Back to INDEX of reports
'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Brendan Devlin,
Inspector appointed by An Bord Pleanala . June 2003.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
---------------------
PART 1 -- PRELIMINARIES & GENERAL OVERVIEW
----------------------------
1. Date, Time and Venue of Hearing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 16
2. Purpose of Proposal -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 16
3. Total Area of Land to be acquired -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17
4. Site Inspection -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17
5. Statutory Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 17
6. Written Objections and Submissions made to An Bord Pleanala -- 17
7. Appearances for Meath County Council -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 18
8. Appearances for Objectors -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 18
9. Objections Withdrawn -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24
10. Order in Appearance of Witnesses -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29
11. Format of Report -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 29
12. General Description of Proposed Road - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 30
13. Details of Objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order and
Submissions on the Effects of the Road Development -- -- -- -- 37
14. Request for Adjournment of Hearing by Mr. Galligan SC -- -- -- 62
14.1. Submission by Mr. Galligan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 63
14.2 Submission by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 63
14.3. Other submissions in support -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 63
14.4. Response by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 63
14.5. Further submission by Mr. Galligan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 64
14.6. Further submission by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 65
14.7. Mr. Galligan questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 66
14.8. Further response by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 66
14.9. Ruling by Inspector - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -66
15. Submission by Mr. Anderson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 67
16. Opening Statement by Mr. Butler SC -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 68
17. Evidence of Alan Guthrie -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 70
17.1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 70
17.2. Cross-examined by Mr. F.Burke -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 79
17.3. Questioned by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 81
17.4 Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 82
17.5. Questioned by M/s D. Robinson, B.Walsh & Ms S. Ryan -- -- 86
17.6. Cross-examined by Seamus Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 87
17.7. Cross-examined by Mr. Galligan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 89
17.8. Cross-examined by Ms B. Murphy -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 91
17.9. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 91
18. Request for Adjournment of Hearing by Peter Sweetman - -- -- 92
18.1. Submission by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 92
18.2. Submissions by Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Galligan -- -- -- 92
18.3. Ruling by Inspector -- -- --- --- -- -- -- -- 93
18.4. Further submission by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- 94
3
18.5. Further submission by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- 95
18.6. Further submission by Mr. Galligan -- -- -- -- -- -- 96
18.7. Submission by Ms B. Murphy -- -- --- -- -- -- 96
18.8. Comments by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 96
18.9. Submission on quarries by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- 97
19. Continued cross-examination of Alan Guthrie -- -- -- -- 97
19.1. Further cross-examination by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- 97
19.2. Exchanges about Availability of Transcripts -- -- -- -- 99
19.3. Cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- -- 100
19.4. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- 101
19.5. Cross-examined by Mary Begley -- -- -- -- -- -- - 101
19.6. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 103
19.7. Re-examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 104
19.8. Questions arising from re-examination -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 105
19.9. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 106
19.10. Exchanges between Counsel and others -- -- -- -- -- -- 107
20. Evidence of Charles Richardson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 108
20.1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 108
20.2. Cross-examined by Frank Burke -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 111
20.3. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 112
20.4. Cross-examined by Seamus Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 113
20.5. Cross-examined by Mr. Galligan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 114
20.6. Cross-examined by Ms. Murphy -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 115
21. Evidence of Michael Killeen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 115
21.1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- 115
21.2. Cross-examined by Frank Burke -- -- -- -- -- 120
21.3. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- 121
21.4. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- 123
21.5. Questioned by David Robinson -- -- -- -- -- 126
21.6. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- 126
21.7. Cross-examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- -- -- 127
21.8. Cross-examined by Mr. Galligan -- -- -- -- -- 128
21.9. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- 130
21.10 Cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- -- 131
21.11. Cross-examined by Mary Begley -- -- -- -- -- 132
21.12. Cross-examined by Sandra Ryan -- -- -- -- -- 133
21.13. Cross-examined by Fr. Pat Raleigh -- -- -- -- -- 133
21.14. Cross-examined by Thomas Hamill -- -- - -- -- 134
21.15. Cross-examined by Claire Oakes -- -- -- -- -- 134
21.16. Re-examined by Mr. Butler -- -- - -- -- -- -- 135
21.17. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 136
22. Bellinter Residents Association Request for Documents -- -- 137
23. Evidence of Suzanne Dempsey -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 141
23.1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- --- -- -- -- -- -- 141
23.2. Cross-examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- 145
23.3. Cross-examined by Mr. Flynn -- -- -- -- -- -- 146
4
23.4. Questioned by Mary Begley -- -- -- -- -- -- 147
23.5. Questioned by Fr. Pat Raleigh -- -- -- -- -- -- 147
23.6. Questioned by Thomas Hamill -- -- -- -- -- -- 148
23.7. Cross-examined by Frank Burke -- -- -- -- -- 148
23.8. Cross-examined by Owen McBreen -- -- -- -- -- 151
23.9. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- 151
23.10. Questioned by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- 152
23.11. Further questioned by Mary Begley -- -- -- -- -- 152
23.12. Further questioned by Fr. Pat Raleigh -- -- -- -- 154
23.13. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- 155
24. Submission by Father Sean McDonagh SSC -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 155
PART 2 -- CLONEE TO DUNSHAUGHLIN SECTION
-----------------------------------
25. Evidence of Susan Joyce -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 164
25.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 164
25.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 179
25.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 181
25.4. Comments by Inspector on " Order of Evidences" -- -- -- -- 182
25.5. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 182
25.6. Questioned by Stephen Gunne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 184
25.7. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 185
25.8. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 186
25.9. Cross-examined by David Robinson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 187
25.10. Cross-examined by Laurence Ward -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --189
25.11. Cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 190
25.12. Cross-examined by Owen McBreen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 194
25.13. Further cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- 195
25.14. Further cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- 197
25.15. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- - 199
25.16. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- - 201
26. Evidence of Philip Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 202
26.1. Examined by Mr. Keane - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 202
26.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 203
26.3.Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 203
27. Evidence of Professor Kevin Dodd -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --204
27.1. Examined by Mr. Keane - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 204
27.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
27.3. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- 207
27.4. Cross-examined by Stephen Gunne -- -- -- -- -- -- 208
27.5. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- 209
27.6. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 209
28. Evidence of Michael Osbourne -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 210
28.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 210
28.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- 211
28.3. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- - -- -- 212
28.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 212
5
29. Evidence of Chris Dilworth -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 213
29.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 213
29.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 214
29.3. Cross-examined by Owen McBreen -- -- -- -- -- -- 216
29.4. Cross-examined by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- 217
29.5. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- 218
29.6. Cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- -- 219
29.7. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 223
30. Evidence of Bill O'Kelly Lynch -- -- -- -- -- -- 226
30.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 226
30.2. Questioned by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 228
30.3. Questioned by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 228
30.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 228
31. Evidence of Roger Goodwillie -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 229
31.1. Examined by Mr.Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 229
31.2. Questioned by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 231
31.3. Questioned by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- - -- 231
31.4. Questioned by Evan Newall -- -- - -- -- -- -- 231
31.5. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 231
32. Evidence of Ray Hanley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 232
32.1 Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 232
32.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 232
32.3. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- - 232
33. Evidence of Edward Porter -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 233
33.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 233
33.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 234
33.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- 235
33.4. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- 235
33.5. Cross-examined by Liam Scott -- -- -- -- -- -- 237
33.6. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 239
34. Evidence of Bill Quirke -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- 240
34.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 240
34.2. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- - 243
35. Evidence of David Wilson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 243
35.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 243
35.2. Questioned by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 246
35.3. Cross-examined by Evan Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- 247
35.4. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- 247
35.5. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 248
36. Evidence of Alan O'Connell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 248
36.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 248
36.2. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 249
37. Evidence of Harold O'Sullivan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 249
37.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 249
37.2. Questioned by Mr. Newall -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 252
37.3. Comments by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- 252
6
38. Evidence of Thaddeus Breen -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 253
38.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 253
38.2. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 255
38.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 255
39. Evidence of Thomas Burns -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 256
39.1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 256
39.2. Cross-examined by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- 260
39.3. Cross-examined by Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- 261
39.4. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- 262
39.5. Cross-examined by David Robinson -- -- -- - -- -- 263
39.6. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 264
39.7. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 264
40. Submission by Leshamstown Lane Residents -- -- -- - -- 266
40.1. Submission by M/s Finlay & Murphy -- -- -- -- -- 266
40.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 267
41. Evidence of Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 268
41.1. Submission by Tom Byrne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 268
41.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 270
42. Submission on behalf of Eamon Walsh -- -- -- -- -- -- 271
43. Evidence of Michael Kieran -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 273
43.1. Evidence by Mr. Comyn -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 273
43.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 274
43.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 275
44. Evidence of Mr. & Mrs. Morrin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 276
44.1. Evidence of Paul Morrin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 276
44.2. Evidence of Robert Bryan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 278
44.3. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 279
44.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- - -- - 280
44.5. Submission by Mr. Macken -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 280
45. Submission by Evan Newall --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 282
46. Evidence for Peter & Edward Henshaw -- -- -- -- -- 283
46.1. Evidence of KDA for Henshaws -- -- -- -- -- -- 283
46.2. Questioned by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 286
46.3. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 287
47. Evidence for Mr. & Mrs Peters, Anthony J. McDonnell
and P.J Roche -- -- -- -- -- --- - -- -- 288
47.1. Evidence of Karl Searson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 288
47.2. Evidence of Ron Bergin -- -- -- - -- -- -- - 290
48. General Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 291
48. 1. On behalf of Mary Redmond -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 291
48. 2. Verbal Submissions by Residents -- -- -- -- -- -- 291
48. 3. Written Submissions by or on behalf of Residents -- -- -- 298
49. Council's Responses to Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- - 301
7
PART 3 --- DUNSHAUGHLIN TO NAVAN SECTION
-------------------------------------------------------------
PART 3A -- SECTIONS 50 -- 60
------------------------------
50. Evidence of Alan Guthrie -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 308
50. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 308
50. 2. Cross-examined by George Begley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 316
50. 3. Questioned by Mary Begley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 317
50. 4. Cross-examined by David Carty-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 319
50. 5. Cross-examined by Margaret Ryan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 319
50. 6. Cross-examined by Brendan Magee-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 323
50. 7. Cross-examined by Stephen Gunne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 327
50. 8. Cross-examined by Mr. Brady -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 329
50. 9. Cross-examined by Grace Martin-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 331
50. 10. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 332
50. 11. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 339
50. 12. Re-examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - 343
50. 13. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 344
50. 14. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 344
50. 15. Cross-examined by Christopher Oakes -- -- -- -- -- -- 349
50. 16. Further cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- - 349
50. 17. Cross-examined by Claire Oakes -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 352
50. 18. Cross-examined by Sean Carty -- -- -- -- -- -- - 353
50. 19. Cross-examined by Mr. McGrath - -- -- -- -- -- -- 355
50. 20. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- - 359
50. 21. Further cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- 360
50. 22. Further cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- 366
50. 23. Cross-examined by Thomas Hamill -- -- -- -- -- 367
50. 24. Further cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- 369
51. Further cross-examination of Suzanne Dempsey -- -- -- -- 370
51.1. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 370
51. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 373
52. Evidence of Peter Sheehy -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - 375
52. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 375
52. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Brady -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 377
52. 3. Cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 378
52. 4. Cross-examined by Sandra Ryan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 379
52. 5. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 380
52. 6. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 383
52. 7. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 385
52. 8. Cross-examined by Christopher Oakes -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 386
53. Evidence of Philip Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 386
53. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- 386
53.2. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 387
53.3. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 389
8
54. Evidence of Michael Osbourne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 390
54. 1 Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 390
54. 2. Cross-examined by Stephen Gunne - -- -- -- -- -- -- 391
54. 3. Cross-examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 391
54. 4. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 394
54. 5. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 394
54. 6. Re-examined by Mr.Keane -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 395
55. Evidence of Stephen Summers -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 396
55. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 396
55. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Brady -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- 397
55. 3. Questioned by George Begley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 398
55. 4. Cross-examined by Grace Martin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 399
55. 5. Cross-examined by Seamus Farrelly -- -- -- -- - -- 400
55. 6. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 401
55. 7. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 408
55. 8. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 409
55. 9. Cross-examined by Thomas Hamill -- -- -- -- -- -- 411
55A. Chris Dilworth cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- 412
56. Evidence of Liam Prendiville -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- 413
56. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 413
56. 2. Questioned by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 415
56. 3. Questioned by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 417
56. 4. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 417
56. 5. Cross-examined by Mary Begley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 419
57. Evidence of Richard Nairn -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 419
57. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 419
57. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Brady -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 423
57. 3. Cross-examined by Grace Martin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 424
57. 4. Cross-examined by Liam Doyle -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 424
57. 5 Cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 425
57. 6. Cross-examined by Fr. Pat Raleigh -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 426
57. 7. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- - 426
57. 8. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 429
58. Evidence of Ernie Crawford -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 430
58. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 430
58. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Brady -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 432
58. 3. Cross-examined by Seamus Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- 433
58. 4. Cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- -- -- 435
58. 5. Cross-examined by Liam Doyle -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 435
58. 6. Questioned by Fr. Pat Raleigh -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 437
58. 7. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 437
58. 8. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 441
58. 9. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 442
58. 10. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- - -- 442
58. 11. Further cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- - 443
9
59. Evidence of Eamon Daly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 444
59. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 444
59. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Brady -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 445
59. 3. Questioned by Liam Doyle -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 446
59. 4. Questioned by Seamus Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 446
59. 5. Questioned by Grace Martin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 446
59. 6. Questioned by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 446
59. 7. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 447
59. 8. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- - - 447
59. 9. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 448
60. Evidence of Harold O'Sullivan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 449
60. 1. Council's Responses to Duchas on Built Heritage -- -- -- -- 449
60. 2. Examined by Mr. Butler - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 451
60. 3. Cross-examined by Sandra Ryan -- -- -- -- -- -- 452
60. 4. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 453
60. 5. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- - 456
PART 3B -- SECTIONS 6I -- 85
-------------------------------------
61. Evidence of Margaret Gowan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 460
61. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 460
61. 2. Cross-examined by Mary Begley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 464
61. 3. Cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- -- -- 465
61. 3A Thaddeus Breen cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- 467
61. 4. Questioned by Sandra Ryan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 468
61. 5. Questioned by Julitta Clancy -- -- -- -- -- - -- 469
61. 7. Cross-examined by Fr. Pat Raleigh -- -- -- -- -- -- 469
61. 8. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 470
61. 9. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 476
61. 10. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 478
61. 11. Cross-examined by Mr.McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- 481
61. 12. Re-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- - -- -- -- -- 483
62. Evidence of Thomas Burns -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 483
62. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 483
62. 2. Cross-examined by George Begley -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 487
62. 3. Cross-examined by Brendan Magee - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 488
62. 4. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 489
62. 5. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- - 497
62. 5A Bill Hastings cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- 498
62. 5B Bill Hastings cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- 501
62. 6. Cross-examined by Alan Park -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 502
62. 7. Further cross-examined by Brendan Magee -- -- -- -- -- 504
63. Request for adjournment by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- 505
63. 1. Submission by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- 505
63. 2. Submission by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- - 507
63. 3. Submission by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 508
10
63. 4. Further submission by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 509
63. 5. Further submission by Peter Sweetman -- -- - -- - -- 510
63. 6. Ruling by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 511
EVIDENCE FOR DALGAN PARK
64. Evidence of Jack O'Sullivan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 512
64.1. Examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - 512
64.2. Cross-examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 520
64.3. Re-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 524
64.4. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 524
65. Evidence of Fr. Pat Raleigh -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 525
65.1. Examined by Mr. O'Donnell - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 525
66. Evidence of Ger Clarke -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 538
66.1. Examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 538
67. Evidence of Karl Searson for Dalgan Park -- - -- -- -- -- 540
67. 1. Examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- - -- -- -- -- 540
67. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- 544
67. 3. Re-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- 545
67A. Evidence of Karl Searson for Cathal McCarthy -- -- -- -- 546
68. Evidence of Ronald Bergin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 547
68. 1. Examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 547
69. Evidence of David Healy -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 549
69. 1. Cross-examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- 551
70. Submission by Bellinter Residents Association -- -- -- -- 552
71. Submission by Meath Road Action Group -- -- -- -- 562
72. Requests by Inspector to Council arising from 70 & 71 -- -- -- 567
EVIDENCE FOR GERRARDSTOWN HOUSE STUD
73. Evidence of Kiaran O'Malley -- - -- -- - -- -- -- 568
73. 1. Examined by Mr.McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 568
73. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 570
74. Evidence of Michael Kauntze -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 571
74. 1. Examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 571
75. Evidence of Robert Bryan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 573
75. 1. Examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 573
75. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 574
75. 3. Re-examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 575
76. Evidence of Colman Horgan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 575
76. 1. Examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 575
76. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 576
77. Evidence of Stephen Mandal -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 577
77. 1. Examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 577
77. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 578
77. 3. Re-examined by Mr. McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 579
78. Submissions by Mr.McGrath -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 580
11
79. Evidence of Ronald Bergin for Tara Stud -- -- -- -- -- 583
80. Evidence of Ian Lumley, An Taisce -- -- -- -- -- -- 583
80. 1. Examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 583
80. 2. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 590
81. Submission by Julitta Clancy, Meath Archaeological Society -- -- 592
82. Submission by Conor Newman, Archaeologist -- -- -- -- 596
82. 1. Questions put to Conor Newman -- -- -- -- -- -- 600
82. 2. Written Submission by Margaret Gowan -- -- -- -- -- 602
82. 3. Written Response by Conor Newman -- -- -- -- -- 604
83. Submission for Lismullin Centre -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 605
84. General submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 608
84. 1. Verbal Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 608
84. 2. Written submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 619
85. Council Responses -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 624
---------------------------------------------------
PART 4 -- NAVAN BY-PASS, NAVAN TO KELLS, N52 KELLS BY-PASS
AND KELLS TO NORTH OF KELLS SECTIONS
--------------------
NAVAN BY-PASS SECTION
-------------------------------------
86. Evidence of Susan Joyce -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 628
86. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 628
86. 2. Cross-examined by Sean Carty -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- 635
86. 3. Cross-examined by Manus Tiernan & Jim McIntyre -- -- - -- 636
86. 4. Cross-examined by Jim McIntyre -- - -- -- -- - -- - 643
86. 5. Cross-examined by Stephen Gunne -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 644
87. Submission by Frank Burke -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 645
88. Evidence of Phillip Farrelly -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 645
88. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 645
89. Evidence of Chris Dilworth -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 646
89. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 646
89. 2. Cross-examined by Manus Tiernan & Jim McIntyre -- -- - -- 648
89. 3. Cross-examined by Jim McIntyre -- -- -- -- -- -- 651
90. Evidence of Bill O'Kelly-Lynch -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 653
90. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 653
91. Evidence of Richard Nairn -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 654
91. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 654
92. Evidence of Jean Clarke -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 657
92. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 657
93. Evidence of Edward Porter -- -- -- -- -- - -- 658
93. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 658
94. Evidence of Bill Quirke -- -- -- -- -- - -- 660
94. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 660
12
94. 2. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 661
95. Evidence of David Wilson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 662
95. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 662
95. 2. Cross-examined by Manus Tiernan & Jim McIntyre -- -- -- 663
96. Evidence of Alan O'Connell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 665
96. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 665
97. Evidence of Harold O'Sullivan -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 667
97. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 667
98. Evidence of Thaddeus Breen -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - 667
98. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- 667
99. Evidence of Thomas Burns -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 668
99. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 668
100. General Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 672
100. 1. Verbal Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 672
100. 2. Written Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 676
101. Council's Responses to Submissions --- -- -- -- -- -- -- 678
NAVAN TO KELLS AND KELLS TO NORTH OF KELLS SECTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------
102. Evidence of Michael Evans -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- 680
102. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 680
102. 2. Cross-examined by Michael Meegan -- -- -- -- -- - 692
102. 3. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- 694
102. 4. Cross-examined by Niall Sudway -- -- -- -- - - 697
103. Evidence of Phillip Farrelly -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 698
103. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 698
104. Evidence of Edward Porter -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 699
104. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 699
105. Evidence of Siobhan Deery -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 701
105. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 701
105. 2. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- - 705
105. 3. Cross-examined by Mr. O'Donell -- -- -- -- -- -- 705
106. Evidence of Jackie Jordan -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- 706
106. 1. Examined by Mr.Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 706
106. 2. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 710
106. 3. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 712
107. Evidence of Thomas Burns -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 712
107. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 712
108. Evidence of Chris Dilworth -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 719
108. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 719
108A Council's Review of Noise Limits -- -- -- - -- -- -- 721
108. 2. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 724
108. 3. Cross-examined by Frank Burke -- -- -- -- -- -- - 727
108. 4. Further examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 728
108. 5. Cross-examined by Karl Searson -- -- -- -- -- -- 728
108B Karl Searson questioned by Mr. Keane & Inspector -- -- -- -- 731
13
108. 6. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 731
109. Evidence of Bill O'Kelly-Lynch -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 732
109. 1. Examined byMr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 732
109. 2. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 733
110. Evidence of Richard Nairn -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 736
110. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 736
110. 2. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- 749
111. Evidence of Kevin Cleary -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 756
111. 1. Examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 756
112. Evidence of Betty Newman Maguire -- -- -- -- -- -- 758
112. 1. Examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 758
112. 2. Questioned by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 759
112. 3. Re-examined by Mr. O'Donnell -- -- -- -- - -- -- 760
113. Evidence of Karl Searson -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 760
113. 1. Evidence of Karl Searson for Betty Newman Maguire -- -- -- 760
113. 1. 1. Karl Searson cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- 761
113. 2. Evidence of Karl Searson for Sarah Maher, Ardbracccan House -- - 762
114. Evidence of Ronald Bergin -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 764
115. Inspector's questions to Project Engineers -- -- -- -- - 765
116. Documents submitted by Council from Inspector's requests -- -- 768
117. Evidence of Alan Guthrie on Extinguishment of Rights of Way etc. -- 772
117. 1. Examined by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 772
118. Submission by Mr. Casey on Boyne Navigation Rights -- -- -- 773
119. General Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 773
118. 1. Written Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 773
120. Council's Responses to Submissions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 775
ARDBRACCAN HOUSE MODULE
------------------------------------
121. Preliminary Submissions by Mr. Casey -- -- -- -- -- -- 776
121. 1. Evidence of Peter Sweetman -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 779
122. Response by Mr. Butler -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 781
123. Response by Mr. Casey -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 782
124. Ruling by Inspector -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 782
125. Peter Sweetman cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- 783
126. Exchanges between M/ s Casey and Keane -- -- -- -- -- 784
127. Susan Joyce cross-examined by Mr. Casey -- -- -- -- -- 785
128. Michael Evans cross-examined by Mr.Casey -- -- -- -- -- 789
129. Colin Andrew examined by Mr. Casey -- -- -- -- -- -- 796
129. 1. Colin Andrew cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- -- -- 798
130. Thaddeus Breen cross-examined by Mr. Casey -- -- -- -- - 799
131. Harold O'Sullivan cross-examined by Mr. Casey -- -- - - -- -- 802
132. 1. Thomas Burns cross-examined by Peter Sweetman -- -- -- - 808
132. 2. Thomas Burns cross-examined by Mr. Casey -- -- -- -- -- 810
133. Video & Powerpoint Presentation by Sarah Maher -- -- -- -- 815
134. Susan Joyce & Michael Evans cross-examined by Mr. Casey -- - -- 819
14
134. 1. Susan Joyce & Michael Evans cross-examined by Frank Burke -- -- 836
134. 2. Susan Joyce & Michael Evans questioned by Inspector -- -- -- 844
135. Evidence of Frank Burke -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- 844
136. Evidence of Sean Finlay -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 846
136. 1.Examined by Mr. Casey -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 846
136. 2. Questioned by Mr. Keane & Inspector -- -- -- -- -- 848
137. Inspector's comments about remaining Briefs of Evidence -- -- -- 848
138. Evidence of Sarah Maher -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- - 849
138. 1. Cross-examined by Mr. Keane -- -- -- - -- -- -- 855
138. 2. Questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 856
139. Questions to Council by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 856
140. Susan Joyce questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- - 857
141. Michael Evans questioned by Inspector -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 858
142. Written submissions from Ardbraccan witnesses -- -- -- - -- 859
-----------------------------------------------------
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
15
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 -- -- -- -- -- -- - 1007
Appendix 2. Names and addresses of Persons or Organisations
who made Submissions to the Road Development -- -- -- 1025
Appendix 3. Names and addresses of persons
represented by M/s Gaynor Corr -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1029
Appendix 4. Documents handed in to Hearing -- -- -- -- -- -- 1035
Appendix 5. List of Wayleaves to be Acquired -- -- -- -- -- -- 1050
Appendix 6. List of Public Rights of Way to be Extinguished -- -- -- 1051
Appendix 7. List of Private Rights of Way to be Extinguished -- -- -- 1056
Appendix 8. List of Planning Permissions to be Modified -- -- -- -- 1058
-----------------------------------------------
16
PRELIMINARIES & GENERAL OVERVIEW
------------------------------------------
1. Date, Time and Venue of Oral Hearing :
The Hearing opened at 11a.m. on 21 August 2002 in the Boyne Valley Hotel, Dublin
Road, Drogheda; continued at 10 a. m. on 22, 23, 27, 28, 29 & 30 August, and 3, 4, 5, 10,
11 & 12 September; resumed on 8 October and continued on 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22,
23, 24, 30 & 31 October. It resumed again on 19 November, continued on 20 November
and concluded on 21 November 2002.
2. Purpose of Proposal :
The Proposal by Meath County Council is for the Compulsory Acquisition of Lands, for
the Extinguishment of a number of Public and Private Rights of Way, for the prohibition
of direct access to or from certain lands along the proposed Motorway and for the
revoking or modifying of certain Planning Permissions to provide for the construction of
a Motorway Scheme that commences by the widening and continuation of the Dual
Carriageway forming the Clonee Bypass in the townlands of Clonee and Loughsallagh to
link up with a New Interchange ( Pace Interchange) in the townlands of Bennettstown
and Pace, north of Dunboyne, from where the road continues as a Motorway extending
through various townlands in County Meath to a New Twin Roundabout Junction in the
townlands of Townparks and Newrathlittle to the north of Kells. From this New Junction,
the road continues, as a Single Carriageway but not as a Motorway, northwards to link
into the existing N3 at a New roundabout junction in the townland of Derver located on
the Meath side of the boundary with County Cavan and some 3.5 kilometres north of
Carnaross.
The proposal also includes for a Bypass on the R 157 of Dunboyne and a Bypass on the
N52 of Kells as well as a number of other Link roads. Interchanges on the Motorway are
proposed at Pace which will connect the realigned N3 and the Dunboyne Link road; near
to Dunshaughlin where the Link to Dunshaughlin and the realigned R 125 will be
connected; at Blundellstown connnecting the existing N3 north of Tara; at Kilcarn and
Athboy Road with Links to Navan and at Kilmainham with a Link for Kells. A number
of New Roundabout junctions are proposed on the associated Link roads.
Provision is being made for Toll Plazas located near the Blackbull overbridge at the
Southern end of the Scheme and near the Pheonixtown overbridge, north of Navan, at the
Northern end of the Scheme.
Approval is sought from An Bord Pleanala to the Road Development described above for
which an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared under Section 50 of the
Roads Act, 1993, as amended.
17
The Scheme, as proposed, comprises the provision of 47 kilometres of Motorway
northwards from the Pace junction to the twin roundabout junction north of Kells, 2.3
kilometres of Dual Carriageway to motorway standard from the Clonee Bypass to the
Pace Interchange, and 10.2 kilometres of wide Single Carriageway from the twin
roundabout to the connection with the existing N3 at Derver, to the north of Kells and
Carnaross, with some 12.6 kilometres of Bypass / Link roads also being provided and a
further 17 kilometres approximately of associated roads being realigned or upgraded.
3. Total Area of Land to be Acquired :
There are 579 separate plots in the Motorway Order having a total area of 294.1107
Hectares ( inclusive of public road ) listed in the First Schedule and a total area of
424.3383 Hectares ( inclusive of public road ) listed in the Second Schedule
Sixteen Wayleaves which are to be acquired are listed in the Second Schedule ( See
Appendix 5 for further details of these).
It is proposed to Extinguish Eighty Eight Public rights of way and Twenty Two Private
rights of way and these are listed in Parts 1 and 2 respectively of the Third Schedule ( See
Appendices 6 and 7 for further details of these). It is also proposed to prohibit direct
access to 159 plots of land as described in the Fourth Schedule.
It is proposed to suspend the Three Planning Permissions listed in Part 1 of the Seventh
Schedule and to modify the Seven Planning Permissions listed in Part 2 of that Schedule.
4. Site Inspection :
I inspected the lands, the subject of the Motorway Order and the EIS, on the 17 / 18 July
and on the 20 August 2002.
5. Statutory Requirements :
All of the statutory requirements in relation to the preparation and making of the
Motorway Order and of the Environmental Impact Statement, and for the publication and
service of the Notices appear to have been complied with.
6. Written Objections and Submissions made to An Bord Pleanala :
There were, effectively, 311 written objections submitted to An Bord Pleanala within the
time specified in the Notices in respect of the Motorway Scheme Order and 76 written
submissions in respect of the Road Development were made to An Bord Pleanala within
the time specified in the Notices, with One further submission being received after the
18
time specified had elapsed. Seven of the submissions made in respect of the Road
Development were more appropriate to the Motorway Order and some 22 of the
submissions made in respect of the Motorway Scheme Order related to the Road
Development.
The names and addresses of the objectors to the Motorway Scheme Order are listed in
Appendix 1, attached to this Report, together with the relevant Plot number(s) and
Schedules and the Townland(s) in which the plot is located. The names and addresses of
those people or organisations who made submissions in respect of the Road
Development are listed in Appendix 2 of this Report.
In both Appendices, the listing commences at the southern end of the Scheme and
continues northwards through the various sections in which the EIS was written. It should
be noted however that, in the Clonee to Dunshaughlin section, the Plots are numbered
from north to south commencing with No. 118 at the Dunshaughlin end, while in the
other four sections, the numbering of the plots runs generally from south towards north.
Details of the objections to the Motorway Scheme Order and of the submissions made in
respect of the Road Development (EIS) are given in Section 13 of this Report at page 37.
7. Appearances for or on behalf of Meath County Council :
Mr. Patrick Butler S.C., with Mr. Esmonde Keane B. L., instructed by Mr. Rory McEntee
of M/s Regan McEntee, Solicitors, appeared on behalf of Meath County Council, referred
to hereinafter as "The Council". Mr. Butler advised that the following witnesses would
give evidence on the overall Scheme :-
Mr. Alan Guthrie of M/s Halcrow Barry, Consulting Engineers
Mr. Charles Richardson of M/s Halcrow Barry, Consulting Engineers
Mr. Michael Killeen, Senior Executive Engineer, Meath County Council
Ms Suzanne Dempsey of M/s M.C. O'Sullivan, Consulting Engineers
There would then be a number of other witnesses for the Council who would deal with
the various Sections of the Scheme and these were :-
Engineering Aspects
Ms Susan Joyce, Project Engineer of M.C. O'Sullivan
Mr. Alan Guthrie, Project Engineer of Halcrow Barry
Mr. Michael Evans, Project Engineer of Arup
Agricultural Aspects
Mr. Philip Farrelly, Agricultural Consultant, Philip Farrelly & Partners
Mr. Michael Osborne, Equine Aspects
Professor Kevin Dodd, Agriculture Disease Aspects
Material Assets - non-agricultural
Mr. Ray Hanley of GVA O'Buachalla
19
Air Quality
Dr. Edward Porter, Environmental Consultant, RPS Ireland
Mr. Ernie Crawford, Halcrow Barry
Aquatic Environment
Mr. Bill Quirke, Conservation Services Ltd.
Drainage
Mr. David Wilson, Drainage Engineer, M.C.O'Sullivan
Mr. Eamon Daly, Drainage Engineer, Halcrow Barry
Landscape & Visual Aspects
Mr. Thomas Burns, Brady, Shipman & Partners
Noise & Vibration
Mr. Chris Dilworth, RPS Environmental Sciences
Mr. Stephen Summers, Halcrow Barry
Public Lighting
Mr. Alan O'Connell, Lighting Engineer, M.C.O'Sullivan.
Mr. Kevin Cleary, Consulting Engineer
Socio-Economic Aspects
Mr. Bill O'Kelly-Lynch, P. J. Newall & Co.
Mr. Liam Prendiville, Halcrow Barry
Terrestrial Environment / Ecology
Mr. Roger Goodwillie, Roger Goodwillie & Associates
Mr. Richard Nairn, Natura
Architectural Heritage
Mr. Harold O'Sullivan
Ms Jackie Jordan
Archaeology
Mr. Thaddeus Breen, V.J. Keeley Ltd.
Ms Margaret Gowan, Margaret Gowan & Co.
Ms Siobhan Deery
Structures
Mr. Peter Sheehy, Halcrow Barry
8. Appearances for and on behalf of Objectors :
To the Motorway Scheme Order :-
1. Ms Claire Lord of M/s Paul Brady & Co., Solicitors, Navan on behalf of the
following :-
Plot 121 - Tom & Mary Byrne, Roestown
Plot 1111 - Brian & Jean Malone, Ardsallagh
Plot 1113 - Peter & Mary Crisham, Ardsallagh
Plot 1122 - Emmett Clarke and Frank & Mary Clarke who share
the entrance to plot 1122
Plot 1125 - Joseph & Patricia Fitzsimons, Ardsallagh
20
Plot 1126 - Robert Fitzsimons, Ardsallagh
Plot 1127 - Thomas & Anna Farrelly, Ardsallagh
Plot 1128 - John T. & Breda Connolly, Ardsallagh
Plot 2173 - James & Teresa Wall, Ballincollig, Co. Cork as reps. of the late
Rose Wall, Boyerstown
Plots 3040 & 3122 - Tom Hickey, Kilmainham
2. Mr. Frank Burke, Consulting Engineer, Navan on behalf of the following :-
Plots 149 & 160 - Michael & Ann Morrin, Johnstown House
Plot 1096 - Pat Fallon, Newgrange Business Park, Drogheda
(Plot at Castletown Tara )
Plot 2180 - Brian Hughes, Magdelene St. Drogheda as rep. of the late
Patrick Brady, Boyerstown
Plot 2111 - James & Kevin Brady, Philpottstown, c/o Brian Hughes
Plot 2322 - Brian Hughes, Drogheda, as rep. of the late Anne Brady, Boyerstown
Plot 3041 - Eugene Reilly, Kilmainham (Headfort)
Mr. Burke also represented Charles Reilly, Kells ( Plot 3052); Michael Kieran, Drumree
(Plot 172); Cathal Usher, Kells (Plot 3033); John Newman, Kilmainham (Plot 3038) all
in association with M/s Gaynor Corr and Thomas Galligan, Oldcastle Road, Kells in
association with GVA Donal O'Buachalla.
3. Mr. Tom Corr of M/s Gaynor Corr & Associates, Agricultural Consultants, Portlaois.
Mr. Corr represented some 184 individual property owners whose names are
listed in Appendix 3 of this Report, some of these in association with other firms.
4. Mr. Stephen Gunne of Laurence Gunne Ltd. Auctioneers, Dundalk on behalf of the
following :-
Plot 293 - Patrick Yorell, Old Fair Green, Dunboyne
Plot 1074 - John Wilkinson, Baronstown, Tara
Plot 1138 - Bective GAA, Cannistown, Navan
Plot 2181 - Sean Murtagh, Boyerstown
Plot 2221 - Tara Mines, Knockumber, Navan
Plot 4016 - Patrick Carry, Woodland, Navan
Plot 4039 - Matthew Muldoon, Ballylist, Carnaross
Plot 4051 - Michael Lynch, Derver, Carnaross
Mr. Gunne advised that a number of his Clients had now withdrawn their objections and
these are listed in Section 9 of this Report at page 27.
5. Mr. Niall Sudway of Sudway & Co. Chartered Surveyors, Dublin on behalf of the
following:-
Plot 188 - Thomas McManus, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin
Plot 294 - Teresa & Colm Peters as reps. of the late Patrick Peters, Piercetown
Plot 330 - Mary J. Barden, Castlefarm, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
Plot 352 & 353 - Anthony J. McDonnell, Knockmore, Ballina (Plot at Bracetown)
21
Plot 470 - P.J. Roche, Glascarn
Plot 1056 - Ben & Margaret Quinn, Westleigh Farm, Roestown
Plot 1061 - CAS Ltd. c/o Jones Engineering, Berrillstown
Plots 1062, 1074 & 1075 - James Swan, Skryne
Plot 1063 - James Swan junior, Skryne
Plot 1064 - The Limestone Land Co. Clowanstown ( Tara stud)
Plot 1076 - Vincent & Anne Murphy, Skryne
Plot 1087 - Noel McGuinness, Blundellstown House, Garlow Cross
Plot 1090 - Cathal McCarthy, Philpottstown, Navan
Plot 1092 - Liam Donahue, Garlow Cross, Navan
Plot 2117 - Vitgeson Ltd, Balreask Old, Navan
Plot 2215 - Michael P. Fitzsimons, Ardbraccan, Navan
Plot 3016 - Thomas Tallon. Martry, Kells
Plot 3017 - Patrick Martin, Martry
Plot 3018 & 3026 Andrew Brooks, Febog, Ballybeg, Kells
Plots 3047 & 3053 - Mr. & Mrs. Henry Newman, Gardenrath, Kells
Plot 4062 - Mrs Betty Newman -Maguire, Castlekeeran
Mr. Sudway advised that the owners of Plots 1063, 1064, 3047, 3053 and 4062 would
also be represented by Mr. Michael O'Donnell BL. He also advised that no further
submissions, other than the original submissions, were being made in respect of Plots
330; 1052; 1061; 1076; 1089; 1092; 2215; 3016 and 3017.
Ms. Dara Fitzsimons of M/s Steen O'Reilly, Solicitors, Navan advised that the estate of
Kathleen O' Connell, deceased, had an interest in Plots 3026 and 3027.
There was no appearance for, nor were they present at the Hearing, by James, by
Lawrence or by Terence Brooks of Febog, Ballybeg, the other owners of Plot 3026.
6. Plots 139 & 144 - Evan Newall represented himself and his brothers - Peter & Hugh
7. Plot 172 - Michael Kieran, Knockmark, Drumree represented himself and was also
represented by Mr. Comyn of Redmond & Co. Solicitors, Dublin
8. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the following, all from the Leshamstown
Lane area:- Bridget Bowens, Roestown; Carmel & Patrick Carroll, The Haven,
Readsland; Mr. & Mrs P. Caton, Meadowcroft, Leshamstown Lane; William &
Bridget Crowley, Leshamstown Lane; Shay Fitzpatrick, Breffni, Leshamstown Lane;
James Finlay, Leshamstown Manor; Ann & Anthony Devey, Almeida House,
Leshamstown; Paula & Alex Doyle, Tara House, Roestown; Colm & Mary Murphy,
Leshamstown; Leo Lawlor, Watermeadows, Leshamstown; Paul Manck, Birchlawn;
Patricia Murnane, Leshamstown; Annette & Enda McDonagh, Leshamstown; Walter
Smyth, Leshamstown.
9. Plot 183 - Gerry & Catherine Carry, Crosskeys represented by Fergus Keogh of
Druker Fanning, Dublin.
10. Plot 189 - Seamus Cassidy 199, Navan Road, Dublin, represented by Shane
Redmond, Chartered Surveyor, who also represented Plot 2165, Pat Darcy,
Boyerstown and Plot 4018, James McDonald, Drumbarragh.
11. Plot 255 - David Robinson, Rathbeggan represented himself
12. Plot 256 - Ronald Robinson, Rathbeggan Stud, represented by David Robinson
22
13. Plot 268 - Basil Brindley, Rathbeggean House, represented by David Anderson of
Anderson & Co. Solicitors, Dublin
14. Plot 264 - Bucco Ltd. Suite 1, Westpoint Health & Fitness Centre, Blanchardstown --
Not present
15. Plot 301 - Dubai Bloodstock, Woodpark, Dunboyne, represented by Bernard
McHugh, Planning Consultant, Dublin
16. Plot 326 - Peter & Edward Henshaw, Bennetstown, Dunboyne, represented by
Michael O' Donnell BL
17. Plot 331 - Emer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh & Bernard Walsh, Summerhill Road,
Dunboyne represented themselves
18. Plot 332 - Richard, M.J. & Doris Bruton, Newtown, Dunboyne -- Not Present
19. Plot 340 - Sean Boylan, The Bungalow, Dublin Road, Dunboyne -- Not present
20. Plot 346 - John Connaughton Ltd. Ballybane, Killiney Avenue, Dublin -- Not Present
21. Plot 429 - Mary Redmond, Barnaderg, Drumree -- Not Present
22. Plots 469, 1144, 3032, 3046 &3115 - CIE - Not present - Letter read by Council
23. Plot 475 - Eamon Walsh, Court Hill, Dunboyne represented by Simon Clear,
Planning Consultant, Rathgar, Dublin.
24. Plot 1056 - Gerrardstown Stud, Dunshaughlin represented by Declan McGrath BL
25. No plot no. - Geraldine Walsh, Spearsview Cottage, Cooksland represented herself
26. No plot no. - Liam Doyle & Grace Martin, Branstown, Tara represented themselves
27. No plot no -- George & Mary Begley, Collierstown represented themselves
28. Plot 1083 - Philip & Margaret Ryan, Lismullin represented by Sandra Ryan
29. Plot 1094 - Rev. Peter O'Neill, Columban Missionaries, Dalgan Park represented by
Michael O'Donnell BL
30. Plot 1109 - Cormac Murray, Wood Lodge, Ardsallagh and Thomas Wimesy, Gate
Lodge, Ardsallagh represented by Michael O'Donnell BL
31. No plot no - Bellinter Residents Association represented by Christopher Oakes,
Chairman and Alan Park
32. No plot no - James Mc Caldrin, Oak Lodge, Bellinter, Navan represented himself
33. No plot no - Joseph Heery -- included with Cannistown Residents Association
34. Plot 2107 - Reps of Christopher Dowdall (deceased), Balreask Old, Navan
represented by Michael O'Donnell BL
35. Plot 2162 - William & Margaret Smith, Curraghtown, Navan -- Michael O'Donnell
36. Plot 2200 - Margaret & John Donaghy, Ardbraccan represented themselves
37. No plot no - S.J. Maher, Ardbraccan House, represented by Eamon Galligan SC and
Tom Flynn BL
38. No plot no - Brian Smyth, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan -- Not present
39. Plot 2223 - Vivienne Kennedy, Neilstown Lodge, Neilstown represented herself
40. Plot 3046 - Bridget Tansey, Carkfree, Ballinamean, Boyle, Co. Roscommon -- Not
present
41. Plot 3075 - Thomas Gavigan, Oldcastle Road, Kells, represented by Alan McMillan
of Donal O' Buachalla, Property Valuers, Dublin
42. Plots 3075, 3101 &3111 - Thomas & Veronica Flanagan, Oldcastle Road, Kells
represented by Keaveny Walsh & Co. Solicitors, Kells
23
43. Plot 3032 - Michael & Mary Christine Foley, Cookstown Great, Kells represented by
Aidan Foley
44. Plots 4025, 4035 & 4036 - Michael, Elizabeth & Christopher Farrell, Woodpole
represented by Alan McMillan
Appearances for the following were taken with those for the CPO since the objections
were CPO related but had originally been made as submissions to the Road Development.
45. Plot 3039 - Mrs. Winifred Madden, Kilmainham represented by Alan McMillan
46. Plots 3065 & 3072 - George Armstrong and W.& G. Armstrong( Kells) Ltd. Newrath,
Kells represented by Alan McMillan
47. Plot 3094 - Norman Ormiston, Blackwater House, Kells represented by Alan
McMillan
48. Plot 4003 - Edward & Bridget Whelan, Calliaghstown, Kells represented by Alan
McMillan
To Road Development (EIS) submissions:-
49. Duchas, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2 --- Not present or represented
50. An Taisce, Tailors Hall, Back Lane, Dublin -- represented by Brid Murphy of Casey
& Co. Solicitors, and to be assisted by Ian Lumley and Peter Sweetman.
51. The Arts Council, 70 Merrion Square -- Not present or represented
52. Bat Conservation Group, Cavan/Meath Branch, 32, The Old Mill, Ratoath -- Not
present
53. Meath Roads Action Group, c/o Eamon Halligan, Raynestown -- represented by
Peadar Creagh and Brendan Magee
54. Meath Archaeological & Historical Society -- represented by Oliver Ward
55. Irish Georgian Society, 74 Merrion Square, Dublin -- Not present
56. Liam Scott, Piercetown House, Piercetown-- represented himself
57. Newtown Bridge Residents Association Dunboyne; David Deasy, Lorrha Lodge and
Owen & Mairin McBreen, Summerhill Road -- represented by Deirdre Deasy
58. Garnett Hall Residents Association, Dunboyne -- Not present
59. Mary Keane, Leshamstown -- Not present
60. Brendan & Dolores Murphy, Leshamstown -- Not present
61. Jack Irwin, Roestown and Frank Fitzmorris, Leshamstown -- represented by Jack
Irwin for all of the Leshamstown houses
62. Andy Morgan, Leshamstown -- Not present
63. Barbara Finlay, Leshamstown Manor -- represented by James Finlay (see also No 10
above)
64. Raynestown Residents Association -- represented by Eamon Halligan, Raynestown
65. Patricia & James Conroy, Collierstown -- Not present
66. Terry Foley & Karen Carty, Collierstown -- represented by David Foley
67. Anastasia Crickley, 30A St. Kevins Road Dublin -- Not present
68. Seamus Farrelly, Hill of Skryne -- represented himself
69. Conor Newman, University of Galway -- Not present
70. Dr. Brian Lacey, Discovery Program Ltd. 34 Fitzwilliam Place Dublin -- Not present
71. John Delaney, Montbretia, Grange, Bective, Navan -- represented himself
72. Sheila Bradley, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross -- represented herself
24
73. Kathleen & Patrick Farrelly, Dowdstown -- not present
74. Father Pat Raleigh, Mission Education Dept. Dalgan Park -- by Michael O' Donnell
BL
75. Catherine Reilly 48 Blackcastle Navan -- by Tom Corr
76. Margaret McGrath, Sion Cottage and Catherine Cleary, Sion House, Johnstown --
Not present
77. Pauline Connolly, c/o St. Michaels Secondary School -- represented herself
78. Bellinter Residents Association -- see No. 37 above
79. Thomas & Margaret Hamill, Bellinter, Navan -- represented themselves
80. Helen Ryan Ardsbeg Bellinter -- represented herself (owner Plot 1104)
81. James McCaldrin, Bellinter -- Represented himself (see also No. 38 above)
82. Anne & Aidan Barber, Bellinter -- represented by Aidan Barber
83. Christopher & Claire Oakes, Bellinter -- represented by Claire Oakes
84. John & Patricia McCormick, Bellinter -- represented by John McCormick
85. Alan Park, Bellinter -- represented himself ( owner of plot 1101)
86. Brendan, Anne, Estelle & Lynette Magee, Belinter -- represented by Brendan Magee
87. Raymond & Elizabeth Martin, Bellinter -- represented by Elizabeth Martin
88. Cannistown Residents Association -- represented by Thelma Keating
89. Aidan & Thelma Keating, The Avenue, Ardsallagh -- represented by Thelma Keating
90. John & Rose Smyth, Ardsallagh -- represented by John Smyth
91. James McIntyre, Boyne Hill, Navan -- represented himself
92. Ronald Sherlock t/a Sherlock Furniture, Balreask Old, Navan -- represented by
Michael O'Donnell BL
93. Ray Keegan, Grange Bective -- Not present
94. Moatville Residents Association -- represented by Ruth Cahill
95. Patricia Gibney, 5 Woodlands, Navan ( for Plot 2387) -- Not present
96. Brian Smyth, Tankardstown -- represented himself
97. Richard Bryne, Ardbraccan -- Not present
98. Residents of the Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan:-
Edwina Dunne; Therese, Claudine & Sandra Coffey; Hugh & Paula
Coyle; Thomas Regan; Rebecca & Ivan Rennicks; Brian Smyth
and Fiona Feely -- all represented by Hugh & Paula Coyle.
112. H.R. & R.M. Pagan, Islay, Ardbraccan; Simon Hilliard, Ardbraccan and Sean
Finlay, Glebe House, Ardbraccan -- represented by Simon Hilliard and each other
113. W.G. Dallas, Martry, Kells -- Not present
114. Philip Dunne, Cakestown Glebe, Kells -- Not present
115. Gerard Murphy, Cavan Road, Kells -- Not present
9. Objections Withdrawn :
As appearances were being taken Mr. David Anderson of M/s Andersons, Solicitors,
advised that an Agreement had been reached between his Client, Mr. Basil Brindley of
Rathbeggan House and the Council and that, subject to he being able to make a statement
putting some of his Client's concerns onto the record, the objections in respect of Plot 258
were being withdrawn.
25
Mr. Tom Corr of M/s Gaynor Corr confirmed that on the basis of written undertakings by
Meath County Council a number of his Clients had now decided to withdraw their
objections to the CPO. These were :-
Michael Delaney, Gaulstown, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 122
John & Mary Neary, Leshamstown, Drumree -- Plot 137
Patrick Jennings, Macetown -- Plots 167 & 2147
Patrick J. Geraghty, Greenacres, Powderlough, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 182
Louis & Mary Murray, Fortfield, Derrockstown -- Plot 186
Patrick McHale, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 197
Patrick & Michael Corbett, Derrockstown -- Plot 206
Andrew & Mary Neary, Derrockstown -- Plot 207
Noel & Josephine McTigue, Derrockstown -- Plot 208
Phillip Connell, Piercetown, Dunboyne -- Plot 285
Sean McGuirk, Piercetown -- Plot 292
Michael Brazil, 23 Moatlands, Ratoath -- Plot 351
James & Frances Pheonix, Bracetown, Clonee -- Plot 356
Donal Murray, Ardsallagh House, Navan -- Plot 1109
Frank Corcoran, Cannistown, Navan -- Plot 1119
Reps of Robert Slattery, c/o Joan Slattery, Munllinam
Mulhuddart, Co. Dublin -- Plot 1121
John Fahy, Williamstown, Navan -- Plot 2102
Padraic & Denise Kilcoyne, Macetown, Navan -- Plot 2146
Owen & Mary McElroy, 44 Dunville Avenue, Rathmines, Dublin 6 -- Plot 2150
Gerard & Declan Mullen, Kilmainham, Kells -- Plot 3030
Gerard Mullen, Kilmainham -- Plot 3031
Edmund & Peter Kelly, Batrath Road, Kells -- Plot 3070
John Farrelly, Newrath Big, Kells -- Plots 4027 & 4028
John O'Connor, 3 Chesterfield Grove, Castleknock, Dublin 15 -- Plot 4031
Bernard Reilly, Cornasaus, Carnaross -- Plot 4037
Mr. Corr also gave the names of his Clients who would only be making additional written
submissions to the Hearing, as well as indicating which of his Clients wished to make
verbal submissions to the Hearing.
During the course of the Hearing, Mr. Tom Corr confirmed the following additional
withdrawals of objections on behalf of his Clients. These were :-
On Day 7 -- Gerard Stafford, Berrillstown, Tara -- Plot 1091
James Foley junior, Ardsallagh, Navan -- Plots 1115 & 1117
James Foley senior, Ardsallagh -- Plot 1116 & 1118
Peter & Rosanna Burke, Ardsallagh -- Plot 1123
John & Marcella Devine, Boyerstown, Navan -- Plot 2166
Christopher Collins, Ardbraccan, Navan -- Plot 2193
Frank Reilly, Neilstown, Navan -- Plot 2222
Darren Ward, Ardbraccan -- Plot 2331
26
Thomas Nally, Ardbraccan -- Plot 3002
Thomas Clinton, Townparks, Kells -- Plots 3078, 3085 & 3087
Thomas McGuinness, Boolies, Balrath -- Plot 4007
John Grimes, Boolies, Balrath -- Plot 4008
On Day 10 -- Declan Walsh,Knockmark, Drumree -- Plot 157
Brian Kelly, Bellinter, Navan -- Plot 1106
Reps of Frank Foley, Kennastown, Navan -- Plot 1133
Paul & Kathleen Foley, Kennastown -- Plot 2112
Anne & Mathew Coffey, Ardbraccan -- Plots 2201 & 2224 (Betaghstown)
Joseph Bartley, Ardbraccan