nicholas & Kathleen Keogh, Rackenstown House, Dunshaughlin
*2117 Vitgeson Ltd., Moatlands, Navan
*2140 Maureen Foley, Macetown, Navan
2324 Eamonn Corley, Grange, Bective, Navan
*2325 Thomas & Maureen Hare, Williamstown, Navan
NAVAN TO KELLS TO NORTH OF KELLS
3018 Andrew Brooks, Febog, Kells
*3038 John Newman, Curragh, Kilmainham
*3071/ 4009 Thomas Duffy, Boolies, Balrath, Kells
*4000 /4002 Eamonn Duffy, Boolies, Balrath, Kells
*4063 Kieran & Martina Meegan, Drumbarragh.
3. The following 131 objectors, most of whom were represented by M/s Gaynor Corr,
did not add to their original objection or their representative advised that it was being
left stand as it was submitted :-
CLONEE TO DUNSHAUGHLIN
*118 John & Kathleen O' Connor, Roestown, Drumree
*120 Arthur & Elodie McFaul, Roestown, Drumree
*123 /124 Martin & Monica Kelly, Roestown, Drumree
*147 John Francis Morgan, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
*148 Peter Conlon, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
171 Christopher Lynch, Knockmark, c/o John Lynch, Augherskeagh, Drumree
*173 Drunree GAA Club, c/o Sean Walsh, Augherskeagh, Drumree
174/182 Eddie Bannon, Kilcoole, Drumree
All in Leshamstown Lane area
Bridget Bowens, Roestown, Drumree
Carmel & Patrick Carroll, The Haven, Readsland, Drumree
Mr. & Mrs. P. Caton, Meadowcroft, Leshamstown Lane, Dunshaughlin
William & Bridget Crowley, Leshamstown Lane Drumree
Shay Fitzpatrick, Breffni, Leshamstown Lane
James Finlay, Leshamstown Manor, Drumree
Ann & Anthony Devey, Almeida House, Leshamstown, Drumree
Paula & Alex Doyle, Tara House, Roestown Drumree
Colm & Mary Murphy, Leshamstown, Drumree
Leo Lawlor Watermeadows, Leshamstown, Drumree
945
Paul Manck, Birchlawn, Drumree
Patricia Murnane, Leshamstown, Drumree
Annette & Enda McDonagh, Leshamstown Lane, Drumree
Walter Smyth, Leshamstown, Drumree
*186 Louis & Mary Murray Fortfield, Derrockstown
189 Shane Cassidy, 119, Navan Road, Dublin 9
*213 Patrick & Mary Townsend, Raynestown,
*215 Thomas & Irene Reeves, Raynestown,
217 Raymond & Sheelagh Brennan, Raynestown
*218 Michael & Marion McCullagh, Raynestown
223 David & Patricia Crimmins, Raynestown
*229 Dermot & Philomena McGreal, Raynestown
*231 Frank Goodman, Raynestown
*232 Joseph & Noreen Sheridan, Bush Lane, Raynestown
*234 Patrick Ennis & Joan Burke, The Bungalow, Raynestown
*235 John & Marie Drake, Raynestown
*236 Declan & Ellen Collins, Raynestown
*237 Desmond & Anne Bellew, Raynestown
*238 Sean & Patricia Wynne, Raynestown
*239 Eamonn & Mary Halligan, Raynestown
*240 John & Joanne Duffy, Raynestown
*241/242 Thomas & Pauline Everard, Raynestown
256 Ronald Robinson, Rathbeggan, Dunshaughlin
264 Bucco Ltd., Suite 1, Westpoint Health & Fitness Centre, Blanchardstown,
293 Patrick Yorell jnr, 2, Old Fair Green, Dunboyne
308 SERLA Print Ltd, Serla House, Greenhills Road
*312 Hugh Mullally , Woodpark, Dunboyne
330 Mary J. Barden, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
332 Richard, M.J., & Doris Bruton, Newtown, Dunboyne
346 John Connaughton (Ltd.), Ballybane, Killiney Avenue, Co. Dublin
*450 John & Pamela Conneely ,The Maples, Dunboyne
*467 Thomas O'Sullivan, Loughsallagh, Clonee
DUNSHAUGHLIN TO NAVAN
1052 Margaret Quinn, Westleigh Farm, Roestown, Dunshaughlin
1061 C.A.S Ltd., c/o Jones Engineering Ltd., Waterways House, Grand Canal Quay
1067 Captain Anthony & Catherine Canavan, Collierstown, Tara
1076 Vincent & Ann Murphy, Skryne, Tara
*1088 John & Maureen Meehan, Lismulin, Navan
1089 Noel McGuinness, Blundellstown House, Garlow Cross
1092 Liam Donohue, Darraugh, Garadice PO, Ballyconnell. Co. Cavan
James McCaldrin, Oak Lodge, Bellinter, Navan
Joseph Heery, Ardsallagh, Navan
*1109 Cormac Murray, Wood Lodge, Ardsallagh
1109 Thomas Wimesy, Gate Lodge, Ardsallagh (as occupier)
1124 Tony & Alison King, Tall Trees, Ardsallagh
*1130/1144 John Columba McEvoy, 34 Market Square, Navan
946
1133 Reps of Frank Foley, Cannistown, Navan
1135 Leslie & Mary Curtis, Cannistown
1138 John Moran, Secretary, Bective G. F. C., Cannistown, Navan
NAVAN BYPASS
*2113 Vincent Keating, Ardsallagh, Navan
*2116 Shiela O'Keefe St. Anne's, Balreask, Navan
*2117 Maurice & Joan Whelan, Balreask Old, Dublin Road, Navan
*2118 Daniel McCormack, Balreask House, Navan
*2131 Michael & Teresa Crowley, Balreask Old, Dublin Road, Navan
*2132 Noel & Josephine Hogan, Balreask Old, Dublin Road, Navan
2142 Stan & Bernadette Kennelly, Knockanure House, Macetown, Navan
*2151 Patrick & Monica Sherlock, Gainstown, Navan
*2151 John Sherlock, Oldtown, Bohermeen, Navan
*2156 John & Majella Carolan, Woodview Cottage, Flemingstown, Balrath,
*2157/2158 Edward & Aileen Maguire, Gainstown, Navan
*2158 Gerard & Margaret Ormond, Gainstown
*2159 Fiona & Patrick Reilly, Gainstown
2165 Patrick Darcy, Boyerstown, Navan
2173 Reps of Rose Wall --- James & Teresa Wall, 16 Woodbine Lawn, Inniscarra View.
2180 Reps of Patrick Brady, c/o Brian Hughes, 26 Magdalene Street, Drogheda
*2183/2185 James & Thomas Dowdall, Knockumber, Navan
2200 Margaret & John Donaghy, Ardbraccan, Navan
*2203 John Markey, Ardbraccan
*2211 David McCarthy & Yolanda Potter, 21 Blackcastle Estate, Navan
*2211 Patrick Marron, 24 Moatville, Navan
2215 Michael Peter Fitzsimons, Ardbraccan, Navan
2219 Peter & Carol Callaghan, Orgenstown,
2220 John & Margaret Donaghy, Ardbraccan,
2221 Tara Mines Ltd. Knockcumber, Navan
2223 Vivienne Kennedy, Neilstown Lodge, Neilstown, Navan
*2226 John Carolan, Mullaghboy, Navan
*2326 Agnes Graham, Williamstown
*2327 Noel & Mairead McCormack , Site No. 3, Williamstown
Brian Smyth, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Patricia Gibney, 5 Woodlands, Navan ( About Plot 2387)
NAVAN TO KELLS TO NORTH OF KELLS
*3006 Patrick Rispin., Grange, Bohermeen
*3007 Andrew Rispin, Grange, Bohermeen
*3012 John McLoughlin, Phoenixtown, Ardbraccan
3016 Thomas Tallon, Martry, Kells
3017 Patrick Martin Boggins, Nugentstown, Kells
*3019 Fintan & Hilda Hogan, Ballybeg, Kells
*3024 Patrick & Mary McRedmond, 98 Johnstown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire
3026 Andrew, James, Lawrence & Terence Brooks Febog, Kells
and Kathleen Connell, Ballybeg, Kells
947
*3037 / 3109 Brendan Heerey, Kilmainham., Kells
3039 Winifred Madden, Kilmainham, Kells
3040 / 3122 Tom Hickey, Kilmainham, Kells
3041 Eugene J. Reilly Kilberry House, Kilberry, Navan
3046 Bridget Tansey, Carkfree, Ballinameen, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
3065 George Armstrong & W. & G. Armstrong (Kells) Ltd., Market Street, Kells
*3066 Trevor Fitzherbert, Swynnerton, Blackcastle, Navan
3072 George Armstrong, Newrath, Kells
3075 Thomas Gavigan, Farrell Street, Kells
3075 Thomas & Veronica Flanagan, Oldcastle Road, Kells (as occupier)
3082 Damien & Mary Mulvany, Cavan Road, Kells
3094 Norman Ormiston, Blackwater House, Kells
3095 Phillip Dunne, Cakestown Glebe, Kells
3103 Thomas Garvey, Rockfield Road, Kells
--------------
4003 Edward & Bridget Whelan, Calliaghstown, Kells
4016 Patrick Carry, 154 Woodsland, Navan
4018 James McDonald, Drumbaragh, Kells
4019 4025 Michael & Elizabeth Farrelly, Castlekeeran, Kells
*4026 Laurence Farnan, Pottlebane, Carnaross
4027 John Farrelly, Newrath Big, Lloyd, Kells
4031 John O'Connor, 3 Chesterfield Grove,
4035 Michael & Elizabeth Farrelly, Castlekeeran, Kells
*4036 Matthew Farrelly Woodpole, Carnaross & Christopher Farrelly, Woodpole
*4039 Matthew Muldoon, Ballylist, Carnaross
*4073 Evelyn Reyburn, Cordoogan, Monasterboice, Co. Louth
----------------------------
Note -- * Indicates that the owner was represented by M/s Gaynor Corr, Agricultural
Consultants and details of their objections are included in the composite listing of the
typical objections, which mainly related to " Accommodation Works and Related Issues",
given at pages 39/40 in Section 13 of this Report.
Since almost all of the objectors to the Motorway Order listed above also objected to the
effects of the Road Development, I propose to deal with their objections in my comments
on the Road Development issues. The Council had prepared responses to each of the
original objections received by An Bord and these are referred to at Sections 49, 85, 101
& 120 of this Report. Copies of the Council's responses were handed in to the Hearing at
Days 10, 13, 16, 18 & 28 as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report.
Having regard to the evidence given by the Council's witnesses, the submissions made at
the Hearing by the landowners or by their representatives and to the responses made by
the Council, I am satisfied that adequate evidence was presented to justify all of the
acquisitions proposed by the Council in the First Schedule of the Motorway Order. I am
satisfied that adequate access is being provided to lands where the direct access is being
prohibited in the Fourth Schedule of the Order and to the lands being severed by the
scheme roads, insofar as it is reasonable to do so. I am also satisfied that in the cases of
948
severed land where it would have been unreasonable or unsafe to provide access, the
Council's proposals to acquire such severed parcels of land as part of the Road
Development are justified.
As set out in the Second Schedule to the Motorway Order, 16 Wayleaves are to be
acquired and evidence on these was given by Mr. Evans when giving evidence, see
Section 102.1. No objections were raised at the Hearing to the acquisition of these
wayleaves. In the Third Schedule of the Order are listed the 88 Public Rights of Way in
Part 1 that are proposed to be extinguished and the 22 Private rights of Way in Part 2 that
are also proposed to be extinguished. Objections were made to two of the Public Rights
of Way, one being about no's 4 & 5 on the R125 by residents in the Leshamstown Lane
area and the other being by M/s Steen O'Reilly Solicitors on behalf of Ronald Sherlock,
t/a Sherlock Furniture Balreask Old, Navan about no. 50 at Swan Lane, Navan. The basis
for the objection to the R125 extinguishment has been detailed earlier in this section of
the Report and I outlined why I considered the objection should not be upheld.
Agreement was reached between the Council and M/s Sherlock Furniture on an
alternative access during the Hearing and their objection to the extinguishment of those
rights of way was withdrawn, see document submitted by Mr. Frank Burke, Consulting
Engineer on Day 22 as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report and also Sections 87 & 117.
No objections were raised in respect of any other of the Public Rights of Way, or about
any of the Private Rights of Way at the Hearing. Finally the Seventh Schedule of the
Order sets out details of the Three Planning Permissions proposed to be suspended and
the Seven Planning Permissions proposed to be modified. During the Hearing reference
was made to Planning Ref. 98/1340 by Mr. Swan, the owner of Plot 1063 and in their
objection to An Bord M/s Armstrongs, the owners of Plots 3065 & 3072, refer to
Planning Ref. 98/1362. Both of these Planning Permissions are listed in part 2,
Permissions being suspended.
I am satisfied that, in respect of the Public and Private Rights of Way that it is proposed
to extinguish, the Council are proposing adequate alternative access arrangements in the
Road Development Proposal to be put in place for the users, including those for the part
of the R125 proposed to be extinguished. I am also satisfied that the acquisition of the
Wayleaves and the revocation and suspension of the specified Planning Permissions are
necessary for the purposes of construction of the Motorway scheme.
Proposed Road Development :
As listed in Section 6 of this Report, submissions in respect of the Road Development
were received from the following, those who made submissions or who cross-examined
or questioned Council witnesses at the Hearing being highlighted :-
Duchas, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2.-- Architectural, Archaeological & Nature Conservation.
An Taisce, Tailors Hall, Back Lane, Dublin 8.
The Arts Council, 70 Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
Bat Conservation Group, Cavan/Meath Branch, 32 The Old Mill, Rathoath.
949
Meath Roads Action Group, c/o Eamon Halligan, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
Meath Archaeological & Historical Society -- Oliver Ward, Spiddal, Nobber
Irish Georgian Society, 74 Merrion Square, Dublin 2
Dunboyne Historical Society -- Linda Clare, Coolcommon, Batterstown, Dunboyne.
CLONEE TO DUNSHAUGHLIN
Liam Scott, Piercetown House, Piercetown, Dunboyne
Newtown Bridge Residents Association, c/o Lorrha Lodge, Summerhill Road
Dunboyne -- Deirdre Deasy & Owen McBreen
Garnett Hall Residents Association, c/o 5 Garnett Hall, Dunboyne --
Catherine Connolly & Dawn Tolan
David Deasy, Lorrha Lodge, Dunboyne
Owen & Mairin McBreen, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
Mary Keane, Leshamstown, Drumree
Brendan & Dolores Murphy, Leshamstown ( Representing Residents )
Andy Morgan, Leshamstown Lane
Barbara Finlay, Leshamstown Manor. Jack Irwin, Roestown.
Frank Fitzmaurice, Leshamstown
Raynestown Residents Association, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
DUNSHAUGHLIN TO NAVAN
Patricia & James Conroy, Collierstown, Tara
Tom Foley & Karen Carty, Collierstown
Anastasia Crickley, 30A St. Kevins Road, Dublin 8
Seamus Farrelly, Hill of Skryne, Tara
Conor Newman, M.A., N.U.I., Galway
Dr. Brian Lacey, Discovery Program Ltd., 34 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2.
John Delaney, Montbretia, Grange, Bective, Navan.
Shiela Bradley, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross, Navan
Kathleen & Patrick Farrelly, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross,
Pat Raleigh, Mission Education Department, St. Columbans, Dalgan Park.
Catherine Reilly, 48 Blackcastle, Navan
Margaret McGrath, Sion Cottage, Johnstown, Navan
Catherine Cleary, Sion House, Johnstown, Navan.
Pauline Connolly, c/o St. Michaels Secondary School, Loreto, Navan
Bellinter Residents Association, Bellinter
Thomas & Margaret Hamill, Bellinter, Navan
Helen Ryan, Ardsbeg, Bellinter
James McCaldrin, Oak Lodge, Bellinter
Anne Barber, Bellinter
Christopher & Claire Oakes, Bellinter
John & Patricia McCormick, San Antonio, Bellinter
Alan Park, Bellinter Cross
Brendan, Anne, Estelle & Lynette Magee, Bellinter
Raymond & Elizabeth Martin, Bellinter
Cannistown Residents Association, c/o Thelma Keating, Talara House, The Avenue,
Aidan & Thelma Keating, Talara House, The Avenue, Ardsallagh
950
John & Rose Smyth, Ardsallagh
NAVAN BYPASS
Cannistown Residents Association, c/o Thelma Keating, Talara House, The Avenue,
Ardsallagh
James McIntyre, Boyne Hill, Navan
M/s Steen O'Reilly & Co. Solicitors, Navan, on behalf of Ronald Sherlock,
t/a Sherlock Furniture, Balreask Old, Navan.
Ray Keegan, Grange, Bective, Navan
Moatville Residents Association by Ruth Cahill, Chairperson, c/o 10 Moatville
Patricia Gibney, 5 Woodlands, Navan ( For CPO - Plot 2387 )
Brian Smyth, Tankardstown, Navan
Richard Byrne, Ardbraccan
H.R. & R. M. Pagan, Islay, Ardbraccan, Boyerstown
Simon Hilliard, Ardbraccan, Boyerstown
Sean Finlay, The Glebe House, Ardbracca
NAVAN TO KELLS TO NORTH OF KELLS
Edwina Dunne, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Therese Coffey, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Claudine Coffey, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Sandra Coffey, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Hugh Coyle, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Paula Coyle, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Thomas Regan, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Rebecca Rennicks, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Ivan Rennicks, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Brian Smyth, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Fiona Feely, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan.
Note --- all of the above are adjacent to end of Navan By-pass section.
W. G. Dallas, Martry, Kells
Phillip Dunne, Cakestown Glebe, Kells
Mrs. Winnie Madden, Plot 3039
Norman Ormiston, Blackwater House, Kells Plot 3094
George Armstrong and W. & G. Armstrong (Kells) Ltd. Plot 3065 & 3072
Edward & Bridget Whelan, Calliaghstown, Kells (Boolies Road) Plot 4003
Gerard Murphy, Cavan Road, Kells
The principal issues in the submissions made to the Road Development (EIS) are detailed
in Section 146 with a summary of individual submissions being given in Section 13. The
issues raised at the Hearing varied as between different sections of the proposed Road
Development which reflected some matters that were of more concern at a particular
locality with some, such as traffic noise, being raised in all sections.
In the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section the issues raised generally related to :- Traffic
noise; Construction effects -- noise, dust, effects on services such as wells etc, access to
property, traffic movements; cul-de-sac issues, boundary treatments etc; Air quality;
951
Severance effects; Shared underpasses; Landscape & Visual impacts; Footpaths;
Flooding from Tolka; Cultural Heritage -- local folklore issues.
In the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section the issues generally related to :- Traffic Noise;
Construction effects as before; Archaeology; Impacts on Tara /Skreen ; Landscape &
Visual impacts; Impacts on Dalgan Park; Boyne crossing; Severance issues; Stud farm
issues: Flooding from Skane; Impacts on Habitats; Drainage issues; Impact on Railway
route; Air quality; Cultural Heritage -- Tara, Buildings; Alternative routes.
In the Navan By-pass, and for the Navan to Kells /to North of Kells Sections, the
issues generally related to :- Traffic Noise; Construction effects as before; Severance
effects & underpasses; Habitats; Impacts on Ardbraccan House; Drainage issues;
Footpaths and effects of temporary road closures; Cultural heritage; Landscape &
Visual; Alternative routes.
From an examination of the EIS, and from the evidence given at the Hearing, including
the cross-examination of witnesses, it is clear that the most significant impact of the
proposed Road Development on the Environment is on Human Beings from the impacts
of Traffic Noise, Material Assets, Visual and Construction Effects. There are also
impacts on the Natural Environment, particularly on the Cultural Heritage, with the
impacts on Air, Visual and Landscape and on the Aquatic environment also being of
some significance.
Traffic Noise issues :
Traffic noise was one of the issues that was raised in all sections and was one of the most
frequent issues raised in the submissions made to the Road Development with the criteria
of 68dB LA 10 18hour used by the Council to determine when mitigation measures
would be applied being strongly criticised. There was also criticism by members of the
Bellinter Residents Association and by Dalgan Park of the methodology used when noise
measurements were taken in Dalgan Park with the level of the wind speed at the time
being questioned. Mr. Summers, who gave evidence on noise aspects for the Council in
that section, was not present when the measurements were being taken and could only
rely on the notes made at the time by his staff and this was strongly criticised by Bellinter
Residents and Counsel for Dalgan Park. (see Sections 50.23, 55 & 108A ). I am,
however, satisfied from the subsequent review undertaken by Mr. Dilworth, the other
noise expert, and from the general consistency of background noise levels reported across
the overall scheme in the EIS that the noise levels predicted for the proposed Motorway
Scheme in the EIS can be relied on when assessing the impact.
From the details given in the EIS, Vols. 3 to 7, the current noise profile along the
proposed route varies from 64/74 dB LA10 18hour in the vicinity of the N3 to levels of
49/56 dB LA10 18hour in areas away from the N3 between Clonee and Navan, and
levels of 46 /58 dB LA10 18hour between Navan and Kells except in the vicinity of the
N51 where levels are 73/74 dB, but with specific locations being as low as 40 dB LA10
where these are at a distance away from road traffic. From Kells northwards noise levels
952
are in the range of 43/ 52 dB LA10, except where the route is close to the N52 and N3
where noise levels are 67/76 dB. With a criteria of 68dB LA10 as the level for mitigation,
absolute increases in noise of up to 20dB would still be possible in some areas, where the
background noise levels were relatively low but the more typical increase would be in the
range 13/18 dB since the more typical levels away from the N3, N51 & N52 are in the
range 50/55dB LA10 18hour.
There is at present no National criterion for Traffic Noise in Ireland and the levels used
for road schemes are the same as those applied in the UK. During the Hearing the
possible effects of the recent Directive 2002/49/EC relating to "the assessment and
management of environmental noise" was raised by both Mr. Scott of Piercetown,
Dunboyne and Mr. McIntyre of Cannistown Residents and Boyne Hill, Navan ( see
Sections 29.6, 89.2 & 89.3). Mr. Macken S.C. also referred to the decision by An Bord on
the Outer Ring Road scheme in South County Dublin when appearing for the Morrins,
Plots 149/160. As detailed in Section 108 the Council submitted a Revised criteria for
assessing the noise exposure of noise sensitive residential receptors and the proposed
criterion is set out hereunder, the full document being listed at Day 20 in Appendix 4 :-
"Proposed M3 Motorway Noise Criterion :-
(1) The noise level shall be predicted at the ground floor façade of noise sensitive
residential properties that may be impacted upon by the scheme. Prediction
calculations shall be conducted for the Existing, Do Nothing and Do Something
scenarios. The accuracy of the prediction calculations shall be verified by comparison
of the modeled Existing noise levels with results obtained by measurement.
(2) The Target Noise Level is equal to a façade level of 68dB LA10 18hour (nominally
equivalent to a free field value of 63 LAeq 24hour) within 100 metres of a road where
the existing traffic flows are greater than or equal to 3000AADT, otherwise the
Target Noise Level is equal to a façade level of 65db LA10 18hour ( nominally
equivalent to a free field value of 60dB LAeq 24hour)
(3) Mitigation measures will be deemed necessary at existing noise sensitive residential
properties where all three of the following conditions are satisfied :-
(a) The Specific Noise Level associated with the new scheme is greater than or
equal to the Target Noise Level ( Note that the Specific Noise Level is defined
as being the noise level associated with the new scheme under consideration,
without taking into account any contributions from other roads or extraneous
sources)
(b) The combined predicted Do Something noise level from the new scheme
together with any other traffic in the vicinity is at least 1dB(A) more than the
predicted Do Nothing noise level for the same assessment year.
(c) The contribution to the increase in the combined predicted Do Something
noise level from the new scheme is at least 1dB(A).
953
(4) Where they are deemed necessary, mitigation measures will be implemented in order
to reduce the Specific Noise Level associated with the new scheme to a level below
the Target Noise Level. "
The Council stated that while the noise impact assessments for the M3 scheme had been
conducted in accordance with best practice in Ireland, with the publication of Directive
2002/49/EC on 29 June 2002 they considered it was appropriate to put forward a more
stringent noise criterion now and that this criterion was of a similar level to that applying
in Austria, France and Germany and more stringent than that in the UK, Portugal and
Greece.
From the cross-examination of Mr. Dilworth, one of the Council's noise experts, and of
Mr Searson who gave evidence on noise for Dalgan Park and other objectors, it is clear
that many of the examples of lower noise levels quoted by objectors as being applicable
in other Countries are either expressed in terms of LAeq or use other indices, with the
lowest European level being 55 LAeq and most European levels being around 60 LAeq.
These levels would be from 3 to 8 dB below the current Irish norm of 68 dB LA10 which
equates to 63 LAeq for a nominal free field scenario. M/s Dilworth and Searson agreed
that typical night time levels ( from around 2100 to 0070) would be up to 10dB below
daytime levels and that attenuation of up to 15dB could be obtained across a window left
ajar and that in-bedroom levels, even with a partially open window, would typically be
up to 25dB below daytime external façade levels, see Sections 47.1 & 108.2. With a
daytime façade arrival level of 60 dB LAeq free field or 65 dB LA10, as suggested for
flows of less than 3000 AADT, this could give in-bedroom night time levels of about 35
dB LAeq, which is within the range quoted by the WHO and in BS 8223/1999 that Mr.
Searson suggested should be the aim to be mitigated for in his evidence, see Section 67.1.
Similarly in-room daytime levels of about 45dB LAeq could be expected, again with a
window ajar, from a façade arrival level of 60 dB LAeq or 65dB LA10.
As proposed by the Council the target criterion of 65dB LA10 18hour would only apply
where traffic flows were less than 3000AADT, which would only be on the side roads
adjoining the motorway/dual carriageways. I do not consider this would be equitable
since it is the motorway that is the source of the impact and, in my opinion, the Revised
criterion of 65 dB LA10 façade level should be applied to all noise sensitive residential
receptors in the vicinity of the proposed M3 Motorway Scheme.
In my opinion the use of an arrival level of 65 dB LA10 18hour, equivalent to 60 dB
LAeq, rather than the level of 68dB LA10 18hour originally proposed would meet the
concerns of most of the objectors in respect of traffic noise impacts from the operation of
the proposed motorway in the context of the likely "in-room" levels that would result, as
distinct from the perceived noise effects that are being anticipated.
As set out in the procedures in the document " Control of Road Traffic Noise" (CRTN)
this façade measurement is taken at a distance of 1 metre from the most exposed part of
an external window. While there was discussion at the Hearing about other measurement
methodologies, in the absence of an Irish "standard " for assessing road traffic noise I
954
consider that the use of the CRTN methodology is still the most appropriate methology to
be used in the assessment of road traffic noise for the proposed motorway from Clonee to
North of Kells, subject to the revised criterion of 65 dB LA10 18hour being used to
determine when mitigation is required.
There are two areas along the proposed route where an external level of 60 dB LAeq
(65dB LA10 18hour) would still be significantly above the current ambient noise levels.
These would be at the Rathbeggan Lake area and at Ardbraccan House. The most
appropriate guidelines for these sort of external areas are in the recommendations for
gardens in the WHO 1995 Guidelines on Community Noise and in BS 8223/1999 for
gardens and balconies with a figure of 50 dB LAeq being suggested by the WHO and a
range of 50 to 55dB LAeq by BS 8223/1999. Having regard to the relative difference in
level and to the distance from the motorway I consider that it would be possible to
achieve an arrival level of 55 dB LA10 18hour or 50dB LAeq free field at the lakeside
edge nearest to the motorway at Rathbeggan Lakes. There are already some banks
proposed at Rathbeggan Lake to accommodate the access overbridge and these could be
extended to provide for the noise reduction required here.
Mr. Osbourne when being cross-examined on the effects of noise on horses stated that at
distances of over 300 metres noise had little effect and Mr. Dilworth, in response to my
question, refered to the reduction in noise as the distance from the source increased, see
Sections 54.5 and 108. 2 of this Report.
Having regard to the distance between the motorway and Ardbraccan House of some 450
metres at its closest point ( where the motorway is also in a cutting of about 1 metre), I
also consider that it would be possible to achieve a façade arrival level of 55 dB LA10
18hour at Ardbraccan House, but some mitigation measures would be necessary to
achieve this level. For the Ardbraccan House area, noise barriers could be placed along
the top of the embankment or, alternatively, a noise reducing material, such as porous
asphalt or a similar material, could be applied as the road surfacing used from the
Boyerstown / Bohermeen area northwards in combination with the appropriate location
of proprietory noise barriers to provide for the necessary additional noise reduction.
An arrival level of 55 dB LA10 18hour or 50 dB LAeq would allow for the noise
requirements as outlined by Mr. Searson as being necessary for the indoor musical events
to be continued, see Sections 108.5 & 113.2. Depending on traffic levels the outdoor
arrival levels of noise should frequently be below the target of 50 LAeq and at off-peak
flow times might well be in the low 40s, which would facillitate the holding of outdoor
musical events in the grounds of Ardbraccan House at certain times during the afternoon
and evening. Since those outdoor events would be weather dependant, and as this can be
very variable in normal Irish Summers, it would be unreasonable to require that
mitigation measures be provided which could be visually very obtrusive to provide for a
noise level that might be required for only occasional uses.
I consider that, on balance, mitigation to provide for the in-room arrival noise levels
agreed on by M/s Searson and Dilworth (circa 35 dB LAeq ie 50-15) as being reasonable
955
for indoor musical events would be a sufficiently low level to achieve, in the context of
the overall environmental impact at that location.
Submissions were made by The Arts Council and the Irish Georgian Society to An Bord
in respect of the impact of the motorway and its potential noise effects on the proposed
development of musical events at Ardbraccan House and asked that this be taken into
account when considering the proposed road development. An Taisce also referred to
Ardbraccan House in its submission. The suggested arrival level of 55dB LA10 18hour
would meet, to a reasonable extent, the basis of those submissions.
At my request the Council prepared noise contour maps for Dalgan Park to show the
noise levels within the Park area in the Do Nothing scenario, the noise levels there in
2024 for the Do Something scenario with mitigation by noise barriers and also a plan
showing the pathways and the present and proposed noise levels on these paths. These
maps were handed in on Day 28, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report. As can be seen
from the map of the pathways the noise levels on all of the pathways to the east of the
Skane River will be the same, or less, in 2004 and 2024 with the M3 and mitigation noise
berms/ barriers in place for the 68dB LA10 18hour criterion as they would be in 2004
and 2024 if the M3 was not built. In general the levels shown on map SK 215, which are
in LA10 18hour terms, meet the WHO and BS 5228/1999 recommended levels for
gardens except for two locations -- one within 100 metres of the motorway near the
proposed Boyne Bridge at Bellinter and the other on the private footpath to the northeast
of the Main Building which is close to the existing N3.
Since the Revised criterion of 65 dB could reduce these noise levels from the proposed
M3 by a further 3 dB in the Gate Lodge area, by the application of the Revised criterion
to that house and to the nearby houses of Ms Bradley and the Farrellys on the
Dowdstown road, it is clear that the noise impacts on the Dalgan Park area from the
proposed motorway would not be significant and would be similar to the present noise
levels on the pathways there, except on the part of the path in the area to the west of the
River Skane that is close to the Boyne Crossing. In that location the level in 2024 would
be in the range 55/59 dB LAeq which in the overall context of the pathways would not be
significant. It should be noted that in the vicinity of the Gate Lodge off the Dowdstown
road, the predicted noise levels in 2004 with the M3, and with mitigation in place, would
be about 5dB below present levels and for 2024 it would be up to 7dB below the
expected level in the do Nothing scenario. This reduction comes from the Dowdstown
Road being moved by about 100 metres southwards away from the Gate Lodge and the
effects of the noise barriers on the motorway itself.
The need for a low noise level was also referred to in evidence given by Mr. Searson on
behalf of Ms Newman Maguire, Castlekeeran, Plot 4062, who has an artists studio at her
house. The predicted noise level in 2024 for this property is 62 dB LA10 18hour, see
Section 113.1, but this is a combination of noise from both the new N3 of 57dB, some
130 metres away and from the Kierans Well Road, to which her property fronts, giving
61dB. Both levels are well within the revised criterion and would provide for a daytime
956
in-room level in the range of 40/45 LAeq which is of the level regarded as "reasonable"
in BS 8223/1999 for living rooms.
A submission was made to the Hearing on behalf of the Lismullin Education
Foundation, see Section 83. Predicted noise levels for the two nearest receivers, nos. 35
& 37 in Table 4.8 are 68 & 66 dB LA10 18hour. The application of the Revised criterion
would reduce these levels to 65 dB LA10 and, as above, give in-room daytime levels of
about 45 dB LAeq which can be regarded as being in the "reasonable" category in terms
of BS 8223/1999 recommendations. The Lismulllin Center is 150 metres further from the
M3 than either of receiver 35 or 37 which would give a further reduction in noise levels
for that building and it should be noted that the route had been adjusted previously to
meet concerns expressed by the Centre, a point that was of concern to Ms Ryan (Plot
1083) from the perceived increased impact on properties to the east of the route. ( See
Section 1.2 in Vol.4A of the EIS and Section 50. 5 of this Report).
Evidence was given by Mr. Searson on noise levels at the properties of the Peters family,
Piercetown, Plot 294, and McCarthys, Blundellstown, Plot 1090, where he suggested
that the external arrival levels should be mitigated to 50 LAeq. Both of these properties
are adjacent to the existing N3 and presently experience noise levels in the range of 60 to
65 dB LAeq. Since the proposed target level would now be equivalent to 60 dB LAeq, I
consider this as a reasonable target arrival level for both properties as it is at the lower
end of the present noise levels at their respective properties, and no further mitigation
below the general target level is required in their cases.
The impact of noise on the operations of Tara Stud ( Plot 1064) through which the
motorway would run for about 3 kms. was raised in cross-examination and I asked the
Council to investigate the feasibility of providing a bund along the western edge of
theacquisition line to reduce the effects of traffic noise. The Council responded in a
document handed in on Day 28, as listed in Appendix 4, in which they confirmed that a 2
metre high bund could be provided in addition to the woodland screen proposed within
the proposed landtake. I consider this would be of benefit in mitigating the impact of the
motorway on the operations of the Stud and that this bunding should be provided as
proposed in the Council's submission.
As referred to in Section 108.2, noise levels on the Ardsallagh Road are predicted to be
at 69dB even with noise barriers in place on the motorway since the traffic using the
Ardsallagh Road itself will be the dominant noise. Having regard to the fact that the noise
level from the motorway would be a contributing factor the Council have undertaken to
provide a noise reducing surface for 400 metres of the proposed realignment of L-4009-8
north of the new staggered junction, and on the full 890 metres of the realigned L-4009-8
north of the River Boyne and over the connecting section of L4009-8 of about 1000
metres between both sections of new realigned roads, see document handed in on Day 28
as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report. This would reduce the noise effects from traffic
using the Ardsallagh Road itself adequately, with the noise bunds on the motorway
mitigating the noise effects form the motorway on the nearby houses.
957
Following my request that other adjoining side roads be assessed, the Council confirmed
that none of the other side roads would have predicted levels above the then criterion of
68dB and, from the document submitted on Day 28, it can be seen that the predicted
levels will be within the revised criterion of 65dB . In general terms, the application of
the revised criterion of 65 dB as the "cap" on road traffiic noise should limit the
maximum "overall" increase above the present ambient noise levels in the "quieter" areas
along the proposed route to an increase falling within the range of 10 to 13 decibels,
which is similar to the criteria on which An Bord's decision on the Outer Ring Road was
based.
A further assessment was carried out by the Council during the Hearing of noise levels at
Ms Martin's house on the Trevet Road arising from her questions and the details, as listed
in Appendix 4 at Day 28 were forwarded to her. The levels predicted are less than the
revised criterion of 65dB LA10.
I am satisfied that the application of the Revised Target criterion of 65 dB LA10
18hour at the nearest noise sensitive receiver to be used in determining when mitigation
measures are to be applied, in conjunction with the existing measures outlined in the EIS,
subject to the lower levels of 55 dB LA10 being applied at Rathbeggan Lake and at
Ardbraccan House, would result in the impact of Traffic Noise on the environment being
considered acceptable and not being of significance.
The application of this revised Target Noise criterion would require increased noise
barrier heights in some locations where noise barriers are already proposed to meet the
EIS criterion of 68dB, and the provision of new noise barriers in some other locations
where, in the EIS, no barriers were recommended. While this would increase the visual
impacts and in some cases this might be a significant increase in the scale of the visual
impact, the noise impact and the use of 68dB to determine the need for mitigation was the
single most common objection made both to An Bord before the Hearing and at the
Hearing itself. When asked if a change in the criterion would require additional noise
bariers, Mr. Dilworth said that any change in the criterion would have an effect on the
mitigation required, see Section 89.3 of this Report. I consider that, on balance, any
increase in visual impact that might follow from the aplication of the Revised Target
criterion would be outweighed by the reduction achieved in the noise impact and that
there would be a positive impact overall on the environment.
There are a number of proprietary noise barrier materials now available, and Mr. Searson
submitted photographs of some examples, which would be visually unobtrusive. In most
cases where noise barriers are proposed in the EIS, landscaping is also proposed and any
additional noise berms or bunds could be suitably landscaped or wall type noise barriers
could be screened by landscaping. I am satisfied that this issue was adequately addressed
at the Hearing and does not require a further assessment if the revised Target Noise
criterion was to be applied in determining the mitigation measures required on the M3
Scheme.
958
Construction Noise and Vibration issues :
The Construction effects include Construction Noise and arising from my comments on
the levels proposed in the EIS, see Section 108.2, the Council made an amendment to the
noise limits proposed in the EIS which, effectively, reduced by 5dB the levels shown in
the EIS, eg. Table 4.9 in Vol. 3A, for the periods Monday to Friday 0700 to 1900 and
Saturday 0800 to 1630, see document handed in on Day 25 as listed in Appendix 4 of this
Report. The maximum 1 hour level would now be 70 dB LAeq Monday to Friday and
65dB on Saturday with the peak being 80dB and 75dB respectively. Having regard to the
length of scheme, it is unlikely that construction noise at these levels will be generated
for extended periods in specific locations and on that basis I consider the Council's
amended proposals for Construction Noise limits are acceptable. However, I consider that
the site working hours should be limited so that no construction work takes place within
100 metres of any occcupied dwelling house before 0700 hours Monday to Saturday,
after 1900 hours Monday to Friday, after 1630 on Saturdays and not at any time on
Sundays or Public Holidays.
In relation to monitoring of Construction Noise, which was an issue raised during the
Hearing in cross-examination, the Council undertook to provide and maintain a number
of Noise Monitors in place as "Control Stations " in the context of the requirements of
BS 5228/ 1997 " Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites" where
construction works that would generate significant noise levels are in operation. As set
out in the document submitted at Day 25, as listed in Appendix 4, a minimum of Four
Noise monitors and Two Vibration monitors should be adequate for normal operations
but the Council have also undertaken to provide more if required for specific periods.
Responsibility for selecting locations and ensuring correct operation would lie with the
Council's Site Representative, who would also be responsible for advising residents of the
results of such monitoring.
The effects of blasting when removing rock in excavation work was raised both by
property owners concerned about possible structural effects and by some of the Stud
Farms on account of the effects on thoroughbred horses. During the Hearing the Council
gave an undertaking that where blasting would be taking place in the vicinity of houses, a
pre-blasting structural survey of such houses would be undertaken which, generally,
satisfied the concerns that had been raised.
In the EIS it was stated that the magnitude of vibration effects from blasting would be
considered in terms of Peak Particle Velocities (PPVs). Evidence was given by Mr.
Searson that no limits were given in the EIS in relation to the accoustical parameters in
relation to the firng of explosives and he drew attention to limits set for such activities at
Tara Mines where a limit of 125 DB (L) was set during daytime for the peak air overpressure
for commercial blasting operations by the EPA, where the value of dB(L) was
known as Pmax. Mr. Searson said that where the bloodstock industry was involved a
stricter limit was necessary and in reply to my question he indicated a level of 20 dB(L)
lower, which actually equates to the night-time Pmax limit imposed on Tara Mines by the
EPA. In the circumstances of concerns expressed, I consider that a daytime limit for
959
Pmax ( peak air over-pressure) of 125 dB(L) be set for all blasting operations undertaken
on the M3 Scheme with a level of 105dB(L) being set for any blasting operations taking
place adjacent to paddocks or other areas normally used by bloodstock animals.
Construction Effects :
A substantial number of the submissions and objections referred to the effects of the road
construction on the services to properties including the effects on private wells, septic
tanks and other utilities, access to driveways and houses generally, surface flooding from
roadways onto property and boundary treatments. In general the Council responses to
these submisions were to the effect that some of these were issues which would be dealt
with, if the Order was approved, in subsequent negotiation about compensation terms and
that others would be dealt with by the contractor as part of the detailed design stage.
During the Hearing a number of objectors questioned the lack of certainty in some of way
the responses they had received had been worded and in cross-examination of the
Council witnesses a number of clarifications and undertakings were given by the Council
on these issues. The Council then confirmed that if the Order was approved the
negotiations on accommodation works would be undertaken by the Council and these
would then be included in the PPP contract for construction by the Contractor which
clarified concerns raised by some objectors at the Hearing about who would be
responsible for dealing with those works.
Two areas are identified in the EIS specifically where there was a potential for impact on
the groundwater where cuttings would be excavated, at the Dunsany road area shown in
Figure 8.1 in Vol. 3A and at the Bohermeen Road area referred to in Section 8.4.4 in
Volume 5A of the EIS. A submission was made to the Hearing by Mr. McKillen, (see
Section 48.2 ) on behalf of 10 residents in the Dunsany road area and a number of
objections to the Motorway Order and Submissions to the EIS were made from the
Dunsany/ Leshamstown areas. During the Hearing the Council gave an undertaking to
carry out pre-construction pump testing of wells in the Dunsany Road area to establish
their vulnerability and that deepening of the well or other appropriate remedial action
would be undertaken by the Council's contractor as appropriate. Details of this
undertaking, and copies of letters issued to the property owners in the locality, were
handed in on Day 21as listed in Appendix 4 of this report. The persons written to are :-
Arthur & Elodie McFaul, JP & Ann McKillen, John O'Connor, Tom & Mary Byrne, JP
Irwin, all of Roestown; Evan Newall, Peter Conlon, John Morgan, all of Readsland,;
Walter Smyth, Leo & Michelle Lawlor, John Nulty, Frank & Mary Fitzmaurice, all of
Leshamstown and PA & Carmel Carroll, Dunsany Road, Drumree. Almost all of these
are in the list of objectors to the Motorway Order or to the EIS given above.
In the case of the Bohermeen Road area, the EIS stated that further monitoring of existing
wells and pump testing would be undertaken to establish potential impacts and the
Council's general commitments on remedial works to wells would be applicable there.
Attrention was drawn to a potential for an impact on St Ultan'sWell, a local historical
well adjacent in the grounds of Ardbraccan House and located some 500 metres from the
960
Bohermeen Road motorway cutting but adjacent to the Randalstown fault zone. When
questioned Mr. Finlay suggested that a limited lining of the motorway cutting might be
required if the pump testing indicated a potential impact on St Ultan's well as being the
more appropriate mitigation, rather than the use of a grout curtain as indicated in the EIS,
see Section 136.2 of this Report. I consider the potential impact on wells in the
Bohermeen and Ardbraccan areas has been adequately dealt with in the EIS and by the
evidence given at the Hearing.
The Council confirmed that the Contractor would be responsible for ensuring that
services such as water supplies, septic tanks, sewer connections, utility connections and
access to properties would be maintained and that adequate notice and liaison about
construction work which might affect any of these services would be given. The Council
also confirmed that surface water drainage for road realignment associated with over/
underbridges or diversions associated with the motorway scheme would be designed and
constructed so as to ensure water did not enter onto driveways.
Arising from queries and submissions at the Hearing the Council undertook that any
sections of disused surfaced roadways ( cul-de-sacs) that became redundant as a result of
realignment for over/underbridges or other diversions would have the surface ripped up
and topsoil spread there to render them unusable.
The use of local roads by construction traffic, including their possible use for imported
fill and for disposal of unsuitable material was discused at the Hearing and the Council
confirmed the access to the site of the motorway and its associated link roads would be
confined to using only the following roads :- National Roads -- N3, N51 &N52; Regional
Roads -- R125 except for section between junctions with R154 & N3 ( ie via Drumree&
Dunsany), R154, R155, R156 & R157 ( except for sections through Dunboyne), R161,
R163 & R164 and Local Roads --- L - 1005 Collierstown road for 600 metres northeast
of Ross Cross, L - 2201 Dowdstown road for 1100 metres west of Garelow Cross and L-
8001- 10 Phoenixtown road from the N3. The Council also confirmed that the use of all
other local roads would be prohibited in the contract conditions which means that all
construction traffic approaching or leaving the site, from Clonee to North of Kells, would
be confined to using the National and Regional roads where these intersect the route of
the proposed M3 scheme and the sections of three specific Local Roads from their
junction with the N3 to where the M3 crosses that Local Road. Imported fill and
unsuitable material would also arrive at and leave from the site via these road as well.
The type of boundary treatment to replace existing roadside fences that would be
removed was referred to in many of the submissions and was also raised at the Hearing
on behalf of a number of property owners. While this is part of the acommodation works
negotiations between the Council and each landowner, it was clear from the crossexamination
of the Council's witnesses that the wording of the Council responses had
created some confusion about who would be responsonible for these negotiations in the
context of the Council's references to the PPP contractor and the detailed design stage.
The Council had confirmed that all negotiations about compensation/and accommodation
works would be conducted by or on behalf of the Council with each the landowner as in
961
the case of "normal" contracts (see above ), but at my request for a clarification on the
boundary treatment issue, the Council included a note on the issue of boundary
treatments, dated 15 November 2002, with the documents handed in on Day 28 as listed
in Appendix 4 of this Report. This set out that there were two types of "standard" fencing
which would be applicable across the scheme, a timber post and rail fence and a
blockwork or stonefaced blockwork wall and that landscaping or a hedge could be
planted with the timber rail fence. The Council confirmed that existing boundaries
including those at house frontages would be replaced by the same or by similar type of
boundary, the details to be negotiated by the Council on an individual basis.
Arising from the evidence given on behalf of the Peters family in Piercetown, Plot 294,
and their request for a wall to replace their frontage which would be removed as part of
the re-positioning of the realigned N3, see Sections 25.16 & 47.2, as their house would
be within 50 metres of the realigned N3 the Council were asked to submit details of the
locations of all houses within 50 metres of new roads in the proposed M3 scheme. From
the details submitted, as listed at Day 28 in Appendix 4 of this report, it appears that most
houses within 50 metres of new roads are on the realigned side roads or overbridge
realignments where they presently front onto existing roads, or were fronting onto the
existing N3, N51 or N52, where these would become part of the motorway scheme. Apart
from houses being acquired to be demolished as part of the proposed motorway, the only
house that would be within 50 metres of a completely new road would be in Plot 4022
west of Drumbaragh. Having regard to the Councils's undertaking to replace existing
frontage boundaries at houses by the same or a similar type of boundary, I consider that
this issue can be dealt with adequately within the context of the accommodation works
and compensation negotiations between the Council and individual preoperty owners..
I am satisfied that the Council provided adequately clarification to the issues raised
relating to the "Construction Effects" and that queries raised in objections and
submissions were adequately dealt with in the written responses given by the Council
and, where necessary, by the clarification given by the Council subsequently at the
Hearing.
Air Quality and Dust Issues :
While Air Quality was referred to in a number of submissions to the EIS, the evidence
given by the Council indicates that for worst case receptors the predicted pollutant
concentrations for NO2, PM10 and Benzene will remain below the present limits on
traffic related pollutants in existing and proposed National and EU Air Quality Standards
for both scenarios for both 2004 and 2024. While Mr. Healy in giving evidence on behalf
of Dalgan Park questioned the accuracy of some of the baseline monitored levels
recorded, he confirmed when cross-examined that his evidence was only based on what
he would have expected the levels to have been, and that he had not carried out any tests
himself. The Council witnesses on Air Quality confirmed they were satisfied with the
accuracy of their predictions and no contrary evidence was submitted to the Hearing. I
am satisfied that the levels recorded in the Councils baseline monitoring can be regarded
as being typical of what would be obtained in a short term monitoring exercise and in the
962
type of location such as were used in this case and am also satisfied that the predictions
made can be relied on.
However, in view of the concerns expressed by a number of objectors to the effects from
increased traffic levels and that fact that trends are best identified by a long term
monitoring of pollutants like PMs and NO2, I consider that as part of the M3 Motorweay
scheme the Council should be required to set up and maintain at least two continuous
monitoring stations to monitor levels of Nitrogen Oxide (NO2) and Particulates (PM10).
From comments made by both Dr. Porter and Mr. Healy, the most appropriate locations
for these stations would be at the major interchanges where traffic conditions would be
favourable to increased emission levels and I consider, having regard also to the areas
from where the submissions were made, that the Interchanges at Pace and Blundellstown
are the most suitable locations for such longterm monitors to be located.
Issues relating to the Control of Dust were included in the objections and raised in crossexamination
by several people at the Hearing and while there are dust control measures
outlined in the EIS and these were expanded on by the Council's witneses at the Hearing
particularly in relation to the imposition of a speed limit of 20 kms.per hour on vehicles
using unsurfaced site roads and other measures, generally as detailed in the EIS. In
response to queries about monitoring of dust emissions during construction work, the
Council undertook to install and maintain Dust Monitors consisting of "Bergerhoff Jars"
at a number of specific sites while construction work that could generate dust was in
progress. The locations of the 25 sites nominated where these Dust Monitors will be
placed by the Council along the length of the proposed road are given in the documents
the Council handed in on Day 28, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report, are given
hereunder :-
Houses of Liam Scott, Piercetown; Teresa Peters, Piercetow; Kieran Lavelle, Piercetown:
Property of David Robinstown, Rathbeggan; Michael Lynn, Derockstown; Newalls,
Readsland House; Tom Byrne, Roestown,; Bernard Walsh, Newtown cottage, Dunboyne;
Properties adjoining Roestown crossing N3; Properties on Trevet Road; Sandra Ryans
Lismullin; properties adjoining Dowdstown Overbridge; Properties on Ardsallagh Road
north of Overbridge; Property north of mainline at Trim Road overbridge; Property
northeast of mainline at Robinstown Road overbridge; Property northeast of mainline at
Athboy Road realignment; Property east of mainline at Boyerstown Road; Halting site at
townparks; House east of Kilcarn Link at Ballybatter Road; House east of Kilcarn link at
Swan Lane; ON N3 north of Kells; Northeast of Twiun Roundabouts at Calliagfhstown;
Grangegoddan Glebe; West of Pheonoxtown Overbridge; East of Drumbaragh
Roundabout; East of Derver Roundabout.
I am satisfied on the basis of the undertaking given and the details submitted, which are
additional to the Dust minimisation measures outlined in the EIS, that the impact of Dust
on the environment from the proposed Road Development will be adequately controlled
and not of significance.
963
Material Assets & Severance issues :
The impacts on Material Assets are described in the EIS for agricultural assets, nonagricultural
assets and for natural resources and, in general terms, the impacts on
agricultural and non-agricultural assets are those from the acquisition of lands and houses
and these impacts can be mitigated by the accommodation works and compensation terms
that will be negotiated by the Council with the owners, if the proposed Motorway Order
is approved. A total of 224 agricultural propoerties will be affected by acquisition of land
for the Road Development.
A total of 13 houses are proposed to be acquired for demolition as part of the Road
Development, with 3 residential properties having all of the atttached lands acquired and
45 residential properties being affected by partial acquisitions and 28 commercial
properties would also be affected by partial acquisitions, all of which make up the Nonagricultural
Material Assets affected by the proposed Motorway.
Where severance of lands is caused by the route, access arrangements have been provided
and these are shown on drawings in the "B" Volumes of the EIS. The main source of
objections to the arrangements proposed was from the use of shared under/overpasses and
passageways with landowners seeking separate facilities where their lands were severed.
In cases where the area of land severed was of a relatively small area or where the cost of
providing an access passage was more than the value of the severed land, the Council
proposed to acquire those parcels for use in their landscaping proposals usually as
Specific Landscaping Measures (SLMs). I consider that in the locations where such
acquisitions are proposed, and as already stated, these acquisitions are justified as part of
the Road Development.
In the light of concerns expressed by landowners on the use of "shared facilities", the
Council commissioned a Report from Professor Kevin Dodd, Lecturer in the Veterinary
Faculty in UCD in the Large Animal Clinical Studies Department who specialises in the
epidemiology of infectious diseases. As detailed in his evidence at Section 27 in this
Report, Professor Dodd concluded that the use of shared facilities represented no extra
risks over the residual risks that were always present and that his understanding of current
Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development policy was that an shared
under/overpass did not represent an un-acceptable risk provided there was no mingling
of herds and that reasonable steps were taken to prevent the build-up of faecal matter. As
Professor Dodd described these steps by saying that a good neighbour policy of leaving
the underpass as one would expect to find it and the risk of disease transmission would be
kept to a minimum if that good neighbour policy would be followed. The Council
confirmed that where shared under/overpasses were being provided they would provide
reasonable holding facilities on the landowners land as part of the accommodation works
wherea shared under/overbridge was being provided. The Council also submitted details
of other road schemes constructed as at November 2002 on Day 28 of the Hearing, as
listed at Appendix 4 of this Report, and while the number in place is small they appear to
be operating satisfactorily.
964
Details of the locations and number of users for each shared under/overpass were also
submitted by the Council and the details are listed at Days 25 & 28 as listed in Appendix
4. These details show that dairy farmers are involved in only a few of the shared
facilities and as dairy farming could involve twice daily usage "return trips" during the
milking season, there could be some justification in the concerns expressed by dairy
farmers about the practicalities, as distinct from disease issues, of using the shared
under/overpasses particularly where large dairy herds are involved, since it is a common
farming practice to let the herds find their own way back to their field after being milked
when this does not involves crossing public roads.
Evidence was given on behalf of two dairy farmers who had concerns about the use of a
shared facility, Mr. & Mrs. Morrin, Johnstown house, Dunshaughlin, Plots 149/160, and
Mr. Kieran, Knockmark, Dunshaughlin, Plot 172, and written submissioins were made to
the Hearing by Mr. & Mrs. Duffy, Plot 162, Mr. & Mrs. Joyce, Plot 163 and by Mr.
Summerville, Plot 166, all of Rath Hill Dunshaughlin, all of whom sought a separate
facility. The only other shared facility which has a dairy farmer listed as a user is for an
underbridge under the Athboy Link road where M/s Dowdalls, Plot 2183, share with
Tara Mines land usage.
An overbridge with a 6 metre wide carriageway was proposed by the Council to service
the Morrins, Plots 149/160, who have a very large dairy operation and Mr. Delaney, Plot
159, who has a large sheep flock and also stocks beef cattle and this issue was discussed
in Section 44 of this Report when it was suggested that the overbridge be widened to
provide for two passageways across the bridge separated by a wall that, effectively,
would give each landowner their own crossing facility. The Council subsequently
reported that the additional cost for widening the overbridge to 10 metres, which would
give each landowner a nominal 5 metre passage divided by a wall, was € 225000 while
the 6 metres bridge as proposed was estimated to cost € 700000. Having regard to the
scale of the dairy operations on the Morrin farm and the impact of the motorway on the
operations of both landowners, I consider that a widening of the overbridge to 10 metres
overall width, which would give each landowner an effective passageway width of about
4.5 metres, would be the appropriate mitigation of the severance impact on both the land
holdings. Both land holdings were already being provided with separate access
passageways as far the shared overbridge and the Council also confirmed that widening
of the bridge could be carried out within the landtake in the Order.
In the case of Mr. Michael Kieran, Knockmark, plot 172, on whose behalf evidence was
also given, see Section 43 of this Report, he is the only dairy farmer of the five
landowners for whom this underpass is proposed. Mr. Kieran rents on a longterm basis
two of the adjoining lands, Plots 155 and 171 which means that there would only be three
users while that renting arangement continues. The Council proposed to provide a 6
metre wide by 4.5 metre high "box" underpass here located on Mr. Kieran's land as he
would be the most frequent user. From details supplied in respect of the Keogh
submission on the Navan By-pass Section, the cost of a 4.5 metre by 4.5 metre box
underpass at the Kilcarn Link, a dual carriageway is € 41000 for the unit plus installation
costs. Having regard to the fact of the R125 at Knockmark being a wide single
965
carriageway, which would require a lessor length than at the Kilcarn Link, the additional
cost of providing two 4.5 m by 4.5 m "box" underpasses in place of the 6.0m by 4.5m
proposed would be marginal, since the installation costs for two would not be much more
than that for the larger unit. I consider that the provision of Two underpass units at
Knockmark, which would provide one unit for Mr. Kieran as the sole dairy farmer and
most frquent user and the other as a shared unit between the less frequent users, would be
the more appropriate mitigation of the severance impact in this location.
Written submissions were made to the Hearing in respect of the shared underpass facility
proposed at Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin, see Section 48.3 of this report by the Duffys, Plot
162, Joyces, Plot 163 and Pat Summerville, Plot 166 each of whom sought a separate
underpass/ acess road on grounds of disease concerns. I am satisfied from the evidence
given by Professor Dodd that the risk of disease being spread by the use of shared fcilities
is no higher that that which presently exists in normal farming operations where good
husbandry practices are followed. However I accept that the requirements for stock
movements are more frequent for dairy farmers that in dry stock or tillage and can require
twice daily returns in the milking season. The underpass being proposed by the Council
at Rath Hill is also for a 6 metre by 4.5 metre high "box" and I consider that the provision
of Two 4.5metre by 4.5 metre underpass "box" units, located at the boundary of Plots 163
and 166 would provide a more appropriate mitigation of the severance impacts at this
location. Both Mr. Summerville, Plot 166 and the Joyces Plot 163 are dairy farmers and
each of these would then share a unit with their adjoining landowner ( Plot 166 with 167,
163 with 162) whose usage would normally be of a lessor frequency.
As stated above, from the details supplied to the Hearing, the only other daiy farmers
involved with a shared underpass are the Dowdalls of Knockumber, Plot 2183, who share
a 4.5 metre by 4.5 metre "box" with Tara Mines and who made a written submission to
the Hearing, see Section 100.2 of this Report. I consider that this proposal is adequate to
mitigate the severance impacts in that location since they share with only one nonfarming
user whose use would seem likely to be infrequent.
Mr. Keogh, the owner of Plot 2114 at Cannistown, who made a verbal submission to the
Hearing, see Section 100.1 of this Report, that the height of the underpass proposed at 4.5
metre was inadequate for a combine harvester where he gave a height of 4.88 metres as
applying. From the brochure he submitted, as listed at Day 22 in Appendix 4 of this
Report, there is no reference to machine height given but the machine appears to be of
integral construction. Having regard to the fact of a 5 metre by 5 metre "box" being
available for an additional cost of € 9000 for the unit only and as the additional
installation cost would be marginal, I consider that the size of underpass to be installed
should be increased to 5 metre by 5 metre as the more appropriate mitigation of
severance in this case. Three landowners would share this underpass and the increased
height would involve sinking the floor level a greater depth below ground level than was
proposed for the 4.5 metre high unit. While the floor level would be above the normal
water table, as is reported in the Council's response to Mr. Keogh's request in the
document submitted to the Hearing on Day 28 and listed at Appendix 4 of this Report,
966
the floor of underpass may be subject to flooding after heavy rain, but see my further
comments at page 971 of this Report.
Objections to the severance impact were made by the Ryans, Lismullin, Plot 1083, both
to An Bord and at the Hearing in Ms Ryan's cross-examination of Council witness. This
holding is being split by the motorway with a substantial part being separated from the
farmyard area and access is being provided by means of a service passage, shared with
another farmer, in Plot 1084 which links into the realigned overbridge at Lismullin on
Local road L - 6200-0, a cul-de-sac roadway. Arising from Ms Ryans concerns, see
Section 50.5, I requested the Council to examine the feasibilty of providing an underpass
to connect both parts of Plot 1083 directly and details of this were submitted by the
Council on Day 13, as listed at Appendix 4 of this Report. This indicated that it would be
feasible to provide a dedicated underpass but the mainline would have to be raised by
about 2 metres and this would require additional filling to the embankment and bunds in
this area. The cost was estimated at € 710000, half of which was accounted for by the
extra filling. There would be some saving on this cost by the reduction in length of
service road required on the far side of the motorway as this would not have to extend to
the Ryan holding. In my opinion the increased height of the embankment required to
provide this underpass would not have an increased visual impact on adjoining houses
since there are bunds already being provided for landscape and visual screening. I
consider that the decision on the provision of an underpass for Plot 1083, while noting it
is feasible to do this without increasing the visual impact of the motorway in the locality,
is a matter for consideration in the overall compensation and accommodation
negotiations between the Council and the landowner in this instance.
An objection was made by the Raynestown Residents Association in their submission to
An Bord to the provision of a service road to Plot 251off the Raynestown Road adjacent
to the motorway which they said was un-necessary since that landowner could gain
access elsewhere. Mr. O'Sullivan, Plot 221, Raynestown made a similar objection to Plot
221b.20 being acquired for access road no. 13. Ms Joyce handed in a map showing the
location of this acquisition arising from these objections and confirmed that the Council
had not been able to establish that the alternative access referred to by the Raynestown
Residents had any legal standing. This map is listed at Day 7 in Appendix 4 of this
Report. I am satisfied that the acquisition of plot 221b.202 to provide for Access road no.
13 to plot 251 is justified. It should be noted that Mr. John O'Sullivan withdrew his
objection to the acquisition of plot 221 on day 25.
Access to the Henshaw property, Plot 326, which is being provided with one dedicated
underpass as part of the Kennedy road underbridge in Dunboyne and a shared underpass
with Plot 326, was clarified for the Henshaws during Mr. O'Donnell's questioning of Ms
Joyce, see Section 46.
There was a reference to the provision of an overpass for the farm in Dalgan Park, Plot
1094 during Mr. O'Donnell's cross-examination of Mr. Farrelly, see Section 53.2, but Mr.
Farrelly said that an alternative access had been provided which included for an access
off the Dowdstown Road realignment and that an overpass was not required to mitigate
967
the impact on the farming operations in Dalgan Park. It would be possible to provide an
overpass to link the lands on either side of the motorway, without involving any other
landowner or creating an adverse visual impact, and this could be used instead of the
alternative suggested by the Council which does involve using, in part, existing public
roads. In my opinion this is an issue about which is the more appropriate access
arrangement that should be provided and this would best be determined as part of the
negotiations betweeen the Council and the landowner on the accommodation works and
compensation arrangements in this case.
Evidence was given on Behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Henry Newman, Plots 3047 & 3053 of
Gardenrath, Kells on the effects of severance on their farming operations. Having regard
to the submissions made, the evidence given and the Council's responses, I consider that
the mitigation measures propoosed by the Council are reasonable and that any further
mitigation would be by way of accommodation woorks and compensation.
Use of Natural Assets :
The proposed Road Development will require the use of some 718.449 hectares of land
of which some 654 hectares is used as agricultural land, 57.85 is part of public roadways
and the balance is in residential or commercial use. While the quantities of imported
filling required was given in Vol. 2 of the EIS as being likely to exceed 4.5 M cu. metres,
more accurate calculations were undertaken by the project team after the EIS was
published. From the details provided in evidence at the Hearing by the Council it now
appears that some 5.33 M cubic metres of imported filling would be required to make up
the shortfall between what can be excavated within the landtake and is suitable for use in
road construction and the total quantity required to construct the motorway scheme and
this will come from existing Natural Resources in the area surrounding the route and
probably mainly from within County Meath.
As previously described the Council were not able to identify from where this imported
fill would come, but they confirmed that any proposal by the contractor to use sites for
which there was not an existing planning permission would require that a planning
application(s) would have to be submitted for determination by the relevant Planning
Authority in acordance with normal planning procedure. I consider that having regard to
nature of the difficulties outlined by the Council, see Section 145 at Section 50 (3) (d),
and to the evidence given and cross-examination that subsequently followed at the
Hearing on this issue, the issue of the use of imported materials and of their possible
origin and impacts were adequately dealt with at the Hearing.
Socio-economic issues :
Concerns were expressed by and on behalf of the Columban Missionairies, Dalgan Park,
by the Bellinter Residents association and by other residents in at area adjoinng Dalgan
Park at the absence of references to the facilities available and to the activities engaged
in at Dalgan Park in the Socio-economic Section in Vol. 4A of the EIS. I previously
referred to the issues raised about this lack of reference by Mr. O'Donnell on behalf of
968
Dalgan Park in Section 147 of this Report, as well as in my comments in Section 145.
During the Hearing evidence was given by a number of witnesses on behalf of Dalgan
Park and in submissions given by individual residents in the Bellinter area as well as by
Bellinter Residents Association about the extent of the facilities and of the range of
activities, both public and private, in Dalgan Park and Dowdstown House and the
Council witnesses were cross-extensively on these issues. I am satisfied that in the
context of Section 51(7)(a)(iii) of the Roads Act 1993 as amended, adequate evidence on
the possible socio-economic impacts of the proposed M3 Road Development on Dalgan
Park was provided by the Council at the Hearing and that the likely significant effects of
the proposed development can be assessed.
As part of the Socio-economic assessment made in the EIS generally, a number of
footpaths are proposed at various locations which are detailed in the EIS and in direct
evidence given to the Hearing by the Council witnesses. In a number of the submissions
made to An Bord and at the Hearing there were requests for footpaths to be provided to
mitigate traffic effects and for road safety concerns and in my site inspection I had also
noted a number of locations where additional footpaths would assist in mitigating the
impacts referred to in the objections or submissions made to an Bord. Set out hereunder
are the details where I am satisfied the provision of Footpaths, additional to those set out
in the EIS, would mitigate adequately the impact of the proposed development :-
(1) Provide footpath from circa chn. 240 on Loughsallagh to Clonee tie-in and to circa
chn. 200 on Dunboyne road from Loughsallagh Roundabout to facilitate existing
houses fronting this section of roadway.
(2) Provide for footpath on both sides of Leshamstown Lane, with a cyclepath along one
side, from a point at least 200 metres to the south of Mr. Finlays house as shown on
Figure 8.1 in Vol. 3A of the EIS to its junction with the Dunsany Road.
(3) Provide for a footpath incorporating a cyclepath from the Leshamstown Lane
junction with the Dunsany Road along the south side of the Dunsany Road through to
the Roestown Roundabout and to extend for at least 200 metres on the Dunshaughlin
side of the Roestown Roundabout.
(4) Extend footpaths, with cyclepaths incorporated, from the Raynestown and
Derrockstown Road overbridge realignments, along one side of each road, to their
respective junctions with the existing N3.
(5) Provide for a footpath, with cycleway incorporated, along the Collierstown Road
from the Ross Cross junction with the N3 as far as the junction with the Trevet Road.
(6) Provide for footpath, with cyclepath incorporated, along eastern side of the full length
of the Woodpark Road to link in with the Pace footpath/cyclepath at the southern end
and to link in with the Blackbull Roundabout footpath/ cyclepath at the northern end.
Specific crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists are to be provided at all new
roundabouts being constructed as part of the proposed Road Development from Clonee to
North of Kells with suitable refuges being provided at the centre of the crossing point and
these to be located at a distance from the exit of the roundabout that provides adequate
visibility of traffic approaching and exiting the roundabout..
969
The temporary closure of the Ballybatter Road L-8010-0 ( known locally as
Botharalainn) while the Kilcarn Link road is being constructed will require traffic
diversions over a period of some 9 to 12 months and concern was expressed by the
Cannistown Residents Association about the effects of the diversions on local traffic
patterns. The Council submitted details of the Traffic Diversion routes that could be
signposted and these are listed at Day 23 in Appendix 4 of this Report. Pedestrian
facilities for school children who normally use the Ballybatter Road when going to
Cannistown National School could be provided while the Link Road bridge was being
constructed as shown on the Map submitted. Since the temporary closure of the
Ballybatter road will require compliance with the provisions of Section 75 of the Roads
Act 1993, which includes provision for input by the public, I consider this is an issue
which can adequately be dealt with by that procedure. The Council may need to consider
some traffic calming measures adjacent to Canniostown National school during the
period of the closure of the Ballybatter road as the diversions could increase traffic
movements in the vicinity of the school at times when children are entering the school.
Mr. Evan Newall, Readsland, in his submissions sought the provision of a footpath along
the new Link road from the Knocks Roundabout to the Roestown Roundabout to
facilitate pedestrian traffic that he considered would arise from future developments on
zoned land in the vicinity. There is space within the verge being provided as oart of the
new road for a footpath to be provided but I consider that it would be premature to
provide such a facility at present as part of theRoad Development and this can be dealt
with, in due course and as the future development takes place, within the provisions of
the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Landscape and Visual issues :
After the noise impacts and the construction effects on properties, the impact on the
Landscape and the Visual impacts were the next most common objections raised both
in submissions made prior to and at the Hearing. The proposed route passes through a
number of different areas of County Meath that are zoned as " Areas of Visual Quality "
(VQs) in the 2001 County Development Plan and, as previously described, the route is
shown on a map of the County that has the various VQs marked on it. As was referred to
by both Mr. Killeen and Mr. Burns when giving evidence, see Sections 21, 39, 62, 99 &
107, the route mainly passes through the VQ 11 area of Rural and Agricultural with some
sections of the VQ 3 --River Valleys and VQ 11-- Tara & Dunsany District being
traversed in the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section. Mr. Killeen was of the opinion that the
proposed route being set in low-lying areas when traversing the VQ's 3 and 11 was in the
optimum location and Mr. Burns said that the crossing of the Boyne in VQ 3 and at a
location of "High Natural Beauty" would have a minor impact in landscape terms due to
the strong planting on both sides of the valley at the crossing point and as the road would
not be widely visible beyond the bridge structure.
Mr. Burns said that where the proposed route crossed the VQ 11 Tara & Dunsany District
zone it was set low in the valley at the maximum distance from the Hills of Tara and
Skreen and would have no appreciable adverse impact from either viewpoint. He also
970
refered to the Blundellstown Interchange where additional landscaping was proposed as
specific mitigation to reduce the overall visual scale of the structure and its illumination.
Mr. Burns considered that the proposed M3 would not visually impinge on the sensitive
landscape setting surrounding the National Monument at the Hill of Tara and pointed to
the M3 being generally more distant from Tara than the existing N3. The issue of the
impact on the landscape surrounding Tara, and Dalgan Park, was discussed at length at
the Hearing and the photomontages prepared by the Council to indicate the visual impact
of the M3 were also debated, see Section 62. Both Council witnesses were strongly
pressed on this issue, and while Mr. Killeen acknowledged that the impact of the route
when traversing the VQ 9 area would be severe in the short term during the construction
and early operation phases, he considered that the mitigation measures proposed would
ensure the effective integration of the M3 route into the local landscape. Mr Burns
considered that the selected route was well sited in a difficult landscape and that while
accepting that a short section did impact on the setting of Tara, he maintained that short
section did not bestow a severe rating on the selected route. Mr. Burns said his
classification of the impact from the Hill of Tara as being of minor significance came
from the view from the Hill being very expansive with a view over a very wide area of
the surrounding landscape available and the road and interchange being sited low in
valley areas which were well screened locally and from the Hill of Tara. It should be
noted that while there was strong criticism of these opinions, no rebutting evidence on
landscape or visual impacts was given at the Hearing.
The proposed route crosses part of an area included in a Tree Preservation Order in the
2001 County Development Plan at Dowdstown to the south and east of Bellinter Bridge,
also shown on the Landscape zoning map, and the reasons why this could not be avoided
were adequately dealt with at the Hearing with details of mitigation planting being
included in the tree planting proposals. A number of Listed Views as designated in the
County Development Plan, VP 1 for Tara, VP 27 for Skreen, VP 28(c) for Ardsallagh,
Bellinter and Dowdstown and VP 32 Blackwater Valley are within the route corridor and
there was evidence given that these would not be significantly impacted. Lighting at the
Interchanges, Roundabouts and the two toll Plazas was also raised as a concern by a
number of objectors and I am satisfied from the evidence was given at the Hearing that
with the use of fully cut-off lanterns, the fact of no High Mast lighting being used and
with the landscaping and screening measures proposed, the lighting impact will not be
significant.
While extensive landscaping measures are proposed in the EIS to mitigate the impacts
from the motorway, 10 properties would continue to experience severe negative impacts
into the longer term, even after the planting has developed, with major negative impacts
being experienced by a further 38 properties. These account for 10% of the total number
of properties of 486 that were assessed in the EIS. During the Hearing I had asked the
Council to consider the possibility of some landscape planting being done in the early
stages of the construction program, particularly in the vicinity of locations where severe
or major negative longer term impacts had been identified. The Council submitted
proposals for this "Advanced Planting" which are listed at Days 24 and 28 in Appendix
4 of this Report, which generally outline the locations where parts of the Specific
971
Landscaping Measures (SLMs) could be planted at the initial stage of the construction
contract with the balance being infilled at a later stage.
Arising from issues raised during cross-examination and from the submissions made
prior to the Hearing the Council were also asked to re-examine the design of certain
sections of the longitudinal profile to see if some further reduction in the vertical
alignment could be obtained, subject to surface water drainage constraints, which would
reduvce the visual impact for properties in the immediate vicinity, see Section 115 of this
Report.
The Council subsequently submitted proposals, as listed at Day 28 in Appendix 4 which
indicated that some modification in the vertical profile would be possible at each of the
locations requested and those details are as follows :-
1. At Trevet Road (Branstown/ Commons) area --- Revisions from chn 24100 to 25600
( generally through Tara Stud lands) which give reductions of from about 1 metre to
3.5 metres in embankment height as shown on Drawings 4B/ 3.3 Rev. A and 4B /3.4
Rev.A
2. Through Dalgan Park --- Revisions from chn 32600 to 33450 ( Dowdstown Bridge to
southern approach to Boyne Bridge ), giving up to 1.2 metes of a reduction in the
level of the "false cutting" at chn 33000 as shown on Drawing 4B/ 3.8 Rev. A, chn
33000 being about midway in the row of houses at Bellinter.
3. At Coolfore Road (Ardbraccan ) area --- Revisions from chn 61200 to 62400 ( in the
vicinity of theToll Plaza and the Grange Overbridge) giving reductions of up to 2.5
metres, as shown on Drawing CSK - 2236 Rev.1. Due to drainage outfall and culvert
constraints no further reduction in the vertical profile from Durhamstown towards the
White Quarry/Toll Plaza was possible.
4. Kilcarn Link Road --- This arose in the cross-examination of Ms Joyce by Mr.
McIntyre, see Section 86.4 and the possibility of redesigning the vertical alignment of
the link road was examined by the Council who submitted their findings on Day 28 as
listed in Appendix 4 of this Report. This showed that it was feasible to redesign the
Link Road to provide for an alignment that has a constant fall from the interchange
towards the Swan Lane footbridge which would provide for a single outfall for road
drainage to the Boyne at Kilcarn Bridge, a reduction in the road level behind Mr.
McIntyre's house from being on 3 metres of fill to being in 2.5 metres of cut and
would require the re-positioning of the underpass being provided for Plots 1133, 2112
& 2114 previously referred to in my comments on shared underpasses. However the
cost of the Revised design as Option B is some € 400000 more that the cost of Option
A as provided for in the EIS, due mainly to increased excavation and filling costs and
to the extra retaining wall costs associated with the Ballybatter road Overbridge area
to remain within the landtake in the Motorway Order. While the Council considered
that their original design, Option A as in the EIS, was still the preferred option, I
consider that there are certain benefits from the Revised Design which could justify
the additional cost involved. The use of a single drainage outfall to the Boyne would
remove the need to outfall to a tributary stream at chn. 850 in Option A which was the
subject of some concerns raised by Cannistown Residents Association, see Section
972
95.2 and 94.2; the revised location for the proposed Shared Underpass more readily
facilitates Plots 1133 & 2112 ( Paul & Francis Foley) and requires a shorter length of
access road to service the Keoghs, Plot 2114 and should also overcome the possible
flooding of the floor where a 5 metre high underpass was provided ( see reference on
page 965) and the visual and noise impacts at Mr. McIntyre's house would be
reduced. On balance I consider that the overall environmental mitigations that would
result from the use of the Revised vertical alignment, as shown on Drawings OH
5053 003/004/007 Rev. DO1, would justify the additional costs of its construction.
Submissions were made prior to and at the Hearing by the owners of Plot 331 adjacent to
the proposed Newtown Bridge Roundabout in Dunboyne about the visual impact of that
Roundabout, as well as other issues relating to it which were dealt with in the comments
on the Motorway Order. Having regard to the evidence given and cross-examination of
Council witnesses about this matter, I consider that the visual impact on Plot 331 could
be mitigated by the construction of a stone faced wall of not less than 2 metres in height
along the road side boundary of this property. Submissions were made at the Hearing by
both Meegan families, Plots 4019 & 4063, regarding the visual and noise impact of the
proposed N3 and the Roundabout at Drumbaragh and I am satisfied from the responses
given by the Council that the landscaping proposals outlined in the EIS will provide
adequate mitigation for those properties, and that the revised noise criterion outlined
previously will also adequately meet the concerns raised.
During cross-examination of Mr. Guthrie by Mr. Carty, Cannistown, the removal of some
trees to facilitate the construction of the Ardsallagh Overbridge was raised, see Section
50. 18 and the Council were asked to re-examine their proposal to see if a re-positiuoning
of the Overbridge would reduce the impact on the tree numbers. The Council handed in a
report on this on Day 28, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report, which found that while
technically feasible to relocate the bridge, the number of trees "saved" was minimal and
some areas of redundant road, which it was intended to plant, would not then be available
for such planting. I consider that the Overbridge should be constructed as proposcd in the
EIS as no net benefit for the environment would result from its re-positioning.
Evidence was given on behalf of Ms Newman Maguire Plot 4063, Castlekeeran about the
visual and noise effects of the proposed new N3 and the effect this would have on her
Artists studio located at her house on the Kieran's Well road, see Sections 102.3, 112 &
113 of this Report. The new N3 is on an embankment as it passes by Ms Newman
Maguire's property some 120 metres to the south and while there is no landscape
screening proposed in that location, the Council agreed that a "reduced" version of a SLM
could be provided on the embankment on either side of the Kierans Road Underbridge
from approx. chn 85000 to chn 85600. As referred to in my comments about noise
impacts previously, the noise contribution from the N3 is predicted to be 57 dB LA10 but
the actual arrival level of 62 dB is a consequence of the Kierans Well road fronting her
property so further mitigation is not possible. However I consider that the parapet on the
mainline N3 where it crosses over the Kierans Well road underbridge should consist of a
solid wall in this case, rather than the standard railing type parapet, which would act as a
973
hard landscape screen to maintain the screning effect at the bridge crossing in this
location.
The visual impacts from the proposed motorway on Ardbraccan House were the subject
of a considerable part of the cross-examination by Mr. Casey of Mr. Burns, the Council's
landscaping witness, and of Ms Joyce and Mr. Evans, the Project Engineers, see Sections
127, 128, 132 & 134 of this Report, with three main issues being identified. These were
(1) the visual impact of traffic on the motorway between the Bohermeen Road and the
Durhamstown Road areas where the motorway is partially in a cutting of up to 4 metres
deep, at grade for a short section at chn. 49040 to chn. 49140, in cutting again of up to 3.2
metres and then on an embankment from 49430 northwards; (2) light spillage from traffic
coming eastwards (towards Ardbraccan House) across the Durhamstown Overbridge and
(3) light spillage from southbound traffic on the motorway from the vicinity of the White
Quarry area, as well as some concerns of light from the Grange Toll Plaza being visible
from the upper floors of Ardbraccan House.
The gradients used in the vertical alignment from the Boyerstown Road area towards the
White Quarry area are generally 0.5%, which is about the limit to ensure ponding of
surface water does not occur, and the road levels are dictated by stream crossings in the
vicinity of chn 48100 and chn 49950. I am satisfied the cuttings to the west of
Ardbraccan House are as deep as can practically be obtained on that route and that it
would not be possible to excavate to the depths suggested by Ms Maher in her evidence
due to the constraints of those stream crossings.
During his cross-examination Mr. Burns confirmed that the existing hedgerow ( which
included an old stone wall) from about chn 48700 to 49200 would be maintained and
strengthened by additional planting as part of SLM 28 shown in the EIS in figure 5.1.6 in
Vol.5A and he maintained this would provide an adequate screen of traffic on the
motorway from the Ardbraccan House viewpoint. He said that the SLM would continue
from Chn 49200, where the existing hedgerow ended, northwards through the
Durhanstown Overbridge area where it would be on the embankment. The effectiveness
of this landscape screening was strongly questioned and Mr. Burns showed photographs
of planting along a number of road embankments of what he said would be the effect at
Ardbraccan when established and referred to the screen planting extending over a 10 to
15 metre width. The availability of this width for planting was questioned by Mr. Casey
who suggested that the overall landtake width would not permit such a planting width and
who also showed photographs/photomontages of a view of the road from Ardbraccan as
it would be when in place The retention of the old stone walling, which has stone gate
piers and is said to be part of the demesne walls, was also an issue since it is within the
landtake in the Motorway Order. During the Hearing the Council confirmed that this
stone wall between chn 48700 and about chn. 49100/49200, where it ends, would be
retained "as is" within the planted area.
At its closest point, which is about chn 49230, the motorway take line is some 456 metres
from the south-eastern corner of Ardbraccan House so that any view of passing traffic is
upwards of half a kilometre away and through planted landscaping of varying widths,
974
through the existing trees and hedges along intervening field boundaries ( including the
hedgerow and old stone wall from chn 48700 to 49200 refered to above) and through
trees and shrubbery in Ardbraccan's grounds. Ardbraccan House itself is oriented along
an axis that is to the east of a south-east/north-west line ( at about 60 degrees east of
south ) so that the garden elevation, which is the opposite of the elevation shown in
Photograph no. 1 in Appendix G of Mr. O'Sullivan's report in Vol. 5C of the EIS, faces
towards the Durhamstown Overbridge area and not towards the proposed motorway at its
closest point. From an examination of the map in the Book of Additional Drawings
submitted by the Council on Day 20, and from the large scale Aerial Photo-drawings, it
appears that only an obligue view of the motorway from Ardbraccan House itself could
be seen from about chn. 49000 northwards and that it would be only as it emerges from
the cutting at about chn. 49400 that a more direct view could be seen. At that point the
motorway is more than 500 metres from Ardbraccan House.
Since this area is at the interface between the Navan By-pass and Navan to Kells sections
with the landscaping proposals set out in Vols. 5 & 6, of the EIS, I requested that the
Council prepare a composite drawing to show the landscaping proposals from the Grange
Toll Plaza area south to the Boyerstown Road area during the Arbraccan module, and this
was handed in on Day 28, as listed at Appendix 4 as Drawing OH 5044 003 Rev.D01.
This Drawing clearly shows that a continous landscaping "band" would run on both sides
of the proposed motorway from the Toll Plaza to the Boyerstown road area, with a dense
woodland mix being planted in the Durhamstown Overbridge area. This composite
Drawing also shows the orientation of the proposed roads, both the Motorway and the
realigned Durhamstown Road, relative to the elevation of Ardbraccan House facing
towards the pleasure grounds, which is the elevation shown in Mr. Searson's photograph
No. 3 handed in with his Brief of Evidence on Day 22. In my opinion the view of traffic
on these roads from Ardbraccan House, when the landscaping shown has become
established, would not be very noticeable in view of the distance and relative orientation
involved, even during the winter months and when at the design flows in 2024, and
while there might be some impact, it is unlikely that there would be a significant visual
impact on Ardbraccan House.
During his closing submission Mr. Casey suggested that the width available for planting
at the top of the embankment bewtwen chn. 48700 and 49200 be checked, as he
considered there was insufficient width in the landtake to provide for the motorway and
the planting widths given by Mr. Burns. From scaling the relevant drawings I am satisfied
that there are planting widths of 10 to 13 metres available at the top of the embankment
generally between chn 48700 and 48950 and widths of 8 to 10 metres from chn. 48950 to
49200, and that there is adequate width available within the Motorway Order landtake to
accommodate the road as designed and the landscaping proposed and shown on Drawing
OH 5044 003.
Due to the relative orientation of the Durhamstown Road and Ardbraccan House it is
doubtful that there would be a light spillage impact on Ardbraccan House from east
bound traffic crossing the Durhamstown Overbridge --- as the composite drawing
indicates that headlight beams would tend to impact to the north of the House --- until the
975
screen planting matured there could be a justification for some timber screening to be
installed within the planted area to act as a screen for any light spillage that might be of
concern. This would also provide screening against possible views of traffic while the
planting was maturing. Screening of 1.8 metres in height from about chn. 300 to about
700 on the Durhamstown Road and from about chn. 49400 to the south face of the
Durhasmstown Overbridge on the motorway should be adequate for that purpose.
Arising from the concerns expressed about light spillage from the south bound
cariageway of the motorway impacting on the northwest facing elevation of Ardbraccan
House as light beams from vehicles traversed the curve between the White Quarry area
and the Durhamstown Road crossing, Mr. Evans prepared a drawing and vertical
alignment profile of this section of the motorway which he handed in to the Hearing on
Day 27, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report. This drawing shows that it would only be
while southbound vehicles were traversing the motorway between chns. 60400 to 61000
that their light beams could impact across the NW facing elevation. It should be noted
that at this location the motorway is about 1km. from Ardbraccan House. During the
Hearing a number of photographs showing a light shining through the trees at night were
submitted by Mr. Casey, see Section 134 of this report and documents listed at Day 27.
These purported to show the impact of traffic headlights on Ardbraccan House at night
and were taken in the vicinity, and to the south, of the White Quarry. The photographer
indicated that he was trying to replicate light impacts from the Toll Plaza area rather than
from the motorway near the White Quarry area.
During his closing submission Mr. Casey questioned the efficacy of screen planting and
timber screening against tangential light spillage from traffic on the motorway and
suggested that 8 to 10 metre high trees would be needed to divert the flash of headlights
from Ardbraccan House, see page 887of this Report. Unless they are very much out of
focus, headlight beams from modern vehicles are directed towards the road surface and,
as can be seen on the Newbridge By-pass ( also referred to by Mr. Casey ), the central
median anti-dazzle planting of about 1.2 to 1.5 metres in height there at present provides
a reasonable screening effect for the headlight beams of vehicles travelling in opposing
carriageways. While the motorway vertical alignment rises as it approaches the
Durhamstown Road and Ardbraccan area from chn. 60850 near the the White Quarry
area, it does not follow as Mr. Casey implied, that the light beams would require screens
of 8 to 10 metres to protect the façade of Ardbraccan House from being impacted.
The installation of 1.8 metre high timber screens along and within the planted area to the
east of the south-bound carriageway from about chn. 60250 to 61250 should, in my
opinion, prevent the possibility of most vehicle light beams, except the high mounted
lights on some HGVs, from impacting on the northwest facing elevation of Ardbraccan
House, particularly at the distance involved between the critical area and the House.
There had been some concerns expressed in submissions from Ardbraccan about light
spillages from the Toll Plaza at Grange but the screening proposed and the use of fully
cut-off lanterns there should minimise the risk of spillage to the immediate vicinity of the
Plaza. Mr. Casey had drawn attention to the level of the Toll Plaza being about the same
976
as that of the upper floors of Ardbraccan House and suggested the lighting would be
visible from the windows on the upper floors. However the distance between Ardbraccan
House and the Toll Plaza of 2.149 kms makes this rather remote and the most that would
be likely to be seen is a distant light not unlike that typically seen in the rural countryside
of an outside light of 150/200 watts. A comparison can be drawn between the likely
impact at Ardbraccan House from the Toll Plaza lighting and impact that can be seen of
the Public Lighting at the northern end of Urlingford on the N8 when standing at the
southern end of the Public Lighting in Johnstown, the next lighted area norrth of
Urlingford. The distance between both sets of lights is 2 kms and there is a clear line of
sight southwards from Johnstown. On a November night at about 9.30pm the Urlingford
lighting, which is not fully cut-off, is relatively insignificant and unlikely to be very
noticeable through branches of trees. In my opinion the lighting impact from the Toll
Plaza on Ardbraccan House would not be a significant impact.
Having taken into account the various submissions made to An Bord relating to
landscape and visual aspects of the Road Development, the details in the EIS, the
evidence given by the Council at the Hearing and the issues raised in their crossexamination,
I consider that with the addition of the "Advance Planting" proposals and
the Revised Vertical alignments outlined above the impacts of the proposed Road
Development on the Landscape and Visual aspects of the environment could be mitigated
to leave no significant adverse impact when the landscaping has become established.
In the vicinity of Ardbraccan House some timber screening not less than 1.8 metres in
height should be installed in a number of specific locations to assist in providing
mitigation until the screen planting has become fully established. This may need to be
maintained in position along the off-side of the south-bound carriageway, after the
planting has matured, to provide a visual screen against light spillage towards Ardbraccan
House from vehicles on the south bound carriageway at night.
Both the River Boyne Bridge and the Ardsallagh Road Bridge are more than 100
metres in length and the environmental effects were specifically considered as required
by the Roads Act 1993, as amended. Details of this consideration are given at pages 7 &
8 in Vol. 4A of the EIS for the Ardsallagh Overbridge and at pages 9 to 11 for the Boyne
River Bridge. Both Mr Guthrie in Section 50.1 and Mr. Sheehy in Section 52.1 of this
Report expanded on the design considerations followed, which were influenced by
headroom requirements and visual impacts in the case of the Ardsallagh Overbridge.
In the case of the River Boyne crossing, the design considerations followed were
influenced by the need for compatibility with the nearby Bellinter Bridge, a stone arched
bridge which is in an area described as a listed view VP 28c in the Development Plan; the
need to minimise interference with river flow fishing and amenity activities on the river
banks; have adequate capacity for river flood flows and allow for possible future
navigation. The Design Option identified in the EIS for both bridges is that of a Multi-
Span Girder Bridge and a specimen design concept or profile for both Bridges is given in
Vol. 4B of the EIS at Drawings 4B/ 9.1 and 4B / 9.2 for the Boyne Bridge and 4B/ 9.3 for
the Ardsallagh Overbridge. A Photomontage of the elevation of the Boyne Bridge is
977
given at Drawing 4B/9.4 in Vol.4B of the EIS which shows the main central span
supported on piers that are constructed outside of the river channel.
The visual appearance of the Boyne Bridge was the subject of much of Mr. Sheehy's
cross-examination, see Section 52 of this Report, and concerns were expressed that the
PPP Contractor might alter the design shown in the EIS. The Council confirmed that,
while the Contractor would be responsible for completing the detailed design and could
offer an alternative concept, if that alternative design did not meet the Council's
requirements it would not be accepted. Arising from some of the queries on this bridge
and from other concerns, the Council were asked to submit the design tolerances within
which a contractor would have to remain by reference to indicative levels shown on the
EIS Drawings, see page 384 in Section 52.6. The Council submitted their proposals for
this request on Day 28 as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report which indicated that no
change in levels that would have a material adverse impact would be permitted.
In his direct evidence in Section 62.1 of this Report, Mr. Burns said that the proposed
motorway route crossed the "River Valleys" zone, VQ 3, where the Boyne was also an
area of "High Natural Beauty " both of these being so listed in the Development Plan. he
considered that the impact at the crossing would be minor in landscape planning terms
since the route passed through strong planting on both sides of the valley and would not
be widely visible beyond the bridge structure. The proposed Boyne Bridge would be
located some 130 metres downstream of the existing Bellinter Bridge and would be seen
mainly from that bridge. The design structure selected of concrete deck slab on steel boxbeams
gives a slim appearance to the construction depth and the flat arch shape should
not be visually obtrusive and would merge with the surrounding landscape. While it
would be of a concrete appearance the flat arch shape would be sympathetic to the
existing Bellinter Bridge and should not detract from that bridge.
The Ardsallagh Overbridge would carry the Ardsallagh road across the motorway, which
would be in a cutting at that point and the Multi-Span Box Girder Bridge proposed for
that crossing would have a similar apearance to that of the proposed Boyne Bridge. I
consider that there would be no appreciable adverse visual impact from either of the
bridges proposed for the Boyne crossing or the Ardsallagh overbridges on the basis of the
details provided in the EIS at Vols. 4A and 4B.
The proposed Kilcarn Link Road would jopin the existing N3 at a new roundabout
located some 120 metres north of where the R161 joins the N3.This is about 100 metres
away from the "Old" Kilcarn Bridge which is still in place and the proposed new
roundabout junction will have no effect on the "Old" Kilcarn Bridge.
Drainage and Flooding issues :
The design of the road drainage system and the capacity of culverts and attenuation ponds
to deal with storm run-off and the potential for pollution of watercourses were raised in a
number of submissions and these issues were generally clarified in the Council's evidence
to the Hearing on Drainage and in the cross-examination of Council witnesses, see
978
Sections 35, 59,& 95 in this Report. Evidence was given that the design criteria for
culverts and bridges had been discussed and agreed with the Eastern Regional Fisheries
Board (ERFB), with a letter from them being handed in to the Hearing on Day 10, as
listed in Appendix 4 of this Report, which indicated that the ERFB had no basic objection
to the proposed road drainage details. I consider that the design criteria used for storm
run-off calculations of a return period of 1 in 10 years, with 1 in 100 years being used
where houses were adjacent or where there weree historical flooding situations and the
use of minimum pipe sizes of 900 mm acceptable and adequate for mitigation purposes.
The possibility of flooding at the Newtown Bridge area of Dunboyne was raised by the
Newtown Bridge Residents Association and by local residents in their submission to An
Bord and in further submissions to the Hearing. Concerns about flooding from the effects
of the motorway crossing of the River Skane at Dowdstown were also raised by Ms.
Bradley and the Farrellys in their submissions to An Bord and in further submissions to
the Hearing. During the Hearing the Council met with the Newtown Bridge Residents
and agreed to increase the size of the culvert crossing under the R 156 at Newtown
Bridge to 9.9 sq. metres, which is almost a 100% increase on their initial proposal. This
should be adequate to prevent a worsening of the flooding that has occurred in recent
years at the Newtown Bridge locality and the Residents Association were satisfied with
the Council's response. Further severe flooding occurred in the locality in November
2002 which should provide useful data for the final design of the culvert at Newtown
Bridge. In the case of the River Skane at Dowdstown, the Council carried out a further
study of the river catchment upstream of the proposed crossing and submitted their
findings to the Hearing on Day 28, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report. While this
Study concluded that the proposed crossing would not worsen the existing flood flows,
the Council undertook to provide a number of "overflow" pipes through the overbridge
and motorway embankments which would prevent a build-up of water in a river flood
situation near the houses of Ms Bradley and the Farrellys. Concerns about flooding of
their lands from attenuation poinds being constructed adjacent to their retained lands
were expressed by M/s McDonnell and Roche, Plots 352, 353 & 470, see section 47.2
and 48.3. Having regard to the evidence on Drainage and responses given by the Council
I am satisfied that adequate precautions are proposed in the EIS to prevent this from
occuring.
Flora and Fauna :
The impacts of the construction of culverts and bridges on the Habitats of the protected
species listed at Annex 11 of the Habitats Directive ( Lamprey, White Clawed Crayfish
& Fresh Water Pearl Mussel ) and on spawning grounds was raised by M/s O'Donnell
and Sweetman in respect of crossings of the River Skane near Dowdstown, the Boyne
crossing at Ardsallagh and on crossings of the River Kells Blackwater and its tributaries
in the Navan to Kells to North of Kells sections. The Council gave evidence that
"bottomless" culverts would be used when crossing small rivers and streams such as the
Skane, as they had agreed with the ERFB, which would mean that construction work
would not be impacting on the stream or river bed which avoided the risk of damage to
the habitat. In the case of the larger crossings, such as the River Boyne crossing at
979
Ardsallagh and the River Kells Blackwater crossings, no piers wopuld be constructed in
the river channels which, again, would avoid impacting on the habitats.
In their letter to An Bord of 22 April 2002 Duchas drew attention to the Rivers Boyne
and Blackwater now being proposed candidate Special Areas of Conservation
(pSAC). Duchas also stated that both rivers were already designated as Salmonid rivers
and listed in Annex 11 of the Habitats Directive with any construction work on them to
be carried out in consultation with the ERFB. The EIS had referred to the salmonid status
and, as required, the ERFB had been consulted about the construction work requirements
in that regard and the proposed design of bridges and culverts had been prepared to meet
the requirements of the ERFB, with bottomless culverts being used on tributaries and the
piers for bridge crossings of both Boyne and Blackwater rivers being kept clear of trhe
river channels. Duchas also set out some mitigation measures that are additional to those
specified in the EIS relating to tree felling, hedgerow cutting, bat protection and mammal
passes. These mitigation measures are similar to measures also proposed by the Council
in evidence given to the Hearing, see Sections 34.2, 57 & 110.
As can be seen from the cross-examination of Mr. Nairn in Sections 57.7 & 57.8 this
letter from Duchas did not come to the Council's notice until the later part of August and
was not addressed specifically in the evidence given for the Council in the Dunshaughlin
to Navan Section. In evidence subsequently on the Navan to Kells to North of Kells
Sections, the Council referred to the letter from Duchas and stated that as the river
crossings did not have any piers within the river channel, there would not be any dircet
impact on the area for which the proposed candidate SAC was being considered. In
subsequent cross-examination of Mr. Nairn, Mr. Sweetman maintained that these pSACs
were Natura 2000 sites and that the requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive for
Natura 2000 sites required that the mitigation measures be fully given in the EIS and that
in the absence of this they could not be assessed and also that the consent of the
Commission was required before approval could be given as the proposal affected a
Natura 2000 site
On Day 28 the Council handed in two documents that referred to these issues, both being
listed at Appendix 4 of this Report. In one the Council set out mitigation proposals for
treating and controlling discharges during the construction of the M3 Boyne Bridge
across the River Boyne at Ardsallagh which arose principally from queries raised in
cross-examination in Sections 50 and 52. The second document followed from Mr.
Sweetman's cross-examination of Mr. Nairn in Section 110.2 and was a note from Mr.
Nairn on the status of the pSACs and followed from his further contacts with Duchas.
I have read the detailed methodology outlined in Annex 111 of the Booklet on Managing
Natura 2000 Sites and the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EC, the Habitats
Directive ( handed in by Mr. Sweetman to the Hearing on Day 24 as listed in Appendix 4
of this report), from which it is clear that where the proposal is not likely to have
significant effects on the Natura 2000 site, then authorisation can be granted by the
competent authority without further reference to the Commission. Having regard to the
evidence given by the Council to the fact of no piers being constructed within the
980
channels of either the Boyne or Blackwater Rivers and of the other precautions that
would be put in place while construction work was in progress on these bridge crossings,
I am satisfied that no direct impact or likely significant effect would occur to these
Natura 2000 sites and that approval could then be given to the proposed works by An
Bord as the relevant competent authority.
As an added precaution I would suggest that no construction compound for storing
machinery or fuel oils be located within 200 metres of either the main river or tributaties
of the River Boyne or Blackwater. I also consider that the Council should consult with
Duchas about the proposed Bridge crossings of the pSACs before any construction
contract is awarded and that any requirements of Duchas be incorporated into the
conditions of contract.
The Meath/Cavan Branch of the Bat Conservation Group made a submission to An Bord
that the Bat survey in the EIS was inadequate as it did not cover the entire length of the
road. No representative of this branch or group attended at the Hearing but it is clear from
the evidence given that Bat surveys were undertaken at various locations where there
were either suitable conditions or local evidence of Bats. I am satisfied that extent of the
surveys carried out along the route between Clonee and Derver were adequate to meet the
requirements of the Wildlife Act and Habitats Directive. Several of the Duchas
recommended mitigation measures apply to bats.
Archaeological Issues :
The impacts on Archaeology were raised mainly in the Dunshaughlin to Navan section
where the possible impact of the motorway on the archaeological landscape associated
with the Hills of Tara and Skreen were the subject of many of the submissions both to An
Bord and at the Hearing from objectors in that locality. There were some concerns
expressed about the effects of movement of routes for the Dunboyne By-pass R 157 (on
the Henshaw property, Plot 326) and for the R125 Link at Dunshaughlin ( on the Kieran
property, Plot 172) but these were clarified in cross-examination of the Council's
witnesses. Some queries about the Nugentstown site near Kells were raised at the Hearing
by Mr. Sweetman relating to the use of geophysical prospecting there and why no further
site investigations had, as yet, been carried out on that site which is adjacent to but clear
of the route. Ms Deery for the Council had replied that site investigations would be done
in advance of construction. While there had been some references to archaeological sites
in submissions made prior to the Hearing from the Ardbraccan area, these were not
subsequently pursued at the Hearing.
Ms Gowan, who was the Council's Archaeological Consultant for the Dunshaughlin to
Navan section in the EIS, gave evidence that the proposed route passed between the Hills
of Tara and of Skreen on the eastern side of the valley floor and sought to avoid the
important core zone around Tara with the route being some 1.5 kms. east of the limit of
the designated area and also east of the existing N3. She said that the route had succeeded
in avoiding all standing ( above ground) archaeological sites, it had sought to avoid all
981
known sites and sought to minimise the physical and visual impacts on the archaeological
landscapearound Tara. Ms Gowan referred to the geophysical survey that had been
carried out by the Council (detailed in Vol. 4C of the EIS) which provided them with a
good understanding of what might be located when excavation work commenced and
said that there were 5 areas identified by that survey which would be directly affected by
the road, one of which -- Area 19-- lies between Tara and Skreen, see Section 61 of this
Report.
Ms Gowan was subjected to strong cross-examination by Mr. O'Donnell and Mr.
Sweetman as well as cross-examination by the Bellinter Residents Association (BRA)
and the Meath Road Action Group (MRAG), much of which centered on the comments
she had made in the route selection process when a route to the east of Skreen was said to
be more suitable from an archaeological perspective. When Mr. O'Donnell suggested that
the proposed motorway route would have a profound effect on one of the most famous
archaeological complexes in the world, Ms Gowan disagreed and said the route would
not have a profound effect on the complex of the Hill of Tara since the chosen route
alignment was 1.5 kms from the outer edge of the designated zone of Tara as a complex
of monuments and not just one monument. In response to cross-examination by Mr. Park
of the BRA Ms Gowan pointed to the archaeological study having formed a strong input
to the engineering design of the route, a point which had been the cause of some concerns
expressed by other objectors who found the initial route had been moved closer to their
property as a consequence of the avoidance of sites of potential archaeological interest.
A detailed submission was made to the Hearing by Ms Clancy of the Meath
Archaelogical and Historical Society which had five parts to their section on cultural
heritage, se Section 81 of this Report. Their five concerns were:- the M3 traversing an
archaelogically sensitive landscape; the lack of a fullscale investigation of each
alternative route considered; that "cultural heritage" should extend to much more than
archaeologoy and buildings and include folklore, local history, old field names etc etc;
that the non-technical summary was very short with no details of what would be done if
more discoveries canme to light during construction and they questioned why a route
bewtween Tara and Skreen was being chosen. She also had some suggestions to make
about changes that should be made to the EIA procedure to give a greater role in this for
voluntary groups to participate.
A submission was made by Mr. Lumley for An Taisce, see Section 80 of this Report, in
which he referred to the aims of the Valletta Convention of 1992 as a means of protecting
the archaeological heritage and referred to what he saw a fundamental flaw in the way
archaeology was being dealt with on major projects in Ireland and not only on road
projects and pointed to the need for the broader archaeological landscape to be
considered and not just confined to the immediate vicinity of the proposed development
site. Mr. Lumley also referred to the Carrickmines issue as an example of what could
occur where inadequate proper on-site assessment procedures were not followed and he
criticised the absence of a representative of Duchas at the Hearing.
982
Mr. Conor Newman, the former Director of the Discovery Program who had made a
submission to An Bord also made a submission to the Hearing, see Section 82 of this
Report, in which he expressed his concerns about the impact of the motorway on the
archaeological and historical landscape of the Hill of Tara, and he criticised the absence
of the geophysical images from the EIS saying that the interpretative drawings without
the images compromised the archaeological analysis and assessment of the EIS. He
suggested that "resolving" archaeological sites that were found to be in the way of
"development" was a current expediency and said that the imperative began with
preservation and not just in excavating sites, and that in considering the archaeological
landscape of Tara the point of convergence between moral and cultural imperatives had
been reached that required Tara to be preserved.
In their submission to An Bord of 22 April 2002 Duchas said they agreed with the
recommendations for mitigating impacts on archaeology set out in Volumes 3 to 7, both
A & C, of the EIS and recommended that pre-construction archaeological investigations
where recommended in the EIS should be carried out as early as possible. They made a
number of recommendations from an underwater archaeological perspective almost al of
which were already included in the EIS or in the Council's Archaeology direct evidence.
These comments by Duchas support the comments made by the Councils archaeologists
that the route proposed had the support of Duchas and while documents submitted by the
BRA from the Ombudsmans Office ( see Day 17 at Appendix 4 of this Report and
Section 70) might suggest that Duchas saw the Pink route as the preferred route at one
time, the references to both A & C volumes of the EIS in the letter of 22/04/02 discounts,
in my opinion, that suggestion by the BRA.
In the evidence presented by the Council and in the submissions made by Ms Clancy and
Mr. Newman there are references to the rich archaeological landscape in Co. Meath and
to the numerous finds in recent major projects that involve excavation, the M1 and Gas
pipelie projects being recent examples. It is common case that any route for a major road
across Co. Meath will inevitably result in some previously unknown archaeological sites.
The Council contend that by their investigations and, particularly, by the use of
geopophysical prospecting surveying they have sufficiently identified the potential for
underground archaelogical remains to be able to avoid a substantial number in the route
alignment now proposed. They also contend that the information gained would, as Ms
Gowan said, mean a greatly reduced risk of unexpected negative impact on unknown
archaeological sites. Essentially the objectors case is that a different route to the east of
Skreen should have been selected for the Section between Dunshaughlin and Navan and
that would have "removed" the potential impact from the Hill of Tara archaeological
landscape. In this regard it has to be noted that no similar geophysical survey was carried
out on a potential route to the east of Skreen so that an exact comparison of "apples with
apples " can not be drawn.
The proposed route between Dunshaughlin and Navan would impact directly on five sites
of archaeological potential, all of which were identified by the geophysical survey, three
of these-- Areas 26, 28 & 29-- are at the Gerrardstown Stud/ Roestown area, one -- Area
19-- lies between Tara and Skreen near Baronstown and the other site -- Area 4-- is in
983
Dowdstown. The route lies to the east of the existing N3 and is some 1.5 kms from the
Hill of Tara Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) " core zone" as shown on the map
SK 500 handed in by Ms Gowan on Day 17 during her cross-examination by the BRA.
At the Blundelstown Interchange the route is some 1.1 kms from that core zone. While
the proposed route comes close to the site known as Rath Lugh which is close to its
eastern edge, Ms Gowan said that they had avoided impacting directly on that site by
careful selection of the route. Mr. Lumley referred to the potential impact on a site at
Lismullin, which appears to be the site for which an adjustment was made to the route, as
described in Section 1.2 of Vol. 4A of the EIS where some changes to the geometric
design as mitigation measures are listed.
Having regard to all of the evidence given at the Hearing and the cross-examination on
the archaeology impacts in the Tara / Skreen area presented at the Hearing and to the
details set out in the EIS, I am satisfied that the route as proposed would not have a
significant impact on the archaelogical landscape associated with the Hill of Tara, as
indicated by the area designated as the core zone on the RMP Map SK 500. I also
consider that the route proposed will not impact significantly on the archeaological
landscape associated with the Hill of Skreen.
In the submisssions by Ms Clancy of the Meath Archaeological & Historical Society, that
of the Dunboyne Historical Society and in one of Mr. Laurence Ward's submissions it
was suggested that there should be a record made of features of interset such as local
place names, old field and road names, trees and bushes that were part of local or
traditional customs and similar items of local folklore or local customs, all of which
formed part of the cultural heritage and which would be lost when the road excavation
commenced. Having regard to the extent of the proposed road development across almost
the entire length of County Meath, it seems reasonable that a "local cultural heritage
survey" would be undertaken as a part of the preparatory work for the motorway scheme.
It should be possible to complete such a survey in a 9 to 12 month period which could be
undertaken under the direction of the Project Archaelogist, in consultation with those
who made the suggestion.
A number of references were made to the Carrickmines archaeology issue which was ongoing
during the early part of the Hearing and the Council were asked for their
suggestions on how they would deal with an unexpected " Carrickmines" type of
discovery being made. Towards the end of the Hearing the Council handed in their
response, which is listed at Day 25 in Appendix 4 of this Report. In this the Council
pointed to the Code of Practice agreed between the NRA, on behalf of itself and Local
Authorities, and Duchas and to the appointment of a Project Archaeologist and to the
undertaking given during the Hearing in response to a query by Ms Clancy that sufficient
funds and time would be allocated for thorough archaeological investigatrion before any
construction work commenced. The Council indicated that contracts for test excavation
would shortly be awarded and that groundwork for the next stage of archaeological
investigation would commence before the end of 2002. The Council said that this early
investigation strategy, with further geophysical surveying and test excavation, would
984
allow for early mitigation of impacts on any existing archaeology in advance of
construction.
I am satisfied from the evidence presented at the Hearing that the archaelogical impacts
from the proposed Motorway Scheme have been adequately identified in the EIS and that
appropriate mitigation measures have also been identified which would minimise these
impacts.
Architectural Heritage issues :
The items of the Architectural Heritage as described in the EIS were queried by Duchas
in their submission to an Bord of 25 April 2002 when these were said to have been a far
too restrive interpretation of the term " architectural heritage". Duchas specifically
referred to the items put forward in Vols. 3A to 6A as being only concerned with
"country houses" and listed a number of items such as vernacular structures, industrial
heritage items, demesne grounds including walls & gates and structures from the latter
part of the 19th and all of the 20th century that they said should have been included.
Duchas indicated that the content of Vol. 7A met the wider range they sought and
suggested the architectural heritage section needed to be reviewed. When the Council's
evidence on architectural heritage was being given for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin
Section, see Section 37.3 of this report, I asked the Council to respond to the letter from
Duchas and their response is detailed in Sections 60.1& 60.2 of this Report which
followed from a review of the matters raised by Duchas. The Council's responses were
handed in on Day 11, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report.
In their response the Council referred to the details given in Vol. 3C of 20th century
houses and farmhouses including a vernacular structure; in Vol. 4C of late 19th and 20th
century houses, cornmills as industrial heritage, farm structures and demesne grounds; in
Vol. 5C houses appearing to be of 19th century origin and bridges; in Vol. 6C demesnes
and a late 19th century house and in Vol. 7C 19th century structures, late 19th century
houses , a schoolhouse and a railway bridge. The Council suggested that the references to
the"A" volumes indicated Duchas might have based their comments on these which gave
a summarised version of the full report that was given in the "C" volumes and said that,
having reviewed the EIS, they were not aware of the proposed road impacting on any
other architectural heritage along the Route. Mr. O'Sullivan who made the reports on the
architectural heritage in Vols. 3 to 5 gave examples of what he had listed as items of
architectural heritage along and reasonably adjacent to the route and said he reported on
what he had found, but could not report on what was not there to be impacted upon. Mr.
O'Sullivan commented that as the Inventory of National Heritage for Co. Meath had not
yet been prepared by Duchas, to an extent people were "working in the dark" as to what
the intentions of Duchas were.
No representative from Duchas attended at the Hearing so there was no opportunity for
any direct clarification between the Council and Duchas on the issues raised in the letter
of 25 April. The introduction to Section 14 in the A Volume of the EIS on Buildings of
Architectural, Artistic, Cultural or Historic Interest clearly refers to original reports being
985
presented in the C Volume in each volume of the EIS, but the Duchas letter of 25 April
on this issue only refers to the A volumes, whereas for the Archaeology submission the
Duchas letter of 22 April refers to both A and C volumes. No evidence was offered at the
Hearing by any objector that a building or structure of Architectural, Artistic, Cultural or
Historic Interest would be impacted and had not been so mentioned in the EIS nor did I
note in my site inspection any vernacular structure that should have been referred to in
the EIS and which was not included.
In the light of the Council's response to the Duchas letter of 25 April and in the absence
of any follow up by Duchas on this issue at the Hearing, I consider that the impact of the
proposed road development on the architectural heritage, within the definition as set out
in the Act of 1999, was adequately described in the EIS.
Mr. Lumley of An Taisce referred to the terms of the Granada Convention of 1985 being
put in place in Ireland by the Planning and Development Act of 1999 and then subsumed
into the Planning and Development Act of 2000 and was critical of the function for
scheduling buildings and sites as protected structures being devolved to local authorities.
He criticised the lack of action by Meath County Council in what he said was their failure
to have an adequate list of protected structures in their functional area.
Since the proposed route does not impact directly on any building of architectural
heritage, except for the old schoolhouse at Woodpole Cross, almost all of the crossexamination,
conducted mainly by M/s O'Donnell, Casey and Sweetman, related to the
possible effects on the settings or attendant grounds of Demesne Houses or those of
similar standing. As was pointed out by Mr. O'Sullivan in his cross-examination, the
curtilage or the attendant grounds had not yet been determined by the Planning Authority
for the various buildings he surveyed and that he had taken the curtilage as being the land
within the ownership of the house. This interpretation was disputed by those crossexamining
Mr. O'Sullivan, who maintained that it was not for him to define the curtilage,
and that he had made reports on whatever he had considered would impact on the setting
of the structure.
The extent of the Demesne attached to Ardbraccan House was debated between M/s
Casey for the owners of Ardbraccan House and Mr O'Sullivan for the Council, see
Section 131 of this Report. As part of the documents handed in by the Council on Day
20, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report, there is a map of the Ardbraccan House area in
the Book of Additional Drawings which was originally prepared for the Judicial Review
Application. This Map, 009-001-ORAL-ARD, shows (a) the boundary of the Mahers
property, (b) the boundary of the Demesne of Ardbraccan and (c) the boundary of
Ardbraccan Estate and while the Estate extends to the townland boundary on the western
side of the proposed Motorway, the demense boundary is shown remaining on the eastern
side of the Motorway and some 248 metres from the Motorway at its nearest point. It
should be noted that the land between the motorway and the demesne boundary (Plots
2209 & 2214) have been purchased by the Mahers since the publication of the Motorway
Order but that is not relevant to the issue of impact on the demesne.
986
In his report on Ardbraccan House in Vol. 5C of the EIS, Mr. O'Sullivan dealt
extensively with the history and evolution of Ardbraccan House in sections 5 & 6 in
Appendix I and concluded at 7.1 that the setting of Ardbraccan House is the area of the
demesne as defined in the 1836 OS Map. This would correspond with the boundary of the
demesne as shown on the Map referred to in the previous paragraph.
In a report submitted to the Hearing by Mr. Casey as a Brief of Evidence of Mr. Terence
Reeves Smyth, see Section 142.2 of this Report, Mr. Smyth, while agreeing that Mr.
O'Sullivan's report on Ardbraccan House was very good, suggested that non-inclusion of
the area to the west of the local road was a draftsmans error in the map of 1836.
Acccording to Mr. Smyth the fact of that area being shown as "stippled" in the 1836 "fair
plan" and that it was held "in fee" in the Griffith valuation supports his opinion. However
Mr. O'Sullivan in his report in Vol. 5C had referred to this 1836 "fair plan" as not being
the "officially published Ordnance Survey Map" and he had also investigated the Griffith
valuation list and came to his opinion after referring to both of the matters mentioned in
Mr. Smyth's Brief of Evidence.
As detailed in Section 137 of this Report, Mr. Smyth was one of several witnesses
advised to the Hearing by Mr. Casey as likely to be giving evidence on behalf of the
owners of Ardbraccan House and whose Briefs of Evidence were handed in on Day 26,
as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report. However Mr. Smyth did not appear at the Hearing
and, as in the case of the Duchas letter of 25 April on the items of architectural heritage,
the differences in opinions between that of Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Smyth on the issue of
the extent of the "stippling" on the 1836 OS Map could not then be directly clarified.
Having regard to the detailed researches undertaken by Mr.O'Sullivan as set out in Vol.
5C, that he was cross-examined on this by Mr. Casey and the fact of the 1836 "fair plan"
not being the official OS Map, I consider that Mr. O'Sullivans interpretation of the extent
of the historical demesne of Ardbraccan is more likely to be correct. When pressed by
Mr. Casey on the likely impact on the setting of Ardbracccan House, Mr. O'Sullivan said
that he would not go so far as to say there would be a major impact and that he
considered the impact on the setting could be ameliorated by landscaping measures.
Having regard to the evidence in the EIS and that given to the Hearing, the crossexamination
of the Council's witnesses and the various documents submitted by both the
Council and the objectors, and as the proposed road development is 248 metres distant
from the boundary of the demesne at its nearest point, I consider that, while there would
be some impact on the setting, the impact would not be a significant one and I am also
satisfied that the impact could be mitigated by the landscaping and noise mitigation
measures proposed and as referred to previously in my comments.
As referred to at the seventh paragraph above, the route as proposed impacted directly on
an old schoolhouse at Woodpole Cross, north of Kells. In the EIS this is described at page
170 & 173 and shown in Plate 14.3 in Vol.7A and while it is in poor condition, it forms
part of a group of old vernacular buildings with the other buildings not being impacted.
Following a query I made about the possibility of the schoolhouse being "preserved", see
987
Section 106.3 of this Report, the Council confirmed that as the schoolhouse was in the
side of the road embankment it would be possible to retain it intact by constructing a
retaining wall around it, see Report handed in on Day 24 as listed in Appendix 4 of this
Report. Since this building is included in the Motorway Order I consider that the building
could be protected by the construction of a retaining wall as shown on the Drawing
submitted, and that provided it is in a structural condition that allows for its rehabilitation,
it could be preserved by the Council as an example of a vernacular building and possibly
used as a local museum or resource centre in conjunction with the local Community
Council as part of the community facilities, as a socio-economic mitigation mesasure.
There is provision in the 1991 Local Government Act for the provision of assistance by
Local Authorities to "approved bodies"
Mr. Lumley referred to Baronstown and Lismullin Houses in his submission and Mr.
O'Donnell also referred to Lismullin, to Ardsallagh and to Dowdstown Houses. I am
satisfied that the settings of these houses would not be significantly affected by the
proposed road development and that the mitigation measures proposed in the EIS, as they
affect these houses, are adequate to protect their amenities.
Rail Link to Navan :
The proposal to re-open the disused railway line from Clonsilla to Navan, as referred to
as an Public Transport objective in the 2001 County Development Plan and in the SPGs
was referred to in a number of submissions and objections and the point was made that
the development of a rail link between Navan and Dublin should be promoted instead of
the development of a motorway. This suggestion does not take account of the strategies
identified in the National Development Plan at 4.9, 4.10 and 4.12 and the fact of the N3
being a link to regions beyond Navan and outside of Co. Meath. There is also the issue of
a feasibilty study having been identified in the Development Plan as being a necessary
first step in the provision of this rail link and, as I understand the position, such a study
has not yet been completed.
The Council gave evidence that the route selected for the proposed road development
had, insofar as it was practical to do so, maintained a corridor along the disused rail line.
Arising from concerns expressed, mainly by the BRA and MRAG representatives, I
asked that a set of Maps be submitted which showed the interface between the proposed
M3 and the railway corridor and this Book of Maps was handed in on Day 25, as listed in
Appendix 4 of this Report. This shows the provisions that have been made for a future
railway alignment but it has been necessary in some sections to incorporate sections of
the disused rail line where it was necessary to adjust the proposed road alignment due to
environmental factors. Evidence was given that Iarnrod Eireann had accepted the need
for these " incursions" to be made and that an amended rail corridor would have to be
acquired in those areas, when the time comes.
The issue of the crossing of the motorway and Railway line at Cannistown was raised
by a number of residents in that locality. At present the proposal is for the future rail line
to be carried over the motorway, see documents of minutes of meetings with Iarnrod
988
Eireann handed in on Day 17, as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report. Arising from
concerns expressed about the impact on adjoining houses with the extent of embankments
required to carry the rail line over the motorway, I asked that the Council examine the
possibility of providing a "false bridge" in the road embankment which would allow a
future rail line to be taken under the motorway without a major disruption to road traffic.
The Council submitted a Report on this request on Day 28, as listed at Appendix 4 of this
Report, which indicates that it would be feasible to provide such a bridge structure as an
underbridge option for a future re-opened rail line. There are a number of drainage issues
involved with such an arrangement and these might require a permanent pumping
solution which Iarnrod Eireann might not be pleased to accept as a maintenance cost.
However, there could be environmental costs with a rail-line carried over the motorway
which could outweigh the pumping costs associated with an underbridge option.
Since this underbridge option could only be realistically considered if it was constructed
as part of the proposed road development, and is likely to cost up to € 1M to construct
based on costs of other underbridges given to the Hearing, the constraints imposed by
adjacent houses and the visual impacts created by an overbridge rail line at Cannisrtown
would, in my opinion, justify the construction of such an underbridge as part of the
proposed road development, having regard to the public transport objectives in the
County Development Plan. However it would not be necessary for all of the underbridge
to be completed as part of the Road Development. By the use of piles or similar
construction techniques only the part of the walls "above ground" and the deck slab
would need to be constructed, with the completion being left to a future date when a
decision on the rail link would be taken. This would allow for the underbridge to be
completed without much disruption to traffic using the motorway overhead and for
issues of drainage etc to be fully investigated. The provision of an "above ground shell"
would provide for the underbridge option to be realistically considered and the cost,
which should be less than the € 1M completion estimate quoted above, would be justified
by the potential environmental benefits which could result from such a provision.
As noted in my comments on the Motorway Order and Proposed Road Development at
the end of the Hearing there were some 195 objections that had not been withdrawn and
76 submissions had been made about the proposed M3 scheme, with many of these
coming from groups of people who had common concerns. The Council issued responses
to each objection and submission received by An Bord and I have commented on these
responses in Sections 49, 85, 101 & 120 of this Report. In my comments in this Section
of the Report on the Motorway Order and Proposed Road Development many of the
issues raised in the objections and submissions have been dealt with either in general
comments like that on the revised Noise criterion and general construction effects, or
specifically as in the case of the shared underpasses or flooding concerns at Dowdstown/
& Newtown Bridge. All of the 34 objectors listed at Group 1 had an opportunity to get
clarification at least to their concerns and the Council issued supplementary responses to
those 30 listed at Group 2 and 29 of those who made submissions to the EIS also had an
opportunity for clarification. I consider that having regard to the number of objections
and submissions not formally withdrawn and that many, if not most, of the issues raised
989
have been referred to in my comments in this Section of the Report, it is not necessary to
make a specific comment on each individual of the 270 objections and submissions listed.
I have considered all of the objections and submissions received by An Bord prior to the
Hearing, and the responses, including the supplementary responses, made to these by the
Council and where I considered it was required I have then made specific comments. I
have also taken all of those objections and submissions into account when making my
recommendations. Where a specific comment has not been made about any individual
objection or submission, it can be taken that either it has been covered by my general
comments as detailed hereinbefore, or I am in general agreement with the response made
by the Council to that objection or submission.
However there are a number of what could be called "group" submissions where I will
make some further comment and these are in the (1) Leshamstown Lane area; (2)
Raynestown Road area; (3) Bellinter/ Dowdstown and (4) Ardbraccan/ Boyerstown areas.
1. Leshamstown Lane. In general the objections here were about the effects of the
closure of the R125 and about the construction effects on the properties. While not
recommending that the R125 be kept open for the reasons outlined, the provision of a
footpath on both sides of the road would mitigate the effects of additional traffic. The
Councils responses have dealt with the construction effects and the revisions to the
noise criterion and dust and construction noise level controls are additional mitigation
measures.
2. Raynestown Road. In general these objections were to the route selected and to the
effects of the realignment on their properties and their concerns of the beech trees
being affected. The Council's responses clarified the construction effects, at least 65
out of the 87 the beech trees are being retained, there would be replacement planting
and the provision of footpath and cyclepath as a link to the N3 would mitigate traffic
effects on their road.
3. Bellinter/ Dowdstown. In general their objections are set out in the objections of the
Bellinter Residents Association and the Meath Road Action Group that the wrong
route was chosen and to the effects on Tara, Dalgan Park and the Dowdstown/
Bellinter/ Ardsallagh areas as a consequence of this being the wrong route, and that
the route should have gone to the east of Skreen or a combined N2/N3 should be
developed.
4. There is a linkage between these objections and those of the Ardbraccan/
Boyerstown area, since they also supported the MRAG proposal and also said the
wrong route had been selected and that it should have gone north of Navan.
In the Route Selection Report for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section it is stated that
one, but not the only one, of the factors which influenced the selection of the
preferred route between Tara and Skreen was the decision for the Navan By-pass to
be to the south and west of Navan, since this meant that the eastern options had to be
990
discounted ( See page 144 of the September 2001 Report ) as there would be major
environmental difficulties in connecting a route that was to the east of Skreen with a
by-pass route to the south of Navan. The Navan By-pass Route Selection Report
outlined the reasons which resulted in a route to the south and west of Navan as being
the preferred route there which lead to the route for which the EIS was prepared and
for which Approval has been sought. It should also be noted that a bypass to the south
and west of Navan was shown in the 1994 County Development Plan, even if on a
somewhat different route.
I have already commented that I consider the location of the route between the Hill of
Tara and the Hill of Skreen would not have a significant impact on the archaeological
landscape associated with Tara or with Skreen.
Concerns were raised about the impact of the motorway on Dalgan Park and its
activities and facilities which also form the basis of much of the BRA objections.
Dalgan Park extends to over 500 acres and is in three discrete parts, one largely used
for agricultural activities to the west of the River Skane through which the proposed
motorway would run largely in a cutting; the central part which contains the
buildings, parklands and the greater part of the pathways and the other part, used
entirely for agricultural purposes lies to the east of the existing N3. The Main
buildings in Dalgan Park are some 800 metres from the motorway route with
Dowdstown House being 600 metres distant from it. At these distances there would
be a natural attenuation in noise from the motorway, see Section 108.2, as well as the
mitigating effects from the noise bunds being proposed, while the visual impacts
would be experienced at a distance varying from 600 to 800 metres from those
buildings with most of the paths being more than 200 to 300 metres from the
motorway, see Maps submitted by the Council on Day 28, as listed in Appendix 4 of
this Report.
Having regard to the noise predictions shown on the noise contour maps, the
landscaping proposed for the motorway route and the further depression of the route
in the cutting and the other mitigation measures proposed, I consider that the impact
on the activities and facilities presently being used in Dalgan Park would not be
significant.
As regards the Ardbraccan area, most of the objections were to the noise impacts
and to the effects of the construction on properties there. Having regard to the revised
noise criterion and to the Council's clarification on construction effects and the
general landscaping proposals and the other mitigation measures proposed, I consider
that the impact on the Ardbraccan area by the motorway route would not be
significant.
In the event of An Bord deciding to approve the proposed Road Develoment, and if the
proposed Tolling scheme is approved, during the construction phase the Council should
give consideration to the request made on behalf of Ms. Maher that the Public Right of
Way on Local Road L- 8008-13 be extinguished at its northern end to prevent it being
991
used as a short-cut by traffic which has no local neccesity to use that road. The
provisions of Section 73 of the Roads Act 1993 are available to the Council for that
purpose.
The Council should also consider become a "partner" with the owners of Ardbraccan
House and the Heritage Council in developing a scheme to assist in the replacement of
the specimen trees in the grounds of Ardbraccan House, about which evidence was given
to the Hearing that they are near the end of their life. Mr. O'Sullivan in his report referred
to a possible "Heritage Quality Control" approach advocated by the Heritage Council in a
submission to the National Development Plan 2000-2006. This might form the basis for
developing a tree plantation scheme that could assist in replacing the specimen trees in
the grounds of Ardbraccan House that were referred to at the Hearing and which form
part of its setting.
3. General Conclusions :
I have considered the details outlined in the several documents submitted by the Council
to An Bord, in support of their application for approval to the Motorway Order and
proposed Road Development for the proposed M3 Scheme, as to the likely effects of the
proposed development on the Environment. I have also considered the objections and
submissions made to An Bord in respect of the proposed development
Having regard to the details and conclusions in the EIS and to the submissions made on
the proposed Road Development (EIS) I consider that, on balance, there would not be an
adverse effect on the Environment from the proposed Road Development. Taking into
account the evidence given and the submissions made at the Hearing, I recommend that
the Road Development be modified by the inclusion of the following requirements and I
am satisfied that, with the inclusion of these modifications, the effects on the
Environment from the construction of the M3 Clonee to North of Kells Motorway
Scheme would then be acceptable.
1. Noise :
(a) Modify the Target Noise Level from its present façade level of 68 dB LA10
18hour to 65 dB LA10 18hour for use when predicting future noise levels at
ground floor or upper floor facades as appropriate of noise sensitive residential
properties and in determining the extent, if required, of mitigation measures at
that receptor. --- This will protect the residential amenities of people living
adjacent to the proposed motorway and associated roads.
(b) Amend the noise levels specified for construction noise in Tables 4.9, 4.6, 4.8,
4.12 & 4.11 in Section 4 in Volumes 3A to 7A respectively of the EIS to provide
for a reduction of 5dB LAeq in the limits given for the periods Monday to Friday
0700 to 1900 and for Saturday 0800 to 1630.
992
(c) Modify the site Working Hours so that no construction work takes place within
100 metres of any occupied dwelling house before 0700 hours or after 1900 hours
Monday to Friday, before 0800 hours or after 1630 hours on Saturdays and not at
anytime on Sundays or Public Holidays
(d) Provide for inclusion in the Contract Documents of the requirements of both
standards and methodology of BS 5228/1997, Noise and Vibration Control on
construction Open Sites and provide for not less than Six Control Stations as
defined in BS 5228/1997, Four to be used for Noise monitoring and Two for
Vibration monitoring during construction works near sensitive receptors, the
locations and duration to be decided by the Council's nominated Site
Representative. --- These, (a), (b) & (c), will further protect the residential
amenities along the route during the construction period.
(e) Provide for a limit for the allowable Peak Air Over-pressure (Pmax) in all blasting
operations to be undertaken on the M3 scheme of 125dB(L) and 105 dB(L) when
blasting operations are proposed in the vicinity of locations where bloodstock
animals are in outside paddocks. -- This will protect the residential amenities and
animal health along the route during the construction period.
2. Air Quality :
(a) Continuous Monitoring Facilities to be established and maintained by the
Council at Pace and Blundellstown Interchanges to monitor levels of Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2) and Particulates (PM10) with the results to be made available at
the Council Offices in Dunshaughlin and Navan at six monthly intervals. -- This
will monitor trends in the emissions of NO2 and PM10 in the vicinity of the
proposed motorway.
(b) That Dust Deposition Guages ( Bergerhoff beakers) be established and
maintained at the 25 locations nominated by the Council on the schedules
submitted to the Hearing to monitor dust deposition levels during construction
work, the maximum permissible levels to be specified in the contract documents
and advised to the house owners where the guages will be located. -- This will
further protect the residential amenities along the route during the construction
period.
3. Material Assets :
Modify the shared Underpass/ Overpass being provided at the following
locations :-
(a) At mainline chn 12130 in Johnstown for plots 159 & 160 by constructing
a 10 metre overall wide bridge with a central solid dividing wall.
993
(b) At R125 Link chn 1150 in Knockmark for plots 152, 155, 159, 171 & 172 by
constructing Two 4.5 metre by 4.5 metre box units side by side.
(c) At mainline chn. 11050 in Rath Hill for plots 162, 163, 166 & 167 by
constructing Two 4.5 metre by 4.5 metre box units side by side.
(d) At Kilcarn Link in Kennastown for plots 1133, 2112 & 2114 by
enlarging box unit to 5 metres by 5 metres located at chn. 750 on Revised
design as shown on drawing OH 5053 004 Rev. D01 submitted at Hearing.
These will further mitigate the severance impacts on those agricultural holdings.
4. Socio-economic :
1. Provide for footpaths at the following locations :-
(a) From circa chn. 240 on Loughsallagh to Clonee tie-in to circa chn. 200 on
Dunboyne road to front of existing houses.
(b) From a point at least 200 metres south of Mr. Finlay's house as shown on
Figure 8.1 in Volume 3A along the western side of Leshamstown Lane as
far as its junction with the Dunsany Road.
2. Provide for combined footpath and cyclepath in the following locations :-
(c) From Leshamstown Lane junction with the Dunsany road along south side
of Dunsany Road through the Roestown roundabout to a point at least 200
metres on the Dunshaughlin side of that roundabout.
(d) Extend from the end of the footpath being provided on each of the
Raynestown and Derrockstown Overbridge realignments to the junctions
with the Existing N3.
(e) From the junction of the Trevet road with the Collierstown road via the
Collierstown Overbridge to the Ross Cross junction on the N3.
(f) From the end of the pathway being provided off the Pace Interchange at thc
southern end of the Woodpark road northwards along the eastern side of the
Woodpark road to join with the pathway being provided off the Blackbull
Roundabout, generally as shown on the Drawing OH CPO 5003 Rev.D01
submitted by the Council to the Hearing.
(h) From a point at least 200 metres south of Mr. Finlay's house as shown on
Figure 8.1 in Volume 3A along the eastern side of Leshamstown Lane as far
as its junction with the Dunsany Road.
These will mitigate the effects on increased traffic and facilitate the use of
cycleways.
3. Provide for a wall 2 metres in height, stone faced on the roadward side, along
the roadside boundary of Plot 331 in Dunboyne to protect the residential
amenities from traffic movements at the roundabout.
994
5. Landscape :
(a) Advance Planting of Landscape areas to be undertaken in accordance
with the Schedules of possible locations submitted by the Council at the
Hearing on Days 23 & 28 as listed in Appendix 4 of this Report.
(b) A modified Specific Landscape Measure to be planted between chn
85000 and chn 85600 at Castlekeeran with solid bridge parapet walls to be
provided at the N3 crossing over the Castlekeeran road underbridge.
(c) The planting proposals shown on drawing OH 5044 003 Rev.D01
submitted by the Council at the Hearing for landscape screen planting
between Grange Toll Plaza and the Boyerstown Road Overbridge to be
fully complied with.
This will assist in mitigating the impact in areas where the longterm impact
would remain as severe or major negative after construction of the motorway.
6. Visual :
1. Modify the vertical alignment in accordance with the revised designs
submitted by the Council at the Hearing at :-
(a) Mainline chns 24100 to 25600 ( through Tara Stud lands) as shown on
Drawing 4B/3.3 Rev. A and 4B/3.4 Rev.A.
(b) Mainline chns 32600 to 33450 ( through Dalgan Park) as shown on
Drawing 4B/ 3.8 Rev. A
(c) Mainline chns 61200 to 62400 ( near Grange Toll Plaza/ Grange
Overbridge area) as shown on drawing CSK-2236 Rev.1
2. Modify vertical alignment of Kilcarn Link Road to new alignment as
shown on drawings OH 5053 004 & 007 Rev. D01.
3. Provide timber screen of not less than 1.8 metres in height within
landscape screen planting area from mainline chn 49400 to southern face
of Durhamstown road Overbridge and from chn 300 to chn 700 on
Durhamstown Road Realignment.
4. Provide timber screen of not less than 1.8 metres in height within
landscape screen planting area on outer edge of southbound carriageway
from mainline chn 60250 to 61250.
This will assist in mitigating the visual impacts on residents in the vicinity of
the motorway or road in the respective localities.
995
7. Flora and Fauna :
(a) The precautions to be taken when constructing bridges crossing the
Boyne and Kells Blackwater rivers as detailed in the Council's
submission of 21 November 2002 -- " Mitigation Proposals for Treating
and Controlling Discharge during the Construction of the Boyne Bridge "
-- shall be strictly complied with.
(b) No compound for storing construction machinery or fuel oils shall be
located within 200 metres of either of these rivers or their tributaries.
(c) The Council shall consult with Duchas before the construction works are
commenced and shall comply with any additional requirements Duchas
may specify for construction work adjacent to both rivers.
(d) Hedgerow and Tree removal or felling shall not be carried out during bird
nesting season of March to August inclusive.
(e) All buildings to be demolished along the route shall be first surveyed for
bats and those found to contain bats shall be demolished following the
mitigation measures stated in the EIS.
(f) Tree which may be suitable roosting sites for bats shall be surveyed and
those found to contain bats shall be felled under the supervision of a
suitably qualified person.
(g) All bridge and culvert design shall allow for mammal passes.
These would minimise the environmental impacts from the road construction on
habitats and fauna.
8. Archaeology :
The Council shall undertake a survey and prepare a record of local
cultural and historical place names and items of folklore interest
along the route of the proposed road development, under the direction of
the Project Archaeologist and in consultation with the Meath
Archaeological & Historical Society and Dunboyne Historical Society
This would mitigate the effects of the motorway construction on matters of local
and historical interest.
9. Architectural Heritage:
The Council shall construct retaining walls as shown on Drawing CSK996
2216/2217/2218 submitted to the Hearing to protect the structure of old
Woodpole Schoolhouse within the footprint of the embankment at that
location. If a structural survey shows that the structure can be
rehabilitated,the Council shall arrange for this to be done
This would allow for the possible preservation and re-use of a structure of
local cultural and historical interest.
10. Possible re-opening of disused Railway line :
The Council shall incorporate into the construction of the motorway
embankment at Cannistown such part of the railway underbridge structure
as outlined on Drawings OH RAIL 005 & 006 Rev.D01 submitted at the
Hearing that would allow for it to be completed without disruption to
traffic using the motorway if, in the future, the disused Clonsilla to Navan
railway line were to be re-opened.
This would provide an alternative to a possible railway bridge crossing over
the motorway in a sensitive location, if the railway line were to be re-opened at
some future date after the motorway was opened to traffic.`
150. Recommendations on the Application for Confirmation of the Motorway
Order and Approval of the proposed Road Development :
Having regard to all of the evidence within the EIS and given to the Hearing regarding
the Motorway Order, and having considered all of the written objections made to An
Bord, I am satisfied that the Council presented sufficient evidence regarding both the
need and the predicted traffic volumes for the proposed motorway which would justify all
of the acquisitions that were included in that Order. I recommend that the Motorway
Order be confirmed, without any modifications to the areas of land to be acquired in the
various plots in the First Schedule parts 1 and 2 of the Motorway Order, but with the
modifications in ownership or in the address that are listed in Table 1 of this Report.
Evidence was given by the Council that these amendments arose from changes in
ownership since the Order was made in early 2002, from changes in licensee or
occupancy, from changes in boundary demarcation and from changes made within the
published Order boundaries that did not involve any additional landtake. The Council
handed in a Schedule and a Book of Drawings which showed the changes being made
and confirmed that all affected owners had been notified by registered post of the changes
being made and were aware of these changes. See also Section 117 of this Report.
I also recommend that approval be given to the acquisition of the Wayleaves set out in
the Second Schedule, to the extinguishing of the Public Rights of Way set out in part 1 of
the Third Schedule and to the extinguishing of the Private Rights of Way set out in part 2
997
of the Third Schedule, to the Prohibition of direct access to the lands set out in the Fourth
Schedule and to the Revocation of the Planning Permissions set out in the Seventh
Schedule and to the Suspension of the Planning Permissions set out in the Seventh
Schedule all being Schedules in the Motorway Order.
Having considered all of the evidence and conclusions as to the likely effects on the
environment set out within the EIS and all of the written submissions made to An Bord
in respect of the proposed Road Development and all of the evidence given to the
Hearing and the cross-examination of the various witnesses and to the responses made
by the Council to the objections submitted, I am satisfied that (1) the proposed Road
Development would be in accordance with the objectives of the Meath County
Development Plan, (2) it would be in accordance with the strategies outlined in the
National Development Plan 2000 to 2006, in the Strategic Planning Guidelines for the
Greater Dublin Area and in the Dublin Transportation Office Report " Platform for
Change", (3) the proposal would not result in significant adverse effects on the
environment and (4) the proposal would be in accordance with the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area. I recommend that An Bord Pleanala should approve
the proposed Road Development under Section 51 of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended,
subject to the 10 modifications listed in Table 2 attached to this Report.
A list of the Objectors to the Motorway Order is given in Appendix 1; a list of those who
made submissions to the proposed Road Development is given in Appendix 2; a list of
M/s Gaynor Corr's clients is given in Appendix 3; a list of the various documents that
were handed in to the Hearing is given in Appendix 4; a list of the Wayleaves to be
acquired is given in Appendix 5; a list of the Public Rights of Way to be Extinguished is
given in Appendix 6; a list of the Private Rights of Way to be Extinguished is given in
Appendix 7 and a list of the Planning Permissions to be Revoked or Suspended is given
in Appendix 8.
Signed -------------------------
Brendan Devlin
Dated -------------------------
998
Table 1. Modifications to be attached to any Approval of the Motorway Order
under Section 49 of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended.
---------------------------------------------
Proposed Amendments to First Schedule, part 1
Plot No. Reason for As appears in Amended to
Amendment Schedule
207 Occupier deceased Andrew Neary Ann Neary
252 No Lessee Vincent McAuley Owner/Occupier -- no lessee
259 Owners deceased Kieran Lavelle, Occupier Kieran Lavelle, Owner
468 Now sole owner Padraig Tierney, Owner/reputed owner P. Tierney -- Owner
1077) (Annie Murphy has Fintan & Deirdre Murphy, Occupier Owner
1079) (right on 1079, not 1077 Fintan Murphy, Occupier Owner, Annie Murphy
1081 Change of ownership Lismullin Education Foundation Lismullin Education
Foundation 44 Westland Row Dublin 2
1119 Owners deceased Frank Corcoran, Occupier Frank Corcoran, Owner
2151 Part of Plot sold to John Sherlock 0.823 Ha.
2151k Part of Plot purchased from P&M Sherlock J. Sherlock, Oldtown, Bohermeen
2156 Change of address Woodview Cottage Flemingstown, Balrath
2170 Change in Boundary 0.195 Ha.
2180 Change in Boundary 5.441 Ha.
2190 James Curry recently deceased Reps. James Curry
2193 Margaret Phillips is deceased C. Collins, Occupier C. Collins, Owner
2384 Change in Boundary 1.854 Ha.
3026 Kathleen Connell recently deceased Reps of Kathleen Connell
c/o Steen O'Reilly & Co.Solicitors
3032 Additional lessee Private ROW in favour of CIE
3033 Additional lessee Private ROW in favour of CIE
3035 Additional Next of kin And other yet to be determined next of kin of S. Smith
3038) Part of plot in dispute John Newman & CIE 0.226 Ha.
3038) Additional Reputed Owner John Newman & Coras Iompair Eireann
3038) Occupying land John Newman, Kilmainham, Kells
3038 Additional Reputed owner John Newman & David Reilly
3046 Additional Next of kin And other yet to be determined next of kin of S. Smith
3068 Change of lessee Thomas Carolan, Oakley Park, Kells
3069 Amended address Thomas Mulvany & Reps of Bridget Mulvany
c/o M.A. Regan McEntee & Partners, Solicitors
-----------------------------------------------
Note --- Full details are set out in the Book of Schedule Amendments
and Book of CPO Drawing Amendments submitted
by Meath County Council at the Hearing on 21 Nov. 2002
999
Table 1, continued. Proposed Amendments to First Schedule, part 2
Plot No. Reason for As appears in Amended to
Amendment Schedule
174 Change of address Kilcooley, Drumree Knockmark Drumree
200 Occupier of land Meath CC Kieran Lavelle, Piercetown
207 Michael Neary deceased Ann Neary
216 Change of address Daniel Reilly, 29 Blackcastle Estate, Navan
223 Mis-spelled name Cummins Crimmins
252 No lessee Lessee & occupier V. McAuley Occupier/Owner
259 P. & B. Lavelle deceased K.Lavelle, occupier Kieran Lavelle, Owner
283 Change of address M. Reilly, Connisbeth, Fairyhouse Road, Dunboyne
309 Reduction in area due to temporary plots 0.690 Ha.
309 Different use, plot from 309 0.027Ha. Aidan Tierney/Bryan Maher
0.008 Ha. Aidan Tierney/Bryan Maher
349 New representatives Drummonds Ltd. c/o Dermot Rowan, Paddingstown, Clonee
351 Change in boundary 0.610 Ha.
352 Change in boundary 1.257 Ha.
441 Change of address Doon, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin
451 Addition to address Laragh Homes Ltd. Laragh Homes Ltd, Stirling House
468a Now sole owner Padraig Tierney, Paceland, Dunboyne
468 Now sole owner Padraig Tierney, Paceland, Dunboyne
1079 Annie Murphy has right to reside Annie Murphy, Owner
1081 Change of ownership Lismullin Education Foundation Lismullin Education
Foundation 44 Westland Row Dublin 2
1119 Owners deceased Frank Corcoran, Occupier Frank Corcoran, Owner
1137 Now sole owner Dolores Roche, Cannistown, Navan
1142 Reputed Owner located James Foley, Ardsallagh, Navan
1143 Reputed Owner located Margaret & Dolores Callan, Cannistown, Navan
2105 Change of Ownership 0.129 Ha. Meath CC
2151 Part of plot sold to John Sherlock 0.997 Ha.
2151 Part of plot sold to John Sherlock 0.0038 Ha.
2151 Part of plot owned by Meath CC 0.040 Ha.
2151k Part of Plot purchased from P&M Sherlock J. Sherlock, Oldtown, Bohermeen
2156 Change of address Woodview Cottage Flemingstown, Balrath
2170 Change in Boundary 0.034 Ha. & 0.026 Ha
2180 Change in Boundary 1.097 Ha.
2190 James Curry recently deceased Reps. James Curry
2193 Margaret Phillips is deceased C. Collins, Occupier C. Collins, Owner
2215 Part of Plot purchased from M. P. Fitzsimons Pierce Fitzsimons, Ardbraccan
2223 Plot not now being acquired No entry in schedule
3026 Kathleen Connell recently deceased Reps of Kathleen Connell
c/o Steen O'Reilly & Co.Solicitors
3027 Change in boundary & K.Connell decd. 0.013 Ha. Reps of Kathleen Connell
1000
3032 Additional lessee Private ROW in favour of CIE
3033 Additional lessee Private ROW in favour of CIE
3035 Additional Next of kin And other yet to be determined next of kin of S. Smith
3038) Part of plot in dispute John Newman & CIE 0.226 Ha.
3038) Additional Reputed Owner John Newman & Coras Iompair Eireann
3038) Occupying land John Newman, Kilmainham, Kells
3044 Change of contact address Carmel Clarke, Henry Flanagan, Patrick Duff
c/o Headfort Golf Club, Kells & The Secretary,
Headfort Golf Club, Kells
3068 Change of lessee Thomas Carolan, Oakley Park, Kells
3069 Amended address Thomas Mulvany & Reps of Bridget Mulvany
c/o M.A. Regan McEntee & Partners, Solicitors
3081 Corrected address Ambrose Gillick, Cloughergoole, Virginia
3085 Land divided due to occupier 0.963 Ha. & 0.755 Ha.
3085 New occupiers Peter Caffrey, Cavan Road, Kells, as owners
3098 New address Sunset Homes Ltd, c/o S.O'Reilly, 9 Sunset Hts. Kells
3122 Additional Reputed owner M. Farrelly, T. Hickey, T.Healy, Kilmainham
4015 Part of plot sold to K. Meegan 3.8906 Ha.
4015 Part of plot bought from J. Meegan Kieran Meegan, Dumbaragh
4027 Change of address c/o John Farrelly, Newrath Big, Lloyd, Kells
4028 Change of address John Farrelly, Newrath Big, Lloyd, Kells
4056 Change of address Thomas P. Donegan, Castlekeeran, Carnaross
-------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1, continued. Proposed Amendments to Fourth Schedule
Plot No. Reason for As appears in Amended to
Amendment Schedule
207 Occupier deceased Andrew Neary Ann Neary
252 No Lessee Vincent McAuley Owner/Occupier -- no lessee
259 Owners deceased Kieran Lavelle, Occupier Kieran Lavelle, Owner
468 Now sole owner Padraig Tierney, Owner/reputed owner P. Tierney -- Owner
1079 Annie Murphy has right to reside. F.Murphy, Occupier Owner, Annie Murphy
1081 Change of ownership Lismullin Education Foundation Lismullin Education
Foundation 44 Westland Row Dublin 2
1119 Owners deceased Frank Corcoran, Occupier Frank Corcoran, Owner
2151 Part of Plot sold to John Sherlock 0.997 Ha.
2151 Part of Plot sold to John Sherlock 0.0038 Ha.
2151 Change in description 0.349 Ha Agricultural Land
2151c Change in area 1.097 Ha.
2151k Part of Plot purchased from P&M Sherlock J. Sherlock, Oldtown, Bohermeen
2156 Change of address Woodview Cottage Flemingstown, Balrath
1001
2170 Change in Boundary 0.034 Ha.
2180 Change in Boundary 1.097 Ha.
2190 James Curry recently deceased Reps. James Curry
2193 Margaret Phillips is deceased C. Collins, Occupier C. Collins, Owner
2215 Part of Plot sold to Pierce Fitzsimons 1.675 Ha.
3026 Kathleen Connell recently deceased Reps of Kathleen Connell
c/o Steen O'Reilly & Co.Solicitors
3026 Change in boundary 25.593 Ha.
3032 Additional lessee Private ROW in favour of CIE
3033 Additional lessee Private ROW in favour of CIE
3035 Additional Next of kin And other yet to be determined next of kin of S. Smith
3038) Additional Reputed Owner John Newman & Coras Iompair Eireann
3038) Occupying land John Newman, Kilmainham, Kells
3038) Part of plot in dispute John Newman No entry, not now required
3038) Additional Reputed Owner 0.004 Ha. John Newman & David Reilly
3046 Additional Next of kin And other yet to be determined next of kin of S. Smith
3068 Change of lessee Thomas Carolan, Oakley Park, Kells
3069 Change of owner Thomas Mulvany & Reps of Bridget Mulvany
c/o M.A. Regan McEntee & Partners, Solicitors
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1002
Table 2. Modifications to be attached to any Approval of the proposed
Road Development under Section 51 of the Roads Act, 1993,
as amended.
-----------------------
1(a). Noise mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the design and
construction of the proposed motorway scheme by the use of appropriate
noise barriers or low noise surfacing or in a combination of methods so that
the predicted noise levels associated with the proposed motorway scheme in
the design year, 2024, shall not exceed 65 dB LA10 18hour, when measured
at one metre from the façade of the most exposed window at ground floor
level of single storey or upper floor level of two storey houses of noise
sensitive receptors in accordance with the assessment procedures set out in
section 4.6 in Volume 6A of the Environmental Impact Statement. The
predicted noise levels in the design year, 2024, shall be further modified at
Ardbraccan House, where they shall not exceed 55 dB LA10 18hour when
measured at one metre from the most exposed window at upper floor level,
and at Rathbeggan Lake where they shall not exceed 55 dB LA10 18hour
when measured at the north-eastern edge of the Lake.
Reason --- To protect the residential amenities of people living
adjacent to the motorway scheme and the particular
amenities of Rathbeggan Lake.
1(b). The requirements of BS 5228/1997 "Noise and Vibration Control on
Construction and Open Sites" in respect of the standards and methodology
relating to construction noise shall be incorporated into all Contracts for
Works in connection with the construction of the proposed motorway scheme
and not less than Six Control Stations shall be established, (1) Four of these
to be used to monitor noise levels and (2) Two of these to be used to monitor
vibration levels while construction work is in progress near sensitive
receptors. The locations and duration of such monitoring shall be decided by
the person nominated as the Council's Site Representative from time to time .
Reason --- To protect residential amenities during the period while
construction work is being undertaken for the motorway
scheme.
1(c). The Site working hours shall be modified so that no construction work shall
take place within 100 metres of any occupied house (1) before the hour of
0700 Mondays to Fridays or 0800 on Saturdays, (2) after the hour of 1900
Mondays to Fridays or 1630 on Saturdays and (3) not at any time on
1003
Sundays or Public Holidays, and that a clause to this effect shall be included
in all Contracts for works in connection with the construction of the road.
Reason --- To protect residential amenities during the period while
construction work is being undertaken for the motorway
scheme.
1(d). The noise levels specified for construction noise as set out in Table 4.12 in
Volume 6A of the Environmental Impact Statement, and in the equivalent
Tables in the other Volumes, shall be modified to provide for a reduction of
5dB in the levels specified for the hours of 0700 to 1900 on Mondays to
Fridays and for the hours of 0800 to 1630 on Saturdays.
Reason --- To protect residential amenities during the period while
construction work is being undertaken for the motorway
scheme.
1(e). The contract documents shall provide for a daytime limit for Peak Air
Over-pressure, measured as Pmax, of 125 dB(L) when any construction
work involving Blasting is being undertaken adjacent to sensitive receptors.
Where such work is adjacent to the locations normally used by bloodstock
animals the limit shall be reduced to 105 dB (L).
Reason --- To protect residential amenities and animal health during
the period while construction work is being undertaken for
the motorway scheme..
2(a). Continuous monitoring facilities shall be established and maintained by the
Local Authority at suitable locations at (1) the Pace Interchange and (2) the
Blundellstown Interchange to monitor levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and
Particulates, PM10, the results to be made available at the Offices of the
Local Authority in Dunshaughlin and Navan at six monthly intervals at a
minimum.
Reason --- To monitor trends in the emissions of nitrogen dioxide and
particulates in the area adjoining the motorway.
2(b). Dust Deposition Guages, either Bergerhoff Beakers or similar, shall be
located and monitored at the 25 locations specified in the Schedule submitted
by the Local Authority at the Hearing on Day 28 while construction work is
in progress in the vicinity of the specified sites and the maximum permissible
deposition rates at such sites shall be specified in the contract documents.
Reason --- To protect residential amenities during the period while
construction work is being undertaken for the motorway
scheme.
1004
3. The shared underpass or overpass facilities being provided at the following
locations shall be modified as detailed hereunder :-
(a) The overbridge at mainline chainage 12130 in Johnstown serving Plots
159 and 160 shall be widened to 10 metres overall width and constructed
with a central solid dividing wall.
(b) The underpass at the R125 Link chainage 1150 in Knockmark serving
plots 152, 155,159, 171 &172 shall be replaced by Two 4.5 metre by 4.5
metre box units placed side by side.
(c) The underpass at mainline chainage 11050 in Rath Hill serving Plots 162,
163, 166 & 167 shall be replaced by Two 4.5 metre by 4.5 metre box units
placed side by side.
(d) The underpass at the Kilcarn Link in Kennastown serving Plots 1133,
2112 & 2114 shall be relocated to chainage 750 on a revised alignment
and increased in size to a 5 metres by 5 metres box unit.
Reason --- To mitigate the severance effects on the particular Plots.
4. (1) Footpaths incorporating cycle-lanes shall be provided within the existing
verges along the following roads :-
(a) From the junction of the Trevet and Collierstown roads westwards along
the Collierstown road to its junction with the N3 at Ross Cross.
(b) From the end of the pathway being provided off the Pace Interchange at
the southern end of the Woodpark road northwards along its eastern
verge to join with the pathway being provided off the Blackbull
Roundabout, as generally shown on Drawing OH CPO 5003 Rev. D01
submitted by the Local Authority at the Hearing.
(c) From the end of the paths being provided as part of overbridge road
realignment on each of the Raynestown and Derrockstown roads as far as
their junctions with the N3.
(d) From the junction of the Dunsany road with the Leshamstown Lane
along the southern side of the Dunsany road, through the Roestown
Roundabout to a point not less than 200 metres on the Dunshauhghlin
side of that roundabout.
(e) From a point 200 metres south of the house shown as "Mr. Finlays" on
Figure 8.1 in Volume 3A of the EIS northwards along the eastern side of
Leshamstown Lane to its junction with the Dunsany Road.
(2) Footpaths shall be provided within the existing verges along the
following roads :-
(a) From a point 200 metres south of the house shown as "Mr. Finlays" on
Figure 8.1 in Volume 3A of the EIS northwards along the western side of
Leshamstown Lane to its junction with the Dunsany Road.
(b) From about chainage 240 on the Loughsallagh to Clonee tie-in to about
chainage 200 on the Dunboyne road to front the existing houses.
Reason --- In the interests of road safety and to facilitate the use of
1005
public transport and cycleways by residents on these roads.
(3) A wall two metres in height, stone faced on the roadside face, shall be
provided along the roadside boundary of Plot 331 in Dunboyne.
Reason --- To protect the residential amenities of that property.
5. (a) Advance Planting of Landscaped areas shall be undertaken by the Local
Authority in accordance with the schedules of possible locations submitted at
the Hearing by the Local Authority on Days 23 & 28, where the construction
work program for the motorway permits of such advance planting.
(b) A modified format of a Specific Landscape Measure (as detailed in the EIS)
shall be planted between mainline chainages 85000 and 85600 at
Castlekeeran and a solid parapet wall shall be provided on the mainline
crossing over the Castlekeeran underbridge at chainage 85540.
(c) The planting proposals shown on Drawing OH 5044 003 Rev. D01 submitted
by the Local Authority at the Hearing for landscape screen planting between
the Grange Toll Plaza and the Boyerstown road overbridge areas shall be
fully complied with.
Reason --- To mitigate the visual impacts in these locations.
6. (1) The vertical alignment shall be modified in accordance with the revised
design and drawings submitted by the Local Authority at the Hearing in the
following locations :-
(a) Between mainline chainages 24100 and 25600 through Tara Stud lands
as shown on Drawings 4B/3.3 Rev.A and 4B/3.4 Rev.A.
(b) Between mainline chainages 32600 and 33450 through Dalgan Park
lands as shown on Drawing 4B/3.8 Rev.A.
(c) Between mainline chainages 61200 and 62400 near Grange Toll Plaza
as shown on Drawing CSK - 2236 Rev.1.
(2) The vertical alignment of the Kilcarn Link road shall be modified to the
revised alignment as shown on Drawings OH 5053 004 & 007 Rev.D01
submitted by the Local Authority at the Hearing.
(3) A timber screen, not less than 1.8 metres in height above ground level, shall
be provided within the landscape screeen planted areas between :-
(a) mainline chainage 49400 to southern face of Durhamstown overbridge
along eastern side of south bound carriageway;
(b) chainages 300 and 700 on the Durhamstown road realignment along
southern side of realigned roads;
(c) mainline chainages 60250 and 61250 along eastern side of south bound
carriageway.
Reason --- To mitigate the visual impacts in these locations.
1006
7. (a) The precautions specified in the document " Mitigation Proposals for
Treating and Controlling Discharge During Construction of the M3 Boyne
Bridge" submitted by the Local Authority at the Hearing shall be strictly
complied with during the construction of bridges crossing the Boyne and
Kells Blackwater Rivers.
(b) No compound for storing construction machinery overnight or for storing
fuel oils shall be located within 200 metres of the Boyne or Kells Blackwater
Rivers or their tributaries.
(c) Before any construction work on the Boyne or Kells Blackwater River is
commenced, the Local Authority shall consult with Duchas and shall
comply with any additional requirements Duchas may specify for
construction work adjacent to both Rivers.
(d) Hedgerow and tree felling shall not be carried out during the bird nesting
season from 1 March to 31 August.
(e) All buildings to be demolished along the route shall be surveyed for bats
and those found to contain bats shall only be demolished following the
mitigation measures set out in the EIS.
(f) Trees that may be suitable as roosting sites for bats shall be surveyed and
those found to contain bats shall only be felled under the supervision of a
suitably qualified person.
(g) All bridge and culvert designs shall provide for mammal passes.
Reason --- To mitigate impacts on habitats and fauna.
8. The Local Authority shall undertake a survey and prepare a record of local
cultural and historical place names and items of folklore interest impacted by
the route of the proposed motorway scheme under the direction of the Project
Archaeologist and in consultation with the Meath Archaeological & Historical
Society and the Dunboyne Historical Society.
Reason --- To preserve records of matters of local cultural and
historical interest.
9. The Local Authority shall construct retaining walls as shown on Drawings
CSK - 2216, 2217 & 2218 submitted by the Local Authority at the Hearing
to protect the Old Woodpole Schoolhouse during the construction of the road.
A structural survey of the building shall be carried out and if this shows that
the building can be rehabilitated, the Local Authority shall then arrange for
such rehabilitation as will allow for the preservation and future re--use of that
building.
Reason --- To preserve a structure of local cultural and historical
interest.
1007
10. The Local Authority shall incorporate into the construction of the motorway
embankment at Cannistown such parts of an underbridge structure as is
outlined in the Drawings OH RAIL 005 & 006 Rev. D01 submitted by the
Local Authority at the Hearing that would allow for its possible completion
for use as a railway underbridge without disrupting traffic on the motorway
when in use if, at some future date, the disused Clonsilla to Navan railway line
were to be re-opened and when the motorway would be in operation.
Reason --- To facilitate an alternative option to that of a rail line
crossing over the motorway in this sensitive location.
-------------------------------------------------------------
1008
Appendix 1. List of Objectors to the Motorway Scheme Order whose submissions
were made to An Bord Pleanala within the prescribed period.
-------------------------------------------------------
The context of the Schedules referred to in this List is as follows:-
1st Schedule -- part 1-- Lands on which the motorway will be provided;
part 2 -- Lands not forming part of the motorway.
2nd Schedule -- Wayleaves being acquired.
3rd Schedule -- part 1 -- Public rights of way to be extinguished;
part 2 -- Private rights of way to be extinguished.
4th Schedule -- Lands to which direct access is to be prohibited
7th Schedule -- part 1 -- Planning permissions to be revoked;
part 2 -- Planning permissions to be modified.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plot No. Schedules Townland Objectors name(s) Address
118 1st pt 2 Roestown John & Kathleen O' Connor, Roestown, Drumree
119 1st pt 2 Roestown Joseph & Ann McKillen, Roestown, Drumree
120 1st pt 2 Roestown Arthur & Elodie McFaul, Roestown, Drumree
121 1st pt 1 & 2; 4th Roestown Tom & Mary Byrne, Ashling, Roestown,
Dunshaughlin
122 1st pt 1&2; 4th Roestown Michael Delaney, Gaulstown, Dunshaughlin
123 ) 1st pt 2 Roestown Martin & Monica Kelly, Roestown, Drumree
124 ) 1st pt 2 Roestown
137 1st pt 2 Leshamstown John & Mary Neary, Leshamstown, Drumree
139 1st pt 1&2; 4th Readsland & Knocks Evan Newall 62/63 Brighton Green,
Rathgar, Dublin 6 and
Peter Newell, Readsland, Drumree
Dunshaughlin
144 1st pt 1&2; 4th Readsland Hugh Newall, Readsland, Drumree
1009
147 1st pt 2 Readsland John Francis Morgan, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
148 1st pt 2 Readsland Peter Conlon, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
149 ) 1st pt 1; 4th Rath Hill Michael & Mary Morrin, Johnstown House
160 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Johnstown Dunshaughlin
150 1st pt 2 Readsland Derek Gray, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
155 1st pt 2 Drumree Valerie Sunner, Knockmark, Drumree
157 1st pt 2 Drumree Declan Walsh, Knockmark, Drumree
159 1st pt 1&2; 4th Johnstown Patrick Delaney, Johnstown, Dunshaughlin
162 1st pt 1&2; 4th Rath Hill Michael & Maureen Duffy, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
163 1st pt 1&2; 4th Rath Hill Sean & Bernadette Joyce, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
166 1st pt 1&2; 4th Rath Hill Pat Summerville, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
167 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Rath Hill Patrick Jennings, Macetown, Navan
2147 ) 1st pt 2 Macetown
171 1st pt 2 Knockmark Christopher Lynch, Knockmark, Drumree
c/o John Lynch, Augherskeagh, Drumree
172 1st pt 2 Knockmark Michael Kieran, Knockmark, Drumree
173 1st pt 2 Knockmark Drunree GAA Club, c/o Sean Walsh,
Augherskeagh, Drumree
174 ) 1st pt 2 Knockmark Eddie Bannon, Kilcoole, Drumree
182 ) 1st pt 2 Merrywell Eddie Bannon (as occupier)
182 1st pt 2 Merrywell Patrick J. Geraghty, Greenacres, Powderlough
Dunshaughlin
(EIS related ) Bridget Bowens, Roestown, Drumree
(EIS related) Carmel & Patrick Carroll, The Haven, Readsland,
Drumree
(EIS related) Mr. & Mrs. P. Caton, Meadowcroft,
Leshamstown Lane, Dunshaughlin
1010
(EIS related) William & Bridget Crowley, Leshamstown Lane
(EIS related) Shay Fitzpatrick, Breffni, Leshamstown Lane
(EIS related) James Finlay, Leshamstown Manor, Drumree
(EIS related) Ann & Anthony Devey, Almeida House,
Leshamstown, Drumree
(EIS related) Paula & Alex Doyle, Tara House, Roestown
Drumree
(EIS related) Colm & Mary Murphy, Leshamstown, Drumree
(EIS related) Leo Lawlor Watermeadows,
Leshamstown, Drumree
(EIS related) Paul Manck, Birchlawn, Drumree
(EIS related) Patricia Murnane, Leshamstown, Drumree
(EIS related) Annette & Enda McDonagh, Leshamstown Lane,
Drumree
(EIS related) Walter Smyth, Leshamstown, Drumree
183 1st pt 2 Bedfanstown Gerry & Catherine Carry, Crosskeys, Drumree
186 1st pt 2 Derrockstown Louis & Mary Murray Fortfield, Derrockstown
188 1st pt 2 Derrockstown Thomas McManus, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin.
189 1st pt 1&2; 4th Derrockstown Shane Cassidy, 119, Navan Road, Dublin 9
195 1st pt 1&2; 4th Derrockstown Tom Feerick, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin
197
197 1st pt 1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Derrockstown Patrick McHale, Derrockstown,
206 1st pt 1&2; 4th Derrockstown Patrick & Michael Corbett, Derrockstown,
207 1st pt 1&2; 4th Derrockstown Andrew & Mary Neary, Derrockstown
208 1st pt 1&2; 4th Derrockstown Noel & Josephine McTigue, Derrockstown
1011
213 1st pt 2 Raynestown Patrick & Mary Townsend, Raynestown,
Dunshaughlin
215 1st pt 2 Raynestown Thomas & Irene Reeves, Raynestown,
217 1st pt 2 Raynestown Raymond & Sheelagh Brennan,
Raynestown
218 1st pt 2 Raynestown Michael & Marion McCullagh, Raynestown
219 1st pt 2 Raynestown Paul & Pauline Rafter, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
220 1st pt 2 Raynestown Jason & Karen Huggard, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
221 1st pt1&2; 4th Raynestown John O'Sullivan, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
222 1st pt 1&2; 4th Raynestown Michael Clayton, 28 Greentrees Road, Dublin 12
223 1st pt 2 Raynestown David & Patricia Crimmins, Raynestown
229 1st pt 2 Raynestown Dermot & Philomena McGreal, Raynestown
230 1st pt 2 Raynestown Peadar & Pauline Creagh, Raynestown
231 1st pt 2 Raynestown Frank Goodman, Raynestown
232 1st pt 2 Raynestown Joseph & Noreen Sheridan, Bush Lane,
Raynestown
233 ) 1st pt 1&2;4th Raynestown John & Derek Maher, The Bush, Dunshaughlin
251 )
234 1st pt 2 Raynestown Patrick Ennis & Joan Burke,
The Bungalow, Raynestown
235 1st pt 2 Raynestown John & Marie Drake, Raynestown
236 1st pt 2 Raynestown Declan & Ellen Collins, Raynestown
237 1st pt 2 Raynestown Desmond & Anne Bellew, Raynestown
238 1st pt 2 Raynestown Sean & Patricia Wynne, Raynestown
239 1st pt 2 Raynestown Eamonn & Mary Halligan, Raynestown
240 1st pt 2 Raynestown John & Joanne Duffy, Raynestown
1012
241) 1st pt 2 Raynestown Thomas & Pauline Everard, Raynestown
242) 1st pt 2
252 1st pt 1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Rathbeggan Vincent McAuley, Bechmount, Rathbeggan
255 1st pt 1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Rathbeggan David Robinson, Rathbeggan, Dunshaughlin
256 1st pt 1&2; 4th Rathbeggan Ronald Robinson, Rathbeggan, Dunshaughlin
257 1st pt 1&2; 4th Rathbeggan Sylvester McAuley, Roselawn,
258 1st pt 1&2; 4th Rathbeggan Basil Brindley, Rathbeggan House Stud.
259 1st pt 1&2; 4th Piercetown K. P. & A. Lavelle, Piercetown, Dunboyne
Dunboyne
264 1st pt 2 Quarryland Bucco Ltd., Suite 1, Westpoint Health & Fitness
Centre, Blanchardstown, Co. Dublin
265 1st pt 1&2; 4th Quarryland Brendan Murphy, Quarryland, Dunboyne
266 1st pt 1&2; 4th Quarryland Hilda Potterton, Quarrylands, Dunboyne
272 1st pt 1&2; 4th Piercetown Eugene & Carol Lavelle, Piercetown, Dunboyne
280 1st pt 2 Piercetown Brendan & Elizabeth Donnelly
Piercetown, Dunboyne
285 1st pt 2 Piercetown Phillip Connell, Piercetown, Dunboyne
292 1st pt 2 Piercetown Sean McGuirk , Piercetown, Dunboyne
293 1st pt 1&2; 4th Piercetown Patrick Yorell jnr, 2, Old Fair Green, Dunboyne
294 1st pt 1& 2; 3rd ; 4th Piercetown Reps Patrick Peters ---
Theresa & Colum Peters, Piercetown, Dunboyne
298 1st pt 2 Piercetown Nancy Gibney, Piercetown, Dunboyne
299 1st pt 2 Piercetown Mary Gabrielle Ryan, Piercetown, Dunboyne
300 1st pt 1&2; 4th Pace Padraig Tierney & Mary Agnes Jackman
Paceland, Dunboyne and Castletroy, Co. Limerick.
301 1st pt 2 Piercetown Dubai Bloodstock Ltd., Woodpark, Dunboyne
1013
307 1st pt 1&2; 4th Piercetown Kilsaran Concrete Ltd., Piercetown, Dunboyne
308 1st pt 1&2; 4th Piercetown SERLA Print Ltd, Serla House, Grennhills Road
Tallaght, Dublin 24
312 1st pt 1&2; 4th Woodpark Hugh Mullally , Woodpark, Dunboyne
320 1st pt 1&2; 4th Bracetown Laurence Ward, Norman's Grove, Clonee
321 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Pace Mary Agnes Jackman & Co. 39 Oaklands,
468 ) Pace Castletroy,Co. Limerick
325) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Pace Reps of Christopher Gregan,
337) 1st pt 2 Dunboyne c/o Gertrude Gregan, Bennetstown
Dunboyne
326 1st pt 2 Dunboyne Peter & Edward Henshaw, Benettstown, Dunboyne
329 1st pt 2 Dunboyne Tom & Loreto Doherty, Newtown,
Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
330 1st pt 2 Castlefarm Mary J. Barden, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
331 1st pt 2 Dunboyne Emer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh & Bernard Walsh
Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
332 1st pt 2 Castlefarm Richard, M.J., & Doris Bruton, Newtown
Dunboyne
339 1st pt 2 Dunboyne Pat Gregan, Bennetstown, Dunboyne
340 1st pt 2 Dunboyne Sean Boylan, The Bungalow, Dublin Road,
Dunboyne
342 1st pt 2 Dunboyne Sean Delaney, Bracetown, Clonee
346 1st pt 2 Dunboyne John Connaughton (Ltd.), Ballybane,
Killiney Avenue, Co. Dublin
350 1st pt 2 Bracetown Reps of Joseph Laurence Ward,
c/o Laurence Ward, Norman's Grove
351 1st pt 2 Bracetown Michael Brazil , 23 Moatlands, Ratoath
352 1st pt 1& 2; 3rd pt 2; Bracetown Vincent McDonnell, Knockmore,
Ballina, Co. Mayo.
1014
353 1st pt 1& 2; Bracetown Anthony J. McDonnell, Knockmore, Ballina
356 1st pt 2 Bracetown James & Frances Pheonix, Bracetown,
371 1st pt 2 Clonee Strandfair Holdings -- Finnian O' Cinneide
Loughsallagh, Clonee ( as occupier)
375 1st pt 2 Clonee Ciaran & Lisa Byrne, Loughsallagh, Clonee
429 1st pt 2 Augherskeagh Mary Redmond, Barnaderg, Drumree
450 1st pt 2 Dunboyne John & Pamela Conneely ,The Maples,
Dunboyne
464 1st pt 2 Roestown S.J.D. Developments Ltd. Tullameadow,
Drumree
c/o Sean Dunleavy, Dunshaughlin
467 1st pt 2 Clonee Thomas O'Sullivan, Loughsallagh, Clonee
468 1st pt 1&2; 4th Pace Patrick Tierney, Paceland, Dunboyne
469 1st pt 2 Bennetstown Patrick Tierney, Paceland, dunboyne
469 ) 1st pt 2 Bennetstown CIE Michael Carroll, Solicitor
1144 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardsallagh Solicitor's Office, Bridgewater House
3032 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Cookstown Great Islandbridge, Dublin 8
3033 )1st pt 1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Cookstown Great
3046 ) 1st pt 1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Kilmainham
470 1st pt 2 Glascarn Anthony J. McDonnell, Knockmore, Ballina
And P. J. Roche, Glascarn, Ratoath
475 1st pt 2 Dunboyne Eamonn Walsh, Court Hill, Dunboyne
1052 1st pt 1&2; 4th Roestown Margaret Quinn, Westleigh Farm,
Roestown, Dunshaughlin
1053) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Roestown Michael & Dymphna O'Brien Rockfield,
1060) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Roestown Portmanna, Co. Meath
(EIS related) Cooksland Geraldine Hennessey, Spearsview Cottage
Cooksland, Dunshaughlin
1056 1st pt 1&2; 3rd; 4th Garretstown Gerrardstown Stud, Gerrardstown,
Dunshaughlin
1015
1057 1st pt1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Garretstown Liam O'Kane, Drumaweir, Greencastle,
Co. Donegal
1059 1st pt 1&2; 4th Berrillstown Dermot, Bridget & David Carty
Berrillstown, Tara
1061 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Berrillstown C.A.S Ltd., c/o Jones Engineering Ltd.,
Waterways House, Grand Canal Quay, Dublin 2
1062 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Skryne James Swan, Skryne, Tara
(1074 & 1075) Skryne James Swan ( as occupier)
1063 1st pt 1&2; 4th ; 7th pt 2 Skryne James J. Swan junior, Skryne, Tara
1064 1st pt 1&2; 4th Clowanstown The Limestone Land Co. Ltd.
c/o Tara Stud, Clowanstown, Tara
1067 1st pt 2 Collierstown Captain Anthony & Catherine Canavan,
Collierstown, Tara
1071 1st pt 2 Collierstown John & Patricia Scanlon, Collierstown, Tara
(EIS related) Collierstown George & Mary Begley, Collierstown, Tara
(EIS related) Collierstown Liam Doyle & Grace Martin, Branstown, Tara
1074 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Baronstown John Wilkinson, Barronstown, Tara
1075 ) 1st pt1&2; 4th Skryne
1076 1st pt 1&2; 4th Skryne Vincent & Ann Murphy, Skryne, Tara
1077 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Skryne Fintan & Deirdre Murphy, Skryne, Tara
1079 )
1080 1st pt 1&2; 4th Skryne Colin & Jessica Magnier, Skryne, Tara
1083 1st pt 1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Lismullin Phillip & Margaret Ryan, Lismullin, Navan
1087 1st pt1& 2; 4th Lismullin Patrick & Susan Meehan, Lismullen,
Garlow Cross, Navan
1088 1st pt 2 Lismullin John & Maureen Meehan, Lismullen, Navan
1089 1st pt 1&2; 4th Blundelstown Noel McGuinness
Blundellstown House, Garlow Cross
1016
1090 1st pt 1&2; 4th Philpotstown Reps Mary E. McCarthy,
c/o Cathal McCarthy, Philpottstown,
Garlow Cross
1091 1st pt 1&2; 4th Berrillstown Gerard Stafford, Berrillstown, Tara
and David Carty, Berrillstown
1092 1st pt 1&2; 4th Castletown Tara Liam Donohue, Darraugh, Garadice PO,
Ballyconnell. Co. Cavan
1093 1st pt 2 Ballinter Stephen & Margaret Neylon, Links View,
Bellinter, Navan
1094 1st pt 1&2; 4th Dowdstown Rev. Peter O'Neill,
Missionary Society of St. Columbans
St. Columbans (Dalgan Park) Navan
1096 1st pt 1&2; 4th Castletown Tara Pat Fallon Newgrange Business Park
Donore Road, Drogheda.
(EIS related) Bellinter Residents Association per Alan Park
Bellinter Cross, Navan
(EIS related ) James McCaldrin, Oak Lodge, Bellinter, Navan
(EIS related) Joseph Heery, Ardsallagh, Navan
1106 1st pt 2 Ballinter Brian Kelly, Bellinter, Navan
1109 1st pt 1&2; 3rd; 4th Ardsallagh Cormac Murray, Wood Lodge, Ardsallagh
1109 1st pt 1&2; 3rd; 4th Ardsallagh Thomas Wimesy, Gate Lodge,
Ardsallagh (as occupier)
1111 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh Brian & Jean Malone, Ardsallagh, Navan
1113 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh Peter & Mary Crisham, Ardsallagh
1115 ) 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh James Foley (Junior), Ardsallagh, Navan
1117 ) 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh
1116 ) 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh James Foley (Senior), Ardsallagh, Navan
1118 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardsallagh
1119 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Ardsallagh Frank Corcoran, Cannistown, Navan
1017
1120 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardsallagh Peter & Rosemary McAree, Arovilla, Ardsallagh
1121 1st pt 1&2; 4th ; 7th pt 2 Ardsallagh Reps of Robert Slattery,
c/o Joan Slattery, Mullinam, Mulhuddart
Co. Dublin
1122 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh Emmet Clarke, Ardsallagh
---- Ardsallagh Frank & Marie Clarke, Ardsallagh
t/a Ardsallagh Furniture Reproduction Ltd.
(shared entrance with Plot 1122)
1123 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh Peter & Rosanna Burke, Ardsallagh, Navan
1124 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh Tony & Alison King, Tall Trees, Ardsallagh
1125 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh Joseph & Patricia Fitzsimons, Ardsallagh
1126 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh Robert Fitzsimons, Ardsallagh
1127 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh Thomas & Anna Farrelly, Ardsallagh
1128 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh John T. & Breda Connolly, Ardsallagh
1130 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardsallagh John Columba McEvoy, 34 Market Square,
1144 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardsallagh Navan
(CIE claim ownership of 1144)
1133 1st pt 1&2; 4th Kennastown Reps of Frank Foley, Cannistown, Navan
1135 1st pt 2 Kennastown Leslie & Mary Curtis, Cannistown
1136 1st pt 2 Kennastown Sean Carty, Cannistown
1138 1st pt 2 Ardsallagh John Moran, Secretary, Bective G. F. C.
Cannistown, Navan
2102 1st pt 2 Williamstown or Bawn John Fahy, The Bawn, Williamstown,
Navan
2103 1st pt 1&2; 4th Williamstown or Bawn Mark Corley, Grange, Bective, Navan
2107 1st pt 2 Balreask Old Reps of Christopher Dowdall, Balreask Old, Navan
1018
Thomas Dowdall, Trim road, Navan and
John Dowdall, Balreask Old, Navan
2110 1st pt 2 Balreask Old Noel & Sandra Farrell, Balreask Old, Navan
2111 1st pt 2 Philpotstown James & Kevin Brady, c/o Brian Hughes
26 Magdalene Street,Drogheda
2112 1st pt 1&2; 4th Kennastown Paul & Kathleen Foley, Cannistown, Navan
2113 1st pt 2 Kennanstown Vincent Keating, Ardsallagh, Navan
2114 1st pt 2 Kennastown Nicholas & Kathleen Keogh,
Rackenstown House, Dunshaughlin
2116 1st pt 2 Ballybatter or Balreask New Shiela O'Keefe St. Anne's, Balreask,
Navan
2117 1st pt 2; 3rd pt 2 Balreask Old Vitgeson Ltd., Moatlands, Navan
2117 1st pt 2 Balreask Old Maurice & Joan Whelan, Balreask Old,
Dublin Road, Navan
2117 1st pt 2; 3rd pt 2 Danny & Eilish Bermingham, Balreask Old
2118 1st pt 2 Balreask Old Daniel McCormack, Balreask House, Navan
2131 1st pt 2 Balreask Old Michael & Teresa Crowley, Balreask Old,
Dublin Road, Navan
2132 1st pt 2 Balreask Old Noel & Josephine Hogan, Balreask Old,
Dublin Road, Navan
2137 1st pt 2 Balreask Old Mary & Patrick Cleary, Naomh Mhuire,
Dublin Road, Navan
2140 1st pt 2 Macetown Maureen Foley, Macetown, Navan
2142 1st pt 2 Macetown Stan & Bernadette Kennelly, Knockanure House,
Macetown, Navan
2146 1st pt 2 Macetown Padraic & Denise Kilcoyne, Macetown,
2150 1st pt 1&2; 4th Macetown Owen & Mary McElroy, 44 Dunville Avenue
Rathmines, Dublin 6
1019
2151 1st pt 1&2; 4th Gainstown Patrick & Monica Sherlock, Gainstown,
Navan
2151 1st pt 1&2; 4th Gainstown John Sherlock, Oldtown, Bohermeen, Navan
( Not included in CPO but landowner has now acquired
land to south of his yard affected by CPO -- See amendment list)
2155 1st pt 2 Gainstown Donagh & Sheila Russell, Gainstown, Navan
2156 1st pt 1&2; 4th Gainstown John & Majella Carolan, Woodview Cottage,
Flemingstown, Balrath, Navan
2157 ) 1st pt 2 Gainstown Edward & Aileen Maguire, Gainstown, Navan
2158 ) 1st pt 2; 3rd pt 2 Gainstown
2158 1st pt 2; 3rd pt 2 Gainstown Gerard & Margaret Ormond, Gainstown
2159 1st pt 1&2; 4th Gainstown Fiona & Patrick Reilly, Gainstown
2162 1st pt 1&2; 4th Hanlonstown William & Margaret Smith, Curraghtown, Navan
2164 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Hanlonstown Jane Lightholder, Hanlonstown, Navan
2180 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Boyerstown
2165 1st pt 1&2; 4th Hanlonstown Patrick Darcy, Boyerstown, Navan
2166 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Boyerstown John & Marcella Devine, Boyerstown,
2384 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Boyerstown
2167 1st pt 1&2; 3rd ; 4th Boyerstown Joseph & Mary Casserly, Boyerstown,
2170 1st pt 1&2; 4th Boyerstown John McGlew, Boyerstown
2173 1st pt 2 Boyerstown Reps of Rose Wall --- James & Teresa Wall
16 Woodbine Lawn, Inniscarra View.
Ballincollig. Co. Cork
2180 1st pt 1&2; 4th Boyerstown Reps of Patrick Brady, c/o Brian Hughes
26 Magdalene Street, Drogheda
2181 1st pt 2 Knockumber Sean Murtagh, Boyerstown, Navan
2183 ) 1st pt 2 Knockumber James & Thomas Dowdall, Knockumber,
2185 ) 1st pt 2 Robinrath Navan
1020
2193 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardbraccan Christopher Collins, Ardbraccan, Navan
2200 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardbraccan Margaret & John Donaghy, Ardbraccan, Navan
2201 ) 1st pt 2 Ardbraccan Ann & Mathew Coffey, Possecks Town, Enfield
2224 ) 1st pt 2 Betaghstown
2202 1st pt 2 Ardbraccan Joseph Bartley, Ardbraccan
2203 1st pt 2 Ardbraccan John Markey, Ardbraccan
2208 ) 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardbraccan Liam & Bernadette Harte, Ardbraccan
2217 ) 1st pt 2 Ardbraccan
2210 1st pt 2 Ardbraccan Sean & P.J. Galligan, Ardbraccan
2211 1st pt 2 Townparks David McCarthy & Yolanda Potter
21 Blackcastle Estate, Navan
2211 1st pt 2 Townparks Patrick Marron, 24 Moatville, Navan
2211 1st pt 2 Townparks Patrick O'Brien, 23 Moatville, Navan
2215 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardbraccan Michael Peter Fitzsimons, Ardbraccan, Navan
2216 1st pt 2 Ardbraccan Joseph & Elizabeth Harte, Boyerstown,
2217 1st pt 2 Ardbraccan Liam & Bernadette Harte, Ardbraccan
2219 1st pt 2; 3rd pt 2 Neilstown Peter & Carol Callaghan, Orgenstown,
Bohermeen, Navan
2220 1st pt 2; 3rd pt 2 Neilstown John & Margaret Donaghy, Ardbraccan,
2221 1st pt 2 Townparks Tara Mines Ltd. Knockcumber, Navan
(EIS Related) S.J. Maher, Ardbraccan House, Navan
2222 1st pt 2; 3rd pt 2 Neilstown Frank Reilly, Bohermeen, Navan
2223 1st pt 2 Neilstown Vivienne Kennedy, Neilstown Lodge, Neilstown,
Navan
2226 1st pt 2 Townparks John Carolan, Mullaghboy, Navan
1021
2322 1st pt 2 Boyerstown Reps of Anne Brady, c/o Brian Hughes
26 Magdalene Street, Drogheda
2324 1st pt 2 Williamstown or Bawn Eamonn Corley, Grange, Bective, Navan
2325 1st pt 2 Williamstown or Bawn Thomas & Maureen Hare,
Williamstown, Navan
2326 1st pt 2 Williamstown or Bawn Agnes Graham, Williamstown
2327 1st pt 2 Williamstown or Bawn Noel & Mairead McCormack
Site No. 3, Williamstown
2331 1st pt 2 Ardbraccan Darren Ward & Trecy McLoughlin
Copperbeech Cottage, Durhamstown, Ardbraccan
( EIS related ) Brian Smyth, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
3000 1st pt 1 &2; 4th Ardbraccan Conaty's Farms Ltd. c/o Kevin Conaty
Boyerstown, Navan
3002 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ardbraccan Tommy Nally, Churchtown, Navan
3003 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Grange Sean Bennett, Ardbraccan
3004 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Grange Rose & Andrew Rispin, Grange, Bohermeen
Navan
3006 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Grange Patrick Rispin., Grange, Bohermeen
3007 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Grange Andrew Rispin, Grange, Bohermeen
3012 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Pheonixtown John McLoughlin, Phoenixtown,
Ardbraccan
3013 1st pt 2 Phoenixtown Dermot English, Phoenixtown, Bohermeen, Navan
3014 1st pt 2 Phoenixtown Vincent & Pauline Rennick, Cedar Lodge,
Phoenixtown
3016 1st pt 1&2; 4th Pheonixtown Thomas Tallon, Martry, Kells
3017 1st pt 1&2; 4th Martry Patrick Martin Boggins, Nugentstown, Kells
3018 1st pt 1&2; 4th ; 7th pt 1 Ballybeg Andrew Brooks, Febog, Kells
1022
3019 1st pt 2 Ballybeg Fintan & Hilda Hogan, Ballybeg, Kells
3020 1st pt 2 Ballybeg Stephanie Waters, Ballybeg, Kells
3022 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Phoenixtown Michael & Betty Fox , Phoenixtown,
3024 1st pt 2 Ballybeg Patrick & Mary McRedmond,
98 Johnstown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire
3026 1st pt 1&2; 4th Ballybeg Andrew, James, Lawrence & Terence Brooks
Febog, Kells And
Kathleen Connell, Ballybeg, Kells
3030 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Nugentstown Gerard & Declan Mullen, Kilmainham, Kells
3031 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Nugentstown Gerard Mullen , Kilmainham, Kells
3032 1st pt 2; 3rd pt 2 Cookstown Great Michael & Mary Christine Foley,
Cookstown Great, Kells
3033 1st pt1& 2; 3rd ;4th Cookstown Great Cathal & Vivienne Usher, Cookstown,
Kells
3037 ) 1st pt 2 Kilmainham Brendan Heerey, Kilmainham., Kells
3109 ) 1st pt 2 Kilmainham
3038 1st pt 1& 2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Kilmainham John Newman, Curragh, Kilmainham
3039 1st pt 2 Kilmainham Winifred Madden, Kilmainham, Kells
3040 ) 1st pt 2 Kilmainham Tom Hickey, Kilmainham, Kells
3122 )
3041 1stpt 2 Kilmainham Eugene J. Reilly Kilberry House, Kilberry,
(Headfort) Navan.
3046 1st pt 1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Kilmainham Bridget Tansey, Carkfree, Ballinameen,
Boyle, Co. Roscommon.
3047 1st pt 1&2; 3rd pt 2; 4th Gardenrath Henry Newman, Gardenrath Road, Kells
3053 1st pt 1&2; 4th Townparks Henry & Una Newman, Gardenrath
Road
3052 1st pt1& 2; 3rd ; 4th Gardenrath Charles Reilly, Brentwood, Bective St. Kells
1023
3064 1st pt 1&2; 4th Rockfield Seamus & Irene Yore, East Lodge,
Rockfield Road, Kells
3065 1st pt 2; 7th pt 2 Rockfield George Armstrong and
W. & G. Armstrong (Kells) Ltd., Market Street, Kells
3066 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Townparks (Kells) Trevor Fitzherbert, Swynnerton,
Blackcastle, Navan
3070 1st pt 1& 2; 4th Townparks (Kells) Edmund & Peter Kelly, Balrath Road, Kells
3071 ) 1st pt 2 Calliaghstown Thomas Duffy , Boolies, Balrath, Kells
4009 ) 1st pt 2 Chapelbride
3072 1st pt 2 Newrath Little George Armstrong, Newrath, Kells
3075 1st pt 2 Townparks Thomas Gavigan, Farrell Street, Kells
3075 1st pt 2 Townparks Thomas & Veronica Flanagan, Oldcastle Road
Kells (as occupier)
3082 ) 1st pt 2 Townparks Damien & Mary Mulvany, Cavan Road, Kells
4009 ) 1st pt 2 Chapelbride
3078 ) 1st pt 2 Townparks Thomas Clinton, Carlanstown, Kells
3085 )
3087 )
3090 1st pt 2 Archdeaconry Glebe Monica Flanagan,
Archdeaconry Glebe, Kells and
Collette Flanagan-Lynch, Moynalty Road, Kells
3093 1st pt 2 Whitecommons Noel & Nuala Gilsenan, Whitecommons, Kells
3094 1st pt 2 Cakestown Glebe Norman Ormiston, Blackwater House, Kells
3095 1st pt 2 Cakestown Glebe Phillip Dunne, Cakestown Glebe, Kells
3097 1st pt 2 Kilmainham Laurence & Pauline Stafford Kilmainham, Kells
3101 ) 1st pt 2 Townparks Thomas & Veronica Flanagan, Oldcastle Road
3111 ) 1st pt 2 Townparks Thomas & Veronica Flanagan, Oldcastle Road
3103 1st pt 2 Cakestown Glebe Thomas Garvey, Rockfield Road, Kells
3104 1st pt 2 Cakestown Glebe Sean Flood, Cakestown Glebe, Kells
1024
3105 1st pt 2 Tankardstown Gabriel Coffey, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
and Joe Coffey, Tankardstown, Navan
3108 1st pt 2 Kilmainham Thomas & Vivienne Jennings, Allendale
Kilmainham, Kells
3123 1st pt 2 Grange Seamus Bennett, Ardbraccan, Navan
4000 ) 1st pt 2 Calliaghstown Eamonn Duffy , Boolies, Balrath, Kells
4002 ) 1st pt 2 Calliaghstown
4003 1st pt 2; 7th pt 1 Calliaghstown Edward & Bridget Whelan,
Calliaghstown, Kells
4007 1st pt 2 Boolies Thomas McGuinness, Boolies, Balrath
4008 1st pt 2 Boolies John Grimes, Boolies, Balrath
4011 1st pt 2 Chapelbride Mathew Tevlin, Boltown, Kilskeer
4015 1st pt 2 Drumbaragh James Meegan, Drumbaragh, Kells
4016 1st pt 2; 7th pt 2 Drumbaragh Patrick Carry, 154 Woodsland, Navan
4018 1st pt 2 Drumbaragh James McDonald, Drumbaragh, Kells
4019 1st pt 2 Drumbaragh Michael & Bernadette Meegan,
Drumbarragh, Kells
4025 1st pt 2 Castlekeeran Michael & Elizabeth Farrelly, Castlekeeran, Kells
4026 1st pt 2 Castlekeeran Laurence Farnan, Pottlebane, Carnaross
4027 ) 1st pt 2 Castlekeeran John Farrelly, Newrath Big, Lloyd, Kells
4028 ) 1st pt 2 Castlekeeran
4031 1st pt 2 Woodpole John O'Connor, 3 Chesterfield Grove,
Castleknock, Dublin 15
4035 1st pt 2 Woodpole Michael & Elizabeth Farrelly, Castlekeeran, Kells
4036 1st pt 2 Woodpole Matthew Farrelly Woodpole, Carnaross and
Christopher Farrelly, Woodpole
4037 1st pt 2 Woodpole Bernard Reilly , Cornasaus, Carnaross
1025
4039 1st pt 2 Pottlebane Matthew Muldoon, Ballylist, Carnaross
4045 1st pt 2 Derver Margaret Gingles, Derver, Carnaross
4051 1st pt 2 Derver Michael Lynch, Derver, Carnaross
4054 1st pt 2 Castlekeeran John Kearney, Meenlagh, Carnaross
4062 1st pt 2 Castlekeeran Ms. Betty Newman Maguire
Castlekeeran, Carnaross
4063 1st pt 2; 7th pt 2 Drumbaragh Kieran & Martina Meegan, Drumbarragh,
4067 1st pt 2 Boolies David Kellett, Invyaaroge, Baillieboro
Co. Cavan
4069 1st pt 2 Boolies Michael Farrelly, Boolies, Balrath
4073 1st pt 2 Derver Evelyn Reyburn, Cordoogan,
Monasterboice, Co. Louth
------------------------------------------------------------
1026
Appendix 2. List of People or Organisations that made Submissions in respect of
the Road Development to an Bord Pleanala within the prescribed
period :-
1. Duchas, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2.
(a) Archaeological --- Land & Underwater
(b) Architectural.
2. An Taisce, Tailors Hall, Back Lane, Dublin 8. ( by Ian Lumley)
3. The Arts Council, 70 Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
4. Bat Conservation Group, Cavan/Meath Branch, 32 The Old Mill, Rathoath.
5. Meath Roads Action Group, c/o Eamon Halligan, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
6. Meath Archaeological & Historical Society -- Oliver Ward, Spiddal, Nobber
7. Irish Georgian Society, 74 Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
8. Dunboyne Historical Society -- Linda Clare, Coolcommon, Batterstown, Dunboyne.
9. Liam Scott, Piercetown House, Piercetown, Dunboyne
10. Newtown Bridge Residents Association, c/o Lorrha Lodge, Summerhill Road
Dunboyne -- Deirdre Deasy & Owen McBreen
11. Garnett Hall Residents Association, c/o 5 Garnett Hall, Dunboyne --
Catherine Connolly & Dawn Tolan
12. David Deasy, Lorrha Lodge, Dunboyne
13. Owen & Mairin McBreen, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
14. Mary Keane, Leshamstown, Drumree
15. Brendan & Dolores Murphy, Leshamstown
16. Jack Irwin, Roestown.
17. Frank Fitzmaurice, Leshamstown
1027
18. Andy Morgan, Leshamstown Lane
19. Barbara Finlay, Leshamstown Manor.
20. Raynestown Residents Association, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
21. Patricia & James Conroy, Collierstown, Tara
22. Tom Foley & Karen Carty, Collierstown
23. Anastasia Crickley, 30A St. Kevins Road, Dublin 8
24. Seamus Farrelly, Hill of Skryne, Tara
25. Conor Newman, M.A., N.U.I., Galway
26. Dr. Brian Lacey, Discovery Program Ltd., 34 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2.
27. John Delaney, Montbretia, Grange, Bective, Navan.
28. Shiela Bradley, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross, Navan
29. Kathleen & Patrick Farrelly, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross,
30. Pat Raleigh, Mission Education Department, St. Columbans, Dalgan Park.
31. Catherine Reilly, 48 Blackcastle, Navan
32. Margaret McGrath, Sion Cottage, Johnstown, Navan
33. Catherine Cleary, Sion House, Johnstown, Navan.
34. Pauline Connolly, c/o St. Michaels Secondary School, Loreto, Navan
35. Bellinter Residents Association, Bellinter
36. Thomas & Margaret Hamill, Bellinter, Navan
37. Helen Ryan, Ardsbeg, Bellinter
38. James McCaldrin, Oak Lodge, Bellinter
39. Anne Barber, Bellinter
40. Christopher & Claire Oakes, Bellinter
1028
41. John & Patricia McCormick, San Antonio, Bellinter
42. Alan Park, Bellinter Cross
43. Brendan, Anne, Estelle & Lynette Magee, Bellinter
44. Raymond & Elizabeth Martin, Bellinter
45. Cannistown Residents Association,
c/o Thelma Keating, Talara House, The Avenue, Ardsallagh
46. Aidan & Thelma Keating, Talara House, The Avenue, Ardsallagh
47. John & Rose Smyth, Ardsallagh
48. James McIntyre, Boyne Hill, Navan
49. M/s Steen O'Reilly & Co. Solicitors, Navan,
on behalf of Ronald Sherlock,
t/a Sherlock Furniture, Balreask Old, Navan.
50. Ray Keegan, Grange, Bective, Navan
51. Moatville Residents Association
by Ruth Cahill, Chairperson, c/o 10 Moatville
52. Patricia Gibney, 5 Woodlands, Navan ( For CPO - Plot 2387 )
53. Brian Smyth, Tankardstown, Navan
54. Richard Byrne, Ardbraccan
55. Edwina Dunne, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
56. Therese Coffey, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
57. Claudine Coffey, Coolfore Road
58. Sandra Coffey, Coolfore Road
59. Hugh Coyle, Coolfore Road
60. Paula Coyle, Coolfore Road
61. Thomas Regan, Coolfore Road
1029
62. Rebecca Rennicks, Coolfore Road
63. Ivan Rennicks, Coolfore Road
64. Brian Smyth, Coolfore Road
65. Fiona Feely, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
66. H.R. & R. M. Pagan, Islay, Ardbraccan, Boyerstown
67. Simon Hilliard, Ardbraccan, Boyerstown
68. Sean Finlay, The Glebe House, Ardbraccan
69. W. G. Dallas, Martry, Kells
70. Phillip Dunne, Cakestown Glebe, Kells (CPO related )
71. Mrs. Winnie Madden, Plot 3039 (CPO related)
72. Norman Ormiston, Blackwater House, Kells Plot 3094 (CPO related)
73. George Armstrong and W. & G. Armstrong (Kells) Ltd. Plot 3065 & 3072
(CPO related)
74. Edward & Bridget Whelan, Calliaghstown, Kells (Boolies Road) Plot 4003
(CPO related)
75. John Kearney, Meenlagh, Carnaross Plot 4075 (CPO related)
76. Gerard Murphy, Cavan Road, Kells
-------------------------------------
1030
Appendix 3 Objectors represented by M/s Gaynor Corr & Associates,
Agronomists and Property Consultants, Portlaois.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plot No. Townland Objectors name(s) Address
118 Roestown John & Kathleen O' Connor, Roestown, Drumree
119 Roestown Joseph & Ann McKillen, Roestown, Drumree
120 Roestown Arthur & Elodie McFaul, Roestown, Drumree
121 Roestown Tom & Mary Byrne, Ashling, Roestown, Dunshaughlin
122 Roestown Michael Delaney, Gaulstown, Dunshaughlin
123&124 Roestown Martin & Monica Kelly, Roestown, Drumree
137 Leshamstown John & Mary Neary, Leshamstown, Drumree
147 Readsland John Francis Morgan, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
148 Readsland Peter Conlon, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
150 Readsland Derek Gray, Readsland, Dunshaughlin
155 Drumree Valerie Sunner, Knockmark, Drumree
157 Drumree Declan Walsh, Knockmark, Drumree
162 Rath Hill Michael & Maureen Duffy, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
163 Rath Hill Sean & Bernadette Joyce, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
166 Rath Hill Pat Summerville, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
167 ) Rath Hill Patrick Jennings, Macetown, Navan
2147 ) Macetown
171 Knockmark Christopher Lynch, Knockmark, Drumree
c/o John Lynch, Augherskeagh, Drumree
173 Knockmark Drunree GAA Club, c/o Sean Walsh,
Augherskeagh, Drumree
174 Knockmark Eddie Bannon, Kilcoole, Drumree
182 Merrywell Eddie Bannon (as occupier)
182 Merrywell Patrick J. Geraghty, Greenacres, Powderlough
Dunshaughlin
186 Derrockstown Louis & Mary Murray ? Fortfield, Derrockstown
(Murphy given)
188 Derrockstown Thomas McManus, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin.
195 Derrockstown Tom Feerick, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin
197 RoW to Feerick
197 Derrockstown Patrick McHale, Derrockstown,
206 Derrockstown Patrick & Michael Corbett, Derrockstown
207 Derrockstown Andrew & Mary Neary, Derrockstown
208 Derrockstown Noel & Josephine McTigue, Derrockstown
213 Raynestown Patrick & Mary Townsend, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
215 Raynestown Thomas & Irene Reeves, Raynestown,
217 Raynestown Raymond & Sheelagh Brennan, Raynestown
218 Raynestown Michael & Marion McCullagh, Raynestow
1031
221 Raynestown John O'Sullivan, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
222 Raynestown Michael Clayton, 28 Greentrees Road, Dublin
223 Raynestown David & Patricia Crimmins, Raynestown
229 Raynestown Dermot & Philomena McGreal, Raynestown
230 Raynestown Peadar & Pauline Creagh, Raynestown
231 Raynestown Frank Goodman, Raynestown
232 Raynestown Joseph & Noreen Sheridan, Bush Lane, Raynestown
234 Raynestown Patrick Ennis & Joan Burke, The Bungalow, Raynestown
235 Raynestown John & Marie Drake, Raynestown
236 Raynestown Declan & Ellen Collins, Raynestown
237 Raynestown Desmond & Anne Bellew, Raynestown
238 Raynestown Sean & Patricia Wynne, Raynestown
239 Raynestown Eamonn & Mary Halligan, Raynestown
240 Raynestown John & Joanne Duffy, Raynestown
241) Raynestown Thomas & Pauline Everard, Raynestown
242)
257 Rathbeggan Sylvester McAuley, Roselawn,
280 Piercetown Brendan & Elizabeth Donnelly, Piercetown, Dunboyne
285 Piercetown Phillip Connell, Piercetown, Dunboyne
292 Piercetown Sean McGuirk , Piercetown, Dunboyne
307 Piercetown Kilsaran Concrete Ltd., Piercetown, Dunboyne
308 Piercetown SERLA Print Ltd, Serla House, Grennhills Road
Tallaght, Dublin 24
312 Woodpark Hugh Mullally , Woodpark, Dunboyne
320 Bracetown Laurence Ward, Norman's Grove, Clonee
325) Pace Reps of Christopher Gregan,
337) Dunboyne c/o Gertrude Gregan, Bennetstown, Dunboyne
329 Dunboyne Tom & Loreto Doherty, Newtown,
Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
339 Dunboyne Pat Gregan, Bennetstown, Dunboyne
342 Dunboyne Sean Delaney, Bracetown, Clonee
350 Bracetown Reps of Joseph Laurence Ward,
c/o Laurence Ward, Norman's Grove
351 Bracetown Michael Brazil , 23 Moatlands, Ratoath
356 Bracetown James & Frances Pheonix, Bracetown,
371 Clonee Strandfair Holdings -- Finnian O' Cinneide
Loughsallagh, Clonee ( as occupier)
375 Clonee Ciaran & Lisa Byrne, Loughsallagh, Clonee
450 Dunboyne John & Pamela Conneely, The Maples, Dunboyne
464 Roestown S.J.D. Developments Ltd. Tullameadow, Drumree
c/o Sean Dunleavy, Dunshaughlin
1053) Roestown Michael & Dymphna O'Brien Rockfield,
1060) Roestown Portmanna, Co. Meath
1059 Berrillstown Dermot, Bridget & David Carty, Berrillstown, Tara
1067 Collierstown Capt. Anthony & Catherine Canavan, Collierstown
1071 Collierstown John & Patricia Scanlon, Collierstown, Tara
1032
1087 Lismullin Patrick & Susan Meehan, Lismullen,
Garlow Cross, Navan
1088 Lismullin John & Maureen Meehan, Lismullen, Navan
1091 Berrillstown Gerard Stafford, Berrillstown, Tara
and David Carty, Berrillstown
1093 Ballinter Stephen & Margaret Neylon, Links View,
Bellinter, Navan
1106 Ballinter Brian Kelly, Bellinter, Navan
1109 Ardsallagh Cormac Murray, Wood Lodge, Ardsallagh
1109 Ardsallagh Thomas Wimesy, Gate Lodge, Ardsallagh
(as occupier)
1115 ) Ardsallagh James Foley (Junior), Ardsallagh, Navan
1117 ) Ardsallagh
1116 ) Ardsallagh James Foley (Senior), Ardsallagh, Navan
1118 ) Ardsallagh
1119 Ardsallagh Frank Corcoran, Cannistown, Navan
1121 Ardsallagh Reps of Robert Slattery,
c/o Joan Slattery, Mullinam, Mulhuddart
Co.Dublin
1123 Ardsallagh Peter & Rosanna Burke, Ardsallagh, Navan
1124 Ardsallagh Tony & Alison King, Tall Trees, Ardsallagh
1130 ) Ardsallagh John Columba McEvoy, 34 Market Square, Navan
1144 ) Ardsallagh (CIE claim ownership of 1144)
1133 Kennastown Reps of Frank Foley, Cannistown, Navan
1135 Kennastown Leslie & Mary Curtis, Cannistown
1136 Kennastown Sean Carty, Cannistown
2102 Williamstown or Bawn John Fahy, The Bawn, Williamstown, Navan
2103 Williamstown or Bawn Mark Corley, Grange, Bective, Navan
2107 Balreask Old Reps of Christopher Dowdall, Balreask Old, Navan
Thomas Dowdall, Trim road, Navan and
John Dowdall, Balreask Old, Navan
2110 Balreask Old Noel & Sandra Farrell, Balreask Old, Navan
2112 Kennastown Paul & Kathleen Foley, Cannistown
2113 Kennanstown Vincent Keating, Ardsallagh, Navan
2114 Kennastown Nicholas & Kathleen Keogh,
Rackenstown House, Dunshaughlin
2116 Ballybatter or Balreask New Shiela O'Keefe St. Anne's, Balreask, Navan
2117 Balreask Old Maurice & Joan Whelan, Balreask Old,
Dublin Road, Navan
2117 Balreask Old Danny & Eilish Bermingham, Balreask Old
2118 Balreask Old Daniel McCormack, Balreask House, Navan
2131 Balreask Old Michael & Teresa Crowley, Balreask Old,
Dublin Road, Navan
2132 Balreask Old Noel & Josephine Hogan, Balreask Old,
Dublin Road, Navan
1033
2137 Balreask Old Mary & Patrick Cleary, Naomh Mhuire,
Dublin Road, Navan
2140 Macetown Maureen Foley, Macetown, Navan
2142 Macetown Stan & Bernadette Kennelly, Knockanure House,
Macetown, Navan
2146 Macetown Padraic & Denise Kilcoyne, Macetown,
2150 Macetown Owen & Mary McElroy, 44 Dunville Avenue
Rathmines, Dublin6
2151 Gainstown Patrick & Monica Sherlock, Gainstown, Navan
2151 Gainstown John Sherlock, Oldtown, Bohermeen, Navan
( Not included in CPO but landowner has now acquired
land to south of his yard affected by CPO - - amend CPO)
2155 Gainstown Donagh & Sheila Russell, Gainstown, Navan
2156 Gainstown John & Majella Carolan, Woodview Cottage,
Flemingstown, Balrath, Navan
2157 ) Gainstown Edward & Aileen Maguire, Gainstown, Navan
2158 ) Gainstown
2158 Gainstown Gerard & Margaret Ormond, Gainstown
2159 Gainstown Fiona & Patrick Reilly, Gainstown
2164 ) Hanlonstown Jane Lightholder, Hanlonstown, Navan
2180 ) Boyerstown
2166 ) Boyerstown John & Marcella Devine, Boyerstown,
2384 ) Boyerstown
2167 Boyerstown Joseph & Mary Casserly, Boyerstown,
2170 Boyerstown John McGlew, Boyerstown
2183 ) Knockumber James & Thomas Dowdall, Knockumber,
2185 ) Robinrath Navan
2193 Ardbraccan Christopher Collins, Ardbraccan, Navan
2201 ) Ardbraccan Ann & Mathew Coffey, Posseckstown, Enfield
2224 )
2202 Ardbraccan Joseph Bartley, Ardbraccan
2203 Ardbraccan John Markey, Ardbraccan
2208 ) Ardbraccan Liam & Bernadette Harte, Ardbraccan
2217 ) Ardbraccan
2210 Ardbraccan Sean & P.J. Galligan, Ardbraccan
2211 Townparks David McCarthy & Yolanda Potter
21 Blackcastle Estate, Navan
2211 Townparks Patrick Marron, 24 Moatville, Navan
2211 Townparks Patrick O'Brien, 23 Moatville, Navan
2216 Ardbraccan Joseph & Elizabeth Harte, Boyerstown,
2219 Neilstown Peter & Carol Callaghan, Orgenstown,
Bohermeen, Navan
2220 Neilstown John & Margaret Donaghy, Ardbraccan,
2222 Neilstown Frank Reilly, Bohermeen, Navan
1034
2226 Townparks John Carolan, Mullaghboy, Navan
2324 Williamstown or Bawn Eamonn Corley, Grange, Bective, Navan
2325 Williamstown or Bawn Thomas & Maureen Hare,
Williamstown, Navan
2326 Williamstown or Bawn Agnes Graham, Williamstown
2327 Williamstown or Bawn Noel & Mairead McCormack
Site No. 3, Williamstown
2331 Ardbraccan Darren Ward & Trecy McLoughlin
Copperbeech Cottage, Durhamstown, Ardbraccan
3001 Ardbraccan Conaty's Farms Ltd. c/o Kevin Conaty
Boyerstown, Navan
3002 Ardbraccan Tommy Nally, Churchtown, Navan
3003 Grange Sean Bennett, Ardbraccan
3004 Grange Rose & Andrew Rispin, Grange, Bohermeen
Navan
3006 Grange Patrick Rispin., Grange, Bohermeen
3007 Grange Andrew Rispin, Grange, Bohermeen
3012 Pheonixtown John McLoughlin, Phoenixtown, Ardbraccan
3014 Phoenixtown Vincent & Pauline Rennick, Cedar Lodge,
Phoenixtown
3019 Ballybeg Fintan & Hilda Hogan, Ballybeg, Kells
3020 Ballybeg Stephanie Waters, Ballybeg, Kells
3022 Phoenixtown Michael & Betty Fox , Phoenixtown,
3024 Ballybeg Patrick & Mary McRedmond,
98 Johnstown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire
3030 Nugentstown Gerard & Declan Mullen, Kilmainham, Kells
3031 Nugentstown Gerard Mullen, Kilmainham, Kells
3033 Cookstown Great Cathal & Vivienne Usher, Cookstown, Kells
3037 ) Kilmainham Brendan Heerey, Kilmainham., Kells
3109 ) Kilmainham
3039 Kilmainham Winifred Madden, Kilmainham, Kells
3052 Gardenrath Charles Reilly, Brentwood, Bective St. Kells
3064 Rockfield Seamus & Irene Yore, East Lodge,
Rockfield Road, Kells
3066 Townparks (Kells) Trevor Fitzherbert, Swynnerton,
Blackcastle, Navan
3070 Townparks (Kells) Edmund & Peter Kelly, Balrath Road, Kells
3071 ) Calliaghstown Thomas Duffy, Boolies, Balrath, Kells
4009 ) Chapelbride
3082 ) Townparks Damien & Mary Mulvany, Cavan Road, Kells
4009 ) Chapelbride
3087 Townparks Thomas Clinton, Carlanstown, Kells
3090 Archdeaconry Glebe Monica Flanagan, Archdeaconry Glebe, Kells and
Collette Flanagan-Lynch, Moynalty Road, Kells
3095 Cakestown Glebe Philip Dunne, Cakestown Glebe, Kells
3097 Kilmainham Laurence & Pauline Stafford Kilmainham, Kells
1035
3103 Cakestown Glebe Thomas Garvey, Rockfield Road, Kells
3104 Cakestown Glebe Sean Flood, Cakestown Glebe, Kells
3105 Tankardstown Gabriel Coffey, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
and Joe Coffey, Tankardstown, Navan
3108 Kilmainham Thomas & Vivienne Jennings, Allendale
Kilmainham, Kells
3123 Grange Seamus Bennett, Ardbraccan, Navan
4000 ) Calliaghstown Eamonn Duffy , Boolies, Balrath, Kells
4002 ) Calliaghstown
4007 Boolies Thomas McGuinness, Boolies, Balrath
4008 Boolies John Grimes, Boolies, Balrath
4011 Chapelbride Mathew Tevlin, Boltown, Kilskeer
4019 Drumbaragh Michael & Bernadette Meegan,
Drumbarragh, Kells
4026 Castlekeeran Laurence Farnan, Pottlebane, Carnaross
4027 ) Castlekeeran John Farrelly, Newrath Big, Lloyd, Kells
4028 ) Castlekeeran
4031 Woodpole John O'Connor, 3 Chesterfield Grove,
Castleknock, Dublin 15
4036 Woodpole Matthew Farrelly Woodpole, Carnaross and
Christopher Farrelly, Woodpole
4037 Woodpole Bernard Reilly , Cornasaus, Carnaross
4039 Pottlebane Matthew Muldoon, Ballylist, Carnaross
4051 Derver Michael Lynch, Derver, Carnaross
4054 Castlekeeran John Kearney, Meenlagh, Carnaross
4063 Drumbaragh Kieran & Martina Meegan, Drumbarragh,
4067 Boolies David Kellett, Invyaaroge, Baillieboro, Co. Cavan
4069 Boolies Michael Farrelly, Boolies, Balrath
4073 Derver Evelyn Reyburn, Cordoogan,
Monasterboice,Co. Louth
------------------------------------------------------------
1036
Appendix 4. List of Documents handed in to Hearing
from 21 August to 21 November
Day 1 -- 21 August
Letter from Dillon Eustace, Solicitors, dated 30/04/02 on behalf of their clients, Mr.&
Mrs. Morrin -- copy of their original submission to An Bord Pleanala.
Copy of Agreement between Meath County Council and Mr. Basil Brindley, Rathbeggan
House Stud and Withdrawal of his Objections to Plot 258.
Written Submission from Moatville Residents Association handed in to Hearing.
Copy of letter of 20 August from CIE withdrawing their objections with regard to plots
469, 1144, 3032, 3046 & 3115.
Brief of Evidence by Alan Guthrie, Project Technical Co-ordinator ( 2 copies)
Brief of Evidence by Charles Richardson, Traffic Engineer.
Day 2 -- 22 August
Brief of Evidence of Michael Killeen, Senior Executive Engineer, Planning Department,
Meath County Council
Report by Dr. D. O'Cinneide, Traffic Research Unit, U.C.C. on Prediction of Traffic
Volumes on N2/N3, handed in by Pat Butler SC for Meath County Council during
Charles Richardson's Evidence.
Submission by Father Sean McDonagh SSC, Dalgan Park -- "Motorway Madness."
Meath County Development Plan 1994, referred to in Mr. P. Butler's opening statement
and requested by Inspector.
List of Clients of Sudway & Co. who are making no further submissions to Hearing.
Written Submissions from Vitgeson Ltd. -- Plot 2117, Thomas McManus -- Plot 188 &
Andrew Brooks - Plot 3018, handed in by Sudway & Co.
Briefs of Evidence for Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section for Council from:-
Susan Joyce -- Engineering; Philip Farrelly -- Agricultural Properties
Prof. Kevin Dodd -- Agriculture; Ray Hanley -- Non-agricultural Properties
Edward Porter -- Air Quality; Bill Quirke -- Aquatic Environment
David Wilson -- Drainage; Thomas Burns -- Landscape & Visual effects
Chris Dilworth -- Noise & Vibration; Alan O'Connell -- Lighting
Bill O'Kelly-Lynch -- Socio Economic; Roger Goodwillie -- Terrestrial Env.
Harold O'Sullivan -- Architecture Heritage; Thaddeus Breen -- Archaeology
Brief of Evidence of Suzanne Dempsey of MC O'S -- Overview of EIS ( all sections)
Day 3 -- 23 August
FAX copy of letter sent by An Bord Pleanala to Waterford Corporation on 11 March
2002 regarding "Additional Information" -- referred to by Mr. Peter Sweetman in crossexamination
and request for an adjournment on 22 August. This "letter" sought from An
Bord by Inspector on 23 August. Photocopy of Fax also attached.
1037
Day 4 -- 27 August
Written Submission from Derek Gray, Readsland, Drumree. -- Plot 150
Copy of advertisement dated 19 December 2001 of proposed Variation to 2001 County
Development Plan, handed in by Mr. Galligan S. C. during cross-examination of Mr.
Killeen
Copy of NRA "National Roads Project Management Guidelines" handed in by Mr. T.
Flynn BL for Ardbraccan House as requested by Inspector from Mr. Galligan, SC, during
his cross-examination of Alan Guthrie.
Map showing Locations of possible Material Sources for M3 scheme handed in by Meath
County Council to Hearing
Copy of Newspaper Notice of Meath County Development Plan 2001 Variation No.2,
handed in during Mr. Galligan's cross-examination of Michael Killeen.
Briefs of Evidence for Dunshaughlin to Navan Section for Council handed in from :-
Alan Guthrie -- Engineering; Ernie Crawford -- Air Quality
Margaret Gowan -- Archaeology; Harold O'Sullivan -- Built Heritage
Eamon Daly -- Drainage; Richard Nairn -- Ecology
Thomas Burns -- Landscape & Visual Aspects; Philip Farrelly -- Agriculture
Stephen Summers -- Noise & Vibration; Liam Prendiville -- Socio Economics
Peter Sheehy -- Structures
Day 5 -- 28 August
Tables showing Traffic Volumes on the individual sections of M3/N3/N52 compared to
Capacity in Needs Study and Cross-sections proposed compared to those in Needs Study
-- handed in by Meath County Council as requested by Inspector during Alan Guthries
Cross-examination.
Copy of letter from NRA to Meath County Engineer dated 28 February 2001, handed in
by Michael Killeen, SEE Planning during re-examination by Pat. Butler SC for Meath
County Council.
Extracts from National Roads Needs Study & National Development Plan handed in by
Pat Butler SC as requested by Inspector
Verbal submissions made by :-
(1) Tom Doherty, Newtown, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne -- Plot 329
(2) Ciaron & Lisa Byrne, Loughsallagh, Clonee -- Plot 375
(3) Finnian O' Cinneide, Loughsallagh Cross, Clonee -- Plot 371
(4) Raynestown Residents Association
Written submissions from :-
(1) Sean & Bernadette Joyce, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 163
(2) Pat Summerville, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 166
(3) Michael & Maureen Duffy, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 162
(4) Sean Delaney, Bracetown, Clonee -- Plot 342
(5) Maureen Foley, Macetown, Navan -- Plot 2140
(6) Thomas & Maureen Hare, Grangecon, Trim Road, Navan --Plot 2325
1038
(7) Peadar & Pauline Creagh, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 230
Briefs of Evidence for Navan Bypass Section for Council from :-
Susan Joyce -- Engineering; Philip Farrelly --Agricultural Properties
Jean Clarke -- Non-agricultural Properties
Edward Porter -- Air Quality; Bill Quirke -- Aquatic Environment
David Wilson -- Drainage; Thomas Burns -- Landscape & Visual effects
Chris Dilworth -- Noise & Vibration; Alan O'Connell -- Lighting
Bill O'Kelly-Lynch -- Socio Economic; Richard Nairn -- Terrestrial Env.
Harold O'Sullivan -- Architecture Heritage; Thaddeus Breen -- Archaeology
Day 6 -- 29 August
Verbal Submissions made by :-
(1) Geraldine Hennessey, Spearsview Cottage, Cooksland, per Kevin Walsh
(2) Laurence Ward, Normans Grove, Clonee -- Plot 320
(3) Joe McKillen on behalf of 10 Dunsany Road Residents
(4) Deirdre Deasy & Owen McBreen for Newtown Bridge Residents Association
(5) Owen & Mairin Mc Breen, Newtown, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
(6) Sheila Bradley, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross, Navan
(7) Patrick & Kathleen Farrelly, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross. Navan
Written Submission from Gerry & Catherine Corry, Crosskeys, Drumree per Druker
Fanning & Partners -- Plot 183
N3 Clonee to Dunshaughlin Tolka River Impact Study, Vol. 2, River Catchment Study,
handed in by Pat Butler SC for the Council arising from submissions by Owen McBreen
Day 7 -- 30 August
List of Additional Withdrawals of Objections handed in to Hearing by Tom Corr of
Gaynor Corr
Verbal Submission from James Finlay & Brendan Murphy for Leshanstown Lane
Residents
2 Maps of Raynestown Road O/B Realignment handed in by Susan Joyce of MC O'S
arising from cross-examination on the need for Access Road no. 13 to Plot 251 by
Raynestown Residents
Day 8 -- 3 September
Map & Photographs handed in by Evan Newall -- Plots 139 & 144-- during his crossexamination
of Susan Joyce, Project Engineer
Matrix of Route Options for R125 requested by Michael Kieran - Plot 172 -- on Day 7
during his cross-examination of Susan Joyce
Map of his site handed in by Tom Byrne -- Plot 121 -- during his cross-examination of
Susan Joyce
1039
Extract from Roads Act 1993 for Section 69 thereof, handed in by Esmond Keane BL for
the Council arising from Laurence Wards Submission.
Day 9 -- 4 September
Brief of Evidence by Michael Osborne, Equine Expert Witness for the Council.
Day 10 -- 5 September
FAX received at Hotel on 4 Sept. -- Treated as additional (written) submission from Liam
Scott of Piercetown House.
FAX of report from Bill O'Kelly-Lynch to Suzanne Dempsey of MC O'Sullivans
(MCO'S) with details of Pedestrian count taken at N3/R157 Fairyhouse junction as
requested by Inspector following issues raised by Liam Scott at Hearing on Day 9.
Documents handed in by Meath County Council as requested by Inspector :-
1. Extracts from 1994 & 2001 Meath County Development Plans (CDP) :-
Section 3.5.10 - Trees and Woodlands from 1994 CDP
Section 3.6.5 (1) - Tree Preservation from 2001 CDP
Section 2.7 & 2.7.1 - Strategic Infrastructure Needs and Transportation
from 2001 CDP -- Public Transport
2. Section 13 of Planning & Development Act 2000
3. Planning Permissions granted ( with planning Ref. No.) for Borrow Pits for
M1 Motorway Project
4. Strategic Planning Guidelines (SPGs) for the Greater Dublin Area and
Executive Summary of same.
5. Review and Updates of SPGs of April 2000, April 2001 & April 2002
6. " Composite" Map requested by Inspector arising from Michael Killeen's
evidence showing Areas of Visual Quality; Views and Prospects & Tree
Preservation Orders in the 2001 CDP with route of M3 superimposed.
7. Two Maps showing N3/M3 Route Reservations on the 1994 and 2001 CDPs,
requested by Inspector arising from Michael Killeen's evidence.
Copy of Agreement reached between Dubai Bloodstock Ltd and Meath County Council
for Withdrawal of their objections for Plot 301
Errata Addendum to Vol. 3A of EIS , Chapters 4 & 17, handed in by Suzanne Dempsey
of MC O'S for the Council
Documents handed in by Susan Joyce, Project Engineer, arising from her crossexamination
:-
Costings/ Feasibility for pedestrian overbridge at PACE Interchange arising from
Liam Scotts cross-examination.
Costings / Feasibility for replacing Road Bridge on R125 arising from
Leshamstown Lane issues.
Response to query about "Uneven Drying of ground" by Tom Byrne -- Plot 121
Copies of correspondence with Eastern Regional Fisheries Board arising from
queries regarding effects on Rivers Tolka & Skane.
Calculations of Truck Movements expected in Construction Excavation/Filling
1040
Movements
Costings for Lighting along Leshamstown Lane
NRA guidelines for Road Design, cross sections etc
NRA letter of approval of 23/06/00 to PPP program with list of projects and covering
letter of 28/08/02 handed in by Council -- as requested by Inspector.
Eastern Fishery Board letter of confirmation of agreement on river/stream crossings dated
25/02/02 for Clonee to Dunshaughlin and Navan Bypass sections -- as requested by
Inspector
Dept. of Transport (UK) - A road safety Good Practice Guide - handed in to Hearing by
Bernard Walsh, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne in support of his request that the
Roundabout be reduced in size, and with supporting Documents on Roundabout Design
from European Countries and the "Galway Cycling Campaign" publication on
Roundabouts.
Copies of "Newtown Bridge" ( Dunboyne) discussions with Bernard Walsh -- Plot 331 --
handed in by Susan Joyce of MC O'S for the Council
Two Files of Responses to Specific Objections -- Vol. 1 & Vol. 2 -- for Clonee to
Dunshaughlin Section and Additional File of Non-specific Responses for Clonee to
Dunshaughlin and Navan Bypass Sections handed in by Susan Joyce, Project Engineer
List of Additional Withdrawals of Objections handed in to Hearing by Tom Corr of
Gaynor Corr.
Day 11 -- 10 September
Copy of Agreement reached between Eamon Walsh, Courthill, Dunboyne and Meath
County Council for Withdrawal of his Objections to Plot 475
Brief of Evidence given by Micheael Kieran, Knockmark, Drumree in support of his
Objection to Plot 172
Map of R125Link Road with Plots adjoining Micheal Kieran marked handed in by susan
Joyce followinhg Mr. Kieran's evidence
Brief of Evidence with Photographs and maps given by Tom Byrne, Roestown,
Dunshaughlin in support of his Objections to Plot 121
Maps showing locations of Noise Barriers and Footpaths handed in by Susan Joyce of
MCO'S arising from her cross-examination by Liam Scott, Piercetown House
Written Submission to Hearing from David & Olive Carty, Berrillstown, Tara -- Plot
1059
Written submission to Hearing from Terry Foley & Karen Carty, Collierstown, Tara
Written submission to Hearing from Anthony J. McDonnell of his objections to Plots 352
& 353 handed in by Sudway & Co on his behalf.
Photographs referred to by Evan Newall during his cross-examination of Harold O'
Sullivan on Architectural Heritage issues -- Plots 139 & 144
Council's Response to issues raised by Duchas in their Submission to An Bord Pleanala
on the Architectural Heritage sections in the EIS Vols. 3A to 6A, handed in by Meath
County Council as part of Harold O' Sullivan's evidence for Dunshaughlin to Navan
Section.
Harold O' Sullivan's Response to Submission by Duchas to An Bord Pleanala on Vols 3,
4 & 5
1041
Margaret Gowan's Response to Submission by Duchas to An Bord Pleanala on
Archaeology and architectural Heritage sections of EIS
Day 12 -- 11 September
Copy of note from Roads Design Office, Navan, to Liam Scott on the cost estimate for a
Pedestrian Overbridge arising from his cross-examination of Susan Joyce on 10 Sept.
Briefs of Evidence (2) of Michael Osborne on Equine matters for the Council for the
Clonee to Dunshaughlin and the Dunshaughlin to Navan & Navan By-pass sections
Copy of Advert used for "1st Public Consultation" exhibitions on 15 December 1999 as
requested by Inspector arising from cross-examination of Alan Guthrie, Project Engineer
by Brendan Magee of MRAG
Copy of "Letter of Approval" from NRA to M3 Scheme requested by Inspector arising
from Alan Guthries cross-examination by Brendan Magee
Day 13 -- 12 September
Verbal submission to Hearing by Julitta Clancy for Meath Archaeological and Historical
Society
Verbal Submission to Hearing by Seamus Farrelly, Hill of Skryne
"Archaeological Assessment, Preliminary Corridor" -- Report of June 1999 by Valerie J.
Keeley Ltd marked "Navan 1A 1999" handed in by Meath County Council during
Brendan Magees (MRAG) cross-examination of Thaddeus Breen, Archaeologist for the
Council, on this 1999 Report
Details of Costing for Underpass for Ryans, Lismullin -- Plot 1083, handed in by Alan
Guthrie as requested by Inspector
Five Files of Responses by Halcrow Barry Consultants for Meath County Council -- 2
copies of Vol. 1 of 1 for "General Objections", Vol. 1 of 2 & Vol. 2 of 2 for "Specific
Objections" and combined Vol.1 & 2 of "Specific Objections"
Day 14 -- 8 October
Written Submission from Patrick & Susan Meehan, Lismullen, Garlow Cross, Navan, -
Plot 1087 -- handed in on their behalf by Tom Corr of Gaynor Corr
Written Submission by Billie & Valerie Sunner, Knockmark, Drumree -- Plot 155 --
handed in on their behalf by Tom Corr
List of Additional Withdrawals of Objections handed in to Hearing by Tom Corr
Day 15 -- 9 October
Details of well water depths in Seamus Farrellys well handed in by Alan Guthrie arising
from Seamus Farrellys original submission.
Details of Accident Data on N3 handed in by Alan Guthrie, as requested by Inspector
1042
Day 16 -- 10 October
Photographs / Photomontages of View A and View B handed in by Thomas Burns,
Landscape Consultant for Council during his cross-examination by Ml. O' Donnell BL
and Peter Sweetman
Side-road Details for Dunshaughlin/Navan requested by Inspector during Alan Guthrie's
cross-examination on Farm Machinery difficulties for Dalgan Park using Dowdstown
Overbridge.
Brief of Evidence of Jack O'Sullivan, Environmental Consultant on behalf of the
Missionary Society of St Columban, Dalgan Park
Submission to Hearing by Fr. Pat Raleigh with Objections on behalf of Dalgan Park and
Dowdstown House.
Petitions objecting to building of Motorway through Dalgan Park submitted to Hearing
by Fr. Pat Raleigh, with covering letter and bundle of petitions
Submission to Hearing on Dalgan, its History, Archaeology and Natural Resources by
Ger Clarke, Development Officer, Mission Awareness Centre.
Route Selection Report for Dunshaughlin to Navan,Vols. 1 & 2 of Sept. 2001, handed in
by Alan Guthrie as requested by Inspector arising from cross-examination issues.
Two Files of Responses to Supplementary Objections for (1)Clonee to Dunshaughlin
Section and (2) Navan By-pass Section handed in by Susan Joyce, Project Engineer.
Day 17 -- 15 October
Copy of A4 page showing "Core area" of Tara as in Conor Newmans study of 1999,
handed in by Margaret Gowan, Archaeologist for the Council during her crossexamination
by Brendan Magee of MRAG
Two "Maps" of Tara area displayed by Margaret Gowan during her cross-examination
Copies of letter of 5 Sept. 2001 from Ombudsman to Bellinter Residents Association
handed in by Alan Park arising from his cross-examination of Margaret Gowan
Submission to Hearing with their Objections by Bellinter Residents Association (BRA)
Minutes of Meetings between Iarnrod Eireann and County Council/ Consultants on Rail
line issues, handed in to Hearing by Susan Joyce during BRA cross-examination.
Submission to Hearing with their Objections by Meath Roads Action Group (MRAG)
Supporting Documents handed in by MRAG -- (1) Agenda & Minutes of N3 Coordination
Meeting in St. Martins House (NRA HQ) on 5 April 2000; (2) No Dual
Carriageway through Tara & Dalgan areas compileid by BRA; (3) Alternative to N2 &
N3 Dual carriageways by MRAG & Constraints Study for Dunshaughlin to Navan, Final
issue of Jan. 2000
Assessment Matrix - Scheme Ranking handed in by Brendan Magee during his crossexamination
of Alan Guthrie
Verbal Submissions to Hearing from :-
Christopher & Claire Oakes, Belinter
Aidan Barber, Bellinter
Brendan Magee, Bellinter
1043
Written Submissions to Hearing from :-
Alan Park, Bellinter Cross -- Plot 1101
John & Patricia McCormack, Bellinter
Raymond & Elizabeth Martin, Bellinter
Day 18 -- 16 October
Verbal submission with File of supporting Documentation and Maps by Thomas &
Margaret Hamill, Bellinter
Brochure of "N3 Dunshaughlin to Kells Emerging Prefered Route" handed in by Susan
Joyce, Project Engineer
Three Files of Responses to Objections/Submissions for Navan to Kells and Kells to
North of Kells Sections handed to Inspector by Mike Evans Project Engineer of Arups
Briefs of Evidence for (1) Navan to Kells section and (2) Kells to North of Kells section
for Council from :- ( Separate Brief for each section from each Consultant )
Mike Evans of Arup -- Engineering; Thomas Burns -- Landscape & Visual
Philip Farrelly -- Agricultural; Air Quality -- Edward Porter
Siobhan Deery -- Archaeology; Chris Dilworth -- Noise & Vibration
Bill O'Kelly-Lynch -- Socio economic: Kevin Cleary -- Lighting
Richard Nairn -- Terrestrial Environment.
Jackie Jordan -- Architecture & Cultural Heritage
Day 19 -- 17 October
A3 copies of Margaret Gowans Graphics displayed by her during cross-exanination by
BRA/MRAG on 15 Oct. handed in to Inspector by Alan Guthrie
Brief of Evidence given by Paul Morrin on behalf of the Morrin Family-- Plots 149 &160
Brief of Evidence given by Robert Byrne, Agricultural Consultant for the Morrin Family
Submission to the Hearing by the Cannistown Residents Association
Submission to the Hearing by Evan Newall outlining basis for Agreement reached with
Meath County Council on the Newall objections to Plots 139 & 144
Day 20 -- 18 October
Documents handed in to Hearing by Susan Joyce, Project Engineer :-
Drawings showing areas where "redundant" road surfaces would be ripped up
arising from cross-examination issues, for Clonee to Dunshaughlin and
Navan Bypass sections
Drawings showing Cross-sections for houses at Overbridge realignments as
requested by Inspector, for Clonee to Dunshaughlin and Navan Bypass sections
Clonee to Dunshaughlin Route Selection Report, August 2000;
Navan Bypass Route Selection Report, 2001 and Navan Bypass Interface Route
Options Report -- arising from cross-examination issues.
Book of Additional Drawings showing (1) Locations of Footpaths proposed at
Roundabouts on Navan Bypass (2) Locations of Noise Barriers on Navan Bypass
(3) Details of Alternative Routes suggested from Public Consultations.
1044
Proposed Noise Criterion (Amended from that in EIS) for M3 scheme handed in to
Hearing by Council
Additional Information on Noise Impacts at Ardsallagh Road arising from BRA crossexamination
, handed in to Hearing by Council
Day 21 -- 22 October
Briefs of Evidence by Joe Higgins; Michael Kauntze; Robert Bryan; DBFL Consulting
Engineers; CRDS Ltd. and supporting documentation on behalf of Gerrardstown House
Stud -- Plot 1056
Extract from GSB Prospection Maps showing Geophysical results of Area 26 handed in
by Meath County Council during Lisa Courtney's cross-examination by Declan McGrath
BL for Gerrardstown.
Third Schedule to Housing Act 1966 handed in by Mr. Declan McGrath BL during his
Closing Submission on behalf of Gerrardstown Stud.
Copies of Undertakings given by Meath County Council to residents of the Dunsany
Road to undertake surveys and, if required from road construction impacts, rectification
works on individual wells and including Zone of Influence Map. Handed in to Hearing
by Meath County Council -- See Verbal Submission made by Joe McKillen on Day 6
N3 Navan to Dunshauughlin Road Improvement -- Summary of Environmental Impacts -
Extract from Route Selection Report of July 2001. Handed in by Alan Guthrie as a copy
of document referred to by MRAG during their submission to Hearing on Day 17.
Day 22 -- 23 October
Details of Wind Speed as recorded at Dublin Airport and Clones Met. Stations for 8
November 2000. Handed in by Alan Guthrie for the Council arising from the Inspector's
query following BRA cross-examination of Mr. Summers about noise measurements in
Dalgan Park.
Beaufort Scale of Wind Speeds, handed in by Meath County Council and refers to BRA
cross-examination of Mr. Summers, Noise Consultant for the Council
Report on Effects of Transposition of Data in Assessment Matrix at Table 4.2 in EIS
Vol.2, handed in by Alan Guthrie following request by Inspector and arising from crossexamination
of Thomas Burns, Landscape Consultant for the Council by BRA
Copy of Letter from European Commission, DG Environment to Ian Lumley, An Taisce
dated 10/10/2002 regarding An Taisce complaint to the EC ref. P2002/4957 about the
Carrickmines Castle issue, handed in by Ian Lumley, Heritage Officer of An Taisce
during his Verbal Submission to the Hearing
Verbal Submission by the Nicholas Keoghs, Senior and Junior, Dunshaughlin regarding
their land at Cannistown -- Plot 2114 -- to the Hearing, with Supporting Documents they
handed in of (1) Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Advice for
Herd Owners on Keeping Herds Free from TB; (2) Photo Map showing M3 crossing
their lands at Cannistown & (3) Catalogue for John Deere 9000 WTS Combines.
Brochure of Thatched Cottage for Sale at Castlekeeran, Carnaross, handed in by Betty
Newman-Maguire during her Evidence to Hearing -- Plot 4062 refers.
1045
Copy of letter from Casey & Co. Solicitors, Bandon advising that they now represent
Sarah Maher/Lawson, Ardbraccan House in place of Arthur P. McClean & Co.
Briefs of Evidence ( 7 no. in all ) and Photographs handed in by Karl Searson, Consulting
Engineer on Noise impacts for Objectors
Points of agreement reached between Meath County Council and Sherlock Furniture,
Swan Lane, Navan regarding alternative access and withdrawal of objection, handed in
by Frank Burke on his behalf.
List of Additional Withdrawals of Objections handed in to Hearing by Tom Corr of
Gaynor Corr
Day 23 -- 24 October
Closing Submission made to Hearing by Leshamstown Lane group
Verbal Submission made to Hearing by Conor Newman, NUI Galway re Archeaeology
of Tara and M3
Details handed in by Susan Joyce of :-
(1) Ballybatter Road Traffic Diversion Management Proposals -- arising from
Cannistown Residents Association Submission on Day 20
(2) "Advanced Planting" Proposals as requested by Inspector for
Clonee/Dunshaughlin & Navan By-pass Sections
(3) Costings of "Separation" for Shared Overbridge for Morrins & Delaney
arising from Evidence given on Day 19 and the Inspector's suggestion
(4) Woodpark Road to Piercetown Footpath proposals arising from L.Scotts
cross-examination.
Day 24 -- 30 October
Box with Set of Documents from Arups handed in by Mike Evans, Project Engineer for
Navan to Kells to North of Kells Sections :-
(1) Constraints Report and Route Selection Reports of 1999, 2000 & 2001 for
Navan/Kells and Kells/North of Kells Corridors
(2) Cross Sections showing Houses in relation to Overbridge realignments
(3) Woodpole O/B showing possibilities of retaining "Old School Building"
(4) Traffic figures for M50 Toll plaza and M3 Toll Plaza projections
Written submission from Kieran & Martina Meegan, Drumbarragh -- Plot 4063
Letter of Agreement with Meath County Council from Keaveny Walsh & Co. Solicitors
on behalf of Thomas & Veronica Flanagan and Withdrawal of Objections to Plots 3101
& 3111
Written and Verbal Submission from R. Pagan on behalf of Boyerstown/Ardbraccan N3
Navan By-pass Group to Hearing
Documents used by Peter Sweetman during his cross-examination of Richard Nairn,
Ecological Consultant for the Council :-
(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC, ( Habitats directive) downloaded from EU
Website
(2) Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting NATURA 2000
sites -- Env. DG -- November 2001
1046
(3) Managing NATURA 2000 Sites -- The Provisions of Article 6 of the
"Habitats" Directive 92/43/EEC
Briefs of Evidence given to Hearing by Ronald J. Bergin, Consulting Engineer for several
Objectors -- Mr. & Mrs. Henry Newman, Plot 3047; Reps of Patrick Peters, Plot 294;
Limestone Land Co. Ltd. ( Tara Stud), Plot 1064; Reps of P.J. Roche, Plot 470;
Mr. Anthony J. McDonnell, Plots 352 & 353 and Columban Fathers, Dalgan Park.
Brief of Evidence given to Hearing by David Healy, Environmental Consultant, on behalf
of Dalgan Park and other Objectors
Analysis of Responses to Questionaires issued at Public Consultation on Dunshaughlin to
Navan Section, handed in by Thomas Hamill, Bellinter when querying Alan Guthrie.
Comments by Thomas Hamill on Wind Speed data from Met. Office as given to Hearing
on Day 21
Day 25 -- 31 October
Written Submissions handed in to Hearing by Tom Corr of Gaynor Corr on behalf of :-
Billie & Valerie Sunner, Knockmark, Drumree -- Plot 155 (See also sub. Day 14)
Sylvester Mcauley, Rathbeggan, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 257
Laurence Ward, Normans Grove, Clonee -- Plot 320 ( withdrawing objection
but making "observation")
James & Thomas Dowdall, Knockumber, Navan --Plots 2183 & 2185
Mark Corley, Grange, Bective, Navan --Plot 2103
Eamon Corley, Grange, Bective, Navn -- Plot 2324
John Newman, Curragh Farm, Kells -- Plot 3038
Thomas & Eamon Duffy, Boolies, Balrath, Kells -- Plots 3071 & 4009 and 4000
& 4002 respectively.
Copies of Letters from Roads Design Office, Navan to Frank Burke & Associates
detailing points agreed as the basis for a Withdrawal of Objections by Charles Reilly,
Bective St. Kells for Plot 3052 and by Cathal & Vivienne Usher, Cookstown for Plot
3033, both handed in to Hearing by Frank Burke.
Copy of Directive 97/62 EC -- Amending 92/43/EC -- Handed in by Peter Sweetman in
Evidence referring to issues he raised when cross-examining Richard Nairn on Day 24.
Submission to Hearing by Paddy Dowling of Killiney Design Associates on behalf of
Peter & Edward Henshaw -- Plot 326 at Bennetstown, Dunboyne with his supporting
Maps and the Council's Drawings of Underpasses
Book of Photographs handed in by Michael O'Donnell BL during his submission on
behalf of the Lismullin Educational Foundation Ltd. -- Plot 1081
Closing Submission by Bellinter Residents Association
Closing Submission by Meath Roads Action Group
Copy of Power Point presentation and CD of MRAG's previous submission on Day 17
File of Responses to Requests by Inspector handed in by Esmond Keane BL for Meath
County Council :-
(1) Details of Meetings with Council Members regarding M3 Scheme and
Minutes of approvals to proposal
(2) Details of Shared Farm Over/Underpasses currently in operation with report
on conditions experienced in use
1047
(3) Details of Users of Shared under/overpasses on Clonee/Dunshaughlin &
Navan Bypass Sections
(4) Copy of NRA Report, RS 46, on High Accident Locations 1996 to 2000
(5) Review of Noise Data in Vol 7A for R14;
(6) Proposals for Long Term Noise Monitors during Construction;
(7) Amended Limits for Construction Noise
(8) House Profiles at O/B crossings for Dunshaughlin to Navan Section
(9) Response by Margaret Gowan to Conor Newman's Submission on
Archaeology impacts of M3 on Tara /Skryne area.
(10) Proposed Measures to deal with the " Carrickmines " factor for
pre- construction archaeological investigation
(11) Fingal Co. Co. response to possible study of additional Interchange on
M50 between N2 & N3 junctions.
(12) Predicted traffic flow data at M3 Toll Plaza and existing traffic between
M50 Toll Plaza and M50/N3 Interchange
(13) Details of interface between M3 and Disused Railway line with provisions
being made for Future Railway alignment and Set of Maps showing same
Separate Roll of Maps showing these interfaces also handed in.
Day 26 -- 19 November
Page from Bruel & Kjaer Booklet on Road Traffic Noise levels from Mr. Searson
Letter from Tom Corr of Gaynor Corr with further withdrawals of objections.
Copy of NRA letter of 28/02/01 to O. Perkins re PPP & Toll scheme for N3 handed in by
Mr. Casey, Solicitor for Ms Maher during his submission to Hearing. Note -- Copy of
this letter previously handed in by Council on Day 5.
Two "sample" letters from Meath C.C. re Variations to CDP 2001 and Navan Envs. Dev.
Plan 1997 as sent to prescribed bodies under Section13 (8) of the P&D Act 2000 handed
in by Mr. P. Sweetman during his cross-examination by Mr. Keane about Mr.
Sweetman's visit to Council offices on 18/11/02.
Letter from Meath Co. Dev. Board dated 22/05/02 referring to the above sample letter
handed in by Mr. Casey solicitor following Mr. keane's cross-examination of Mr
Sweetman.
Two documents handed in by Mr. Keane during his cross-examinationof Mr. Sweetman
(1) copy of address labels of letters sent to prescribed & other bodies and (2) list of
bodies letters were sent to with acceptance references.
Briefs of Evidence of witnesses for Ms Maher handed in by Mr. Casey Solicitor from :-
Terence Reeves Smyth; Fiona Rooney; Shaffrey Associates; Sean Finlay and
Dr. Tina Aughney.
Day 27 -- 20 November
Thomas Hamill's further and additional submission on Route Selection Report Vol. 1
handed in by Mr. Hamill.
Location of Proposed Ventshafts for Tara Mines handed in by Mr. PM Pagan.
1048
Brief of Evidence and 8 photograph/photomontages of Gaffney & Cullivan handed in by
Mr, Casey, Solicitor
Brief of Evidence given for Ms Maher by Mr. Frank Burke.
Copy of Standard & Poor's Credit "Analysis of traffic Risk in Start up Toll Facilities"
handed in by Mr. F. Burke.
SiAS Presentation to Meath C.C. on 22/10/02 about Navan Integrated Strategy handed in
by Mr. Casey Solicitor.
Letter from Duchas to Ms Maher re their consideration of a recommendation on potential
Architectural Conservation areas handed in by Mr. Casey Solicotor.
Copy of planning refusal for a single house in the context of Ardbraccan "Setting"
handed in by Mr. Casey, Solicitor. Ref 98/1609.
Copy of Tara Mines "Confidential" preliminary review of Proposed Navan By-pass
routes and copy of Tara Mines "internal report" handed in by Council following direction
by Inspector.
Minutes of meetings between MC O'Sullivan and Tara Mines handed in by Ms Joyce
Minutes of meetings with Ardbraccan and MC O'Sullivan handed in by Ms Joyce.
Copy of note of Ms Maher's visit to Road Design Office on 12/10/00 handed in by Ms
Joyce.
Mr. Cullivan's "Addendum" to his Brief of Evidence giving details of the location of the
Jeep as the light source in Photo 8.
Ardbraccan M3 Motorway Video shown by Ms Maher to Hearing on Day 27
Two maps and long sections showing "traffic light spillage/impacts from M3"
southwards towards Ardbraccan House requested by Inspector and handed in by Mr.
Evans of Arup.
Day 28 -- 21 November
Bellinter Residents Association further submission on their "disputed values" in Table
4.2 arising in their cross-examination of Alan Guthrie, handed in by Alan Park
Bore hole details at Ardbraccan/Durhamstown area handed in by Mr P.Sweetman as
being "Relevant" to submissions on day 27
Map of Durhamstown Bridge "alternatives" handed in by Ms Maher during her evidence
on possible future interchange location there
Copy of Arts Council letter of 03/05/02 to an Bord re M3 handed in by Mr. Casey for Ms
Maher.
Letter of 03/11/00 from Michael Osbourne to Ms Maher with Equine Health issues and
road schemes data handed in by Mr. Casey, Solicitor
File of references used by Mr. Casey in his Closing Submission
FAX of further submission to Hearing by Conor Newman in response to Margaret
Gowan's response to his submission made on Day 23.
Composite Map of Landscaping proposals from Boyerstown O/B to Northern Toll Plaza.
Council's responses to Inspector's requests :-
From Road Design Office :-
Details of Landtakes
1049
Side road construction tolerances
From Halcrow Barry :-
Typical bridge construction periods
List of wells in Skryne area
Noise Study at Grace Martin's house
Baronstown Road Realignment
Map and calculcations for Skane catchment
Map of Dalgan Park with details of Footpaths and Farm roads
Project Team's analysis of Consultation questionaire returns
Report on flooding on River Skane
Noise Contour Maps for Dalgan Park area
Cross-section of Dowdstown Road
Location of Water Treatment Plant at Dalgan Park
Location of Dunshaughlin Sewage Treartment Works
Alternative alignment for Ardsallagh Overbridge
Locations for Dust Control Stations --Berjhofer jars
Noise levels and distances Dalgan Park
New Noise level criteria applied to noise sensitive areas
Plans showing redundant areas to be removed
Advance Planting Schedule for landscaping
Mitigation proposals for discharge during construction of bridge crossing River
Boyne
Review of vertical alignment in vicinity of Trevet road
Feasibility of providing noise bund for Tara Stud
Route alternative and structural impact on the Boyne crossing
Review of mainline vertical alignment through Dalgan Park
Provision of Temporary Link at Roestown to existing N3.
Noise reducing surfacing in Ardsallagh
Houses within 50 metres of new and existing roads.
Reworked Table 4.8 from Volume 4A on noise data
From MC O'Sullivans :-
Review of landtake requirements for Johnstown overbridge
Recalibration of Noise model at location No. 5 Vol. 3C (L. Scott query)
Review of design for Kilcarn Link road
Dust monitoring locations for Clonee / Dunshaughlin and Navan By-pass
Boundary treatment details
Review of Keogh's underpass proposals
Review of Cannistown Railway options
Clarification of underpass proposals for Henshaws
Navan By-pass noise eratta sheet
Houses within 50 metres on Clonee / Dunshaughlin and Navan By-pass
Navan Area Infrastructural Map from the CDP as referred to by Mr. Casey
Status of the proposed candidate SAC in the Rivers Boyne and Blackwater
Folder of Additional Supplementary Responses -- plot 294 & EIS 5045
From Arup :-
Shared access details on Navan to Kells to North of Kells
1050
Constraints and vertical alignment passing Coolfore Road with revised alignment
lowering the mainline at that location
Houses within 50 metres on Navan to Kells to North of Kells
Drawing showing existing pavement to be removed on Navan to Kells to North of Kells
Possible areas of advanced planting at house with severe visual impact on Navan to
Kells to North of Kells
Response to additional submission by John Newman, plot 3038
Additional Noise information from Navan to Kells to North of Kells
Dust Monitoring Locations from Navan to Kells to North of Kells
Documents received by Inspector from Council after Hearing had concluded,
See reference at page 771 in Section 116 of this Report :-
Official Version of the Habitats Directive 97/62/EC
Noise Directive 2002/49/EC with Annex 2
Control of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) issued by theWelsh Office
Documents received through An Bord Pleanala after Hearing had concluded :-
From Greg Casey, Solicitor for Ms Maher, Ardbraccan House on 16 January 2003
--- E-mail explaining delay in forwarding hard copy of Power Point presentation
and other documents. ( No copy of Power Point or other documents subsequently
received from Mr. Casey, see page 818 of this Report)
From Simon Hilliard, Ardbraccan, Boyerstown, Navan on 24 February 2003 :-
Further submission dated 8 February 2003 outlining his concerns, with letter from
An Bord Pleanala of 20 February with details of attempts to contact him during
Hearing.
From Coras Iompair Eireann dated 28 February 2003enclosing a copy of their
Letter of 20 August 2002 to the Council ( already handed in on Day 1 as above)
with letter of 12 March 2003 from An Bord Pleanala to CIE attached.
----------------------------------------------
1051
Appendix 5. List of Wayleaves to be Acquired in Second Schedule
------------------------------
Wayleave Wayleave Wayleave Drawing Number
Number Width Location
1. 15 to 30 metres Nugentstown WA1 to WA2 on Map M3-035
2. 20metres Nugentstown and WB1 to WB2 on Map M3-035
Cookstown Great
3. 15 metres Kilmainham WC1 to WC2 on Map M3-037
4. 10 metres Rockfield WD1 to WD2 on Map M3-039
5. 15 metres Townparks & WE1 to WE2 on Map M3- 041
Commons of Lloyd
6. 15 metres Townparks & WF1 to WF2 on Map M3- 041
Commons of Lloyd
7. 15 metres Commons of Lloyd WG1 to WG2 on Map M3-041
8. 15 metres Commons of Lloyd WH1 to WH2 on Map M3-041
9. 15 metres Townparks WI1 to WI2 on Map M3-041
10. 15 metres Townparks WJ1 to WJ2 on Map M3-041
11. 15 metres Townparks WK1 to WK2 on Map M3-041
12. 15 metres Townparks WL1 to WL2 on Map M3-041
13. 15 metres Castlekeeran WM1 to WM2 on Map M3-045
14. 20 metres Castlekeeran WN1 to WN2 on Map M3-045
15. 20 metres Woodpole WO1 to WO2 on Map M3-045
16. 15 metres Derver WP1 to WP 2 on Map M3-047
--------------------------------
1052
Appendix 6. List of Public Rights of Way to be Extinguished in Third Schedule,
Part 1
------------------------------
R. o W. Road Location Drawing Number
Number Number
1. N3 Bracetown AA1 to AA2 on Maps M3-001/002
2. N3 Piercetown, Pace, AA3 to AA4 on Maps M3-004/005
Woodpark & Dunboyne
3. N3 Cookstown AA5 to AA6 on Map M3- 013
4. R125 Readsland AB1 to AB2 on Map M3-013
5. R125 Leshamstown & AB3 to AB4 on Map M3-012
Readsland
6. R125 Merrywell & AB5 to AB6 on Map M3-010
Bedfantstown
7. R154 Piercetown AC1 to AC2 on Map M3-005
8. R154 Merrywell AC3 to AC4 on Map M3-010
9. R154 Merrywell AC5 to AC6 on Map M3-010
10. R155 Piercetown AD1 to AD2 on Map M3-005
11. R155 Piercetown AD3 to Ad4 on map M3-005
12. R156 Clonee & AE1 to AE2 on Map M3-001
Loughsallagh
13. R156 Loughsallagh AE3 to AE4 on Map M3-001
14. R156 Dunboyne AE5 to AE6 on Map M3-003
15. R157 Bennettstown, AF1 to AF2 on Map M3-004
Dunboyne &Pace
16. R157 Dunboyne & Pace AF3 to AF4 on Map M3-004
17. R157 Castlefarm AF5 to AF6 on Map M3-002
R. o W. Road Location Drawing Number
1053
Number Number
18. L-2208 Readsland & AH1 to AH2 on Map M3-013
Roestown
19. L-2208 Roestown & AH3 to AH4 on Map M3-012
Readsland
20. L-2209 Derrockstown AI1 to AI2 on Map M3-008
21. L-2209 Derrockstown AI3 to AI4 on Map M3-008
22. L-22091 Raynestown AJ1to AJ2 on Map M3-007
23. L-22091 Raynestown AJ3 to AJ4 on Map M3-007
24. L-22091 Raynestown AJ5 to AJ6 on Map M3-007
25. L-22092 Rathbeggan AK1 to AK2 on Map M3-007
26. L-22161 Piercetown AM1 to AM2 on Map M3-005
27. L-5026 Piercetown AN1 to AN2 on map M3-005
28. L-2225 Pace AP1 to AP2 on map M3-004
29. L-2225 Piercetown AP3 to AP4 on Map M3-005
30. un-numbered Piercetown AQ1 to AQ2 on Map M3-005
31. un-numbered Bennetstown AS1 to AS2 on Map M3-004
32. un-numbered Johnstown AT1 to AT2 on Map M3-009
33. L-5012 Trevet, DA1 to DA2 on Map M3-015
Berrillstown & Clowanstown
34. L-1005 Collierstown DB1 to DB2 on Map M3-016
35. L-1005 Ross DC1 to DC2 on Map M3-016
36. L-5000 Skreen & DD1 To DD2 on Map M3-016
Baronstown
37. L-50021 Lismullin DE1 to DE2 on map M3-018
R. o W. Road Location Drawing Number
1054
Number Number
38. N3 Blundelstown, DF1 to DF2 on Map M3-019
Castletown Tara & Philpotstown
39. L-2201 Dowdstown DG1 to DG2 on Map M3-019/020
40. L-2200 Ballinter & DH1 to DH2 on Map M3-020
Ballinter & Dowdstown
41. L-2201 Ballinter DJ1 to DJ2 on Map M3-020
42. L-2201 Dowdstown DK1 to DK2 on MapM3-019
43. L-4009 Ardsallagh DL1 to DL2 on Map M3-021
44. L-8034 Ardsallagh & DM1 to DM2 on Map M3-021
Kennastown
45. L-8034 Ardsallagh & DN1 to DN2 on Map M3-021
Kennastown
46. R161 Williamstown or Bawn GA1 to GA2 on Map M3-022
47. R161 Williamstown or Bawn GB1 to GB2 on Map M3-022
48. R161 Philpotstown GC1 to GC2 on Map M3-023
49. N3 Balreask Old GD1 to GD2 on Map M3-024
50. L-34141 Balreask Old GE1 to GE2 on Map M3-024
51. N3 Balreask Old GF1 to GF2 on Map M3-024
52. L-4007 Macetown GG1 to GG2 on Map M3-025
53. L-4007 Macetown GH1 to GH2 on Map M3-025
54. L-4007 Gainstown GI 1 to GI2 on Map M3-025
55. L-8010 Gainstown GJ1 to GJ2 on Map M3-025
56. N51 Mullaghmore or GK1 to GK2 on Map M3-026
Allerstown
R. o W. Road Location Drawing Number
1055
Number Number
57. N51 Boyerstown GL1 to GL2 on Map M3-027
58. N51 Boyerstown GM1 to GM2 on Map M3-027
59. N51 Boyerstown GN1 to GN2 on Map M3-027
60. "Brady road" Boyerstown GO1 to GO2 on Map M3-027
61 "Brady road" Boyerstown GP1 to GP2 on Map M3-027
62. N51 Townpark GR1 to GR2 on Map M3-029
63. L-7418 Townpark & GQ1 to GQ2 on Map M3-029
Moathill
64. "Clogherboy Estate Townpark GS1 to Gs2 on Map M3-029
Road"
65. "Moatville Estate Townpark GT1 to GT2 on Map M3-029
Road"
66. L-8008 Ardbraccan GU1 to GU2 on Map M3-030
67. L-8008 Ardbraccan GV1 to GV2 on Map M3-030
68. L-8008 Ardbraccan GW1 to GW2 on Map M3-030
69. L-80091 Ardbraccan GX1 to GX2 on Map M3-030
70. L-8009 Ardbraccan GY1 to GY2 on Map M3-030
71. L-4005 Durhamstown, GZ1 to GZ2 on Map M3-032
Grange & Ardbraccan
72. L-4005 Ardbraccan HA1 to HA2 on Map M3-032
73. L-4005 Ardbraccan HB1 to HB2 on Map M3-032
74. L-8001 Pheonixtown KA1 to KA2 on Map M3-033
75. L-6833 Ballybeg KB1 to KB2 on Map M3-034
R. o W. Road Location Drawing Number
1056
Number Number
76. N3 Kilmainham & KC1 to KC2 on Map M3-037
Kilmainham (Headfort)
77. L-2813 Gardenrath & KD1 to KD2 on Map M3-036
Townparks
78. R164 Rockfield & KE1 to KE2 on Map M3-039
Townparks
79. N52 Newrath Little KF1 to KF2 on Map M3-039
& Townparks
80. N3 Commons of Lloyd KG1 to KG2 on Map M3-041
& Townparks
81. N52 Cakestown Glebe KH1 to KH2 on Map M3-042
82. N52 Cakestown Glebe KI 1 to KI 2 on Map M3-042
83. L-68353 Calliaghstown KJ1 to KJ2 on Map M3-039
84. L-68292 Castlekeeran KK1 to KK2 on Map M3-045
85. L-68294 Woodpole KL1 to KL2 on Map M3-046
86. N3 Derver KM1 to KM2 on Map M3-047
87. N3 Derver KN1 to KN2 on Map M3-047
88. N3 Derver KO1 to KO2 on Map M3-047
----------------------------------
1057
Appendix 7. List of Private Rights of Way to be Extinguished in Third Schedule,
Part 2
-----------------------------
R. o W. Plot (s) Location Drawing Number
Number Number
1. 361a.202 Loughsallagh NA1 to NA2 on Map M3-001
2. 357b.201 Loughsallagh NB1 to NB2 on Map M3-001
3. 500h.201 Loughsallagh NC1 to NC2 on Map M3-001
4. 352a.201 Bracetown NE1 to NE2 on Map M3-004
5. 200p.201 Piercetown NK1 to NK2 on Map M3-005
6. 200i.101, 200i.202 Piercetown NL1 to NL2 on Map M3-005
& 294a.201
7. 255c.201 & 252d.202 Rathbeggan NS1 to Ns2 on Map M3-007
8. 197a.101 Derrockstown NT1 to NT2 on Map M3-008
9. 152k.201 Knockmark NW1 to NW2 on Map M3-011
10. 197a.202 Derrockstown NY1 to NY2 on Map M3-008
11. 1057d.101, 1056d.101 Garretstown QA1 to QA2 on Map M3-014
& 1056d.202
12. 1083a.101 Lismullin QB1 to QB2 on Map M3-017
13. 1109d.202, 1109d.101 Ardsallagh QC1 to QC2 on Map M3-021
& 1109d.203
14. 2117b.203 Balreask Old TA1 to TA2 on Map M3-024
15. 2158a.201 Gainstown TB1 to TB2 on Map M3-025
16. 2167a.203 Boyerstown TD1 to TD2 on Map M3-027
17. 2222c.201, 2219c.201 Neillstown TE1 to TE2 on Map M3-030
& 2220c.201
1058
R. o W. Plot (s) Location Drawing Number
Number Number
18. 3032a.102, 3033a.101 Cookstown Great XB1 to XB2 on Map M3-035
3032a.209 & 303a.204
19. 3046a.101, 3038e.101 Kilmainham & XC1 to XC2 on Map M3-036
& 3047f.101 Gardenrath
20. 3038a.202 Kilmainham (Headfort) XD1 to XD2 on Map M3-037
21. 4001a.201 Calliaghstown XE1 to XE2 on Map M3-039
22. 4014.201& 4012a.201 Chapelbride XF1 to XF2 on Map M3-044
-----------------------------------
1059
Appendix 8. List of Planning Permissions modified in Seventh Schedule
-----------------------
Part 1 -- Permissions to be suspended
-----------------------
Planning Date Plot Details
Reference Granted Number
98/1404 11/11/1998 3018 Renovate Residence & provide septic tank.
98/1932 07/12/1998 3025 Extension &alterations to existing house,
provide septic tank and erect shed.
97/1337 14/11/1997 4003 New bungalow, septic tank & entrance.
------------------------------
Part 2 -- Permissions to be modified
------------------
98/1340 20/10/1999 1063 Erect fenceline as shown on M3-015
00/5120 31/01/2002 1121 Erect fenceline as shown on M3-021
00/1816 07/12/2000 3038 Erect fenceline as shown on M3-036
98/1362 25/09/1998 3065 Erect fenceline as shown on M3-039
01/33 07/03/2001 3076 Erect fenceline as shown on M3-040
97/768 30/04/1998 4016 Erect fenceline as shown on M3-044
00/2077 15/01/2001 4063 Erect fenceline as shown on M3-044
------------------------------
Back to INDEX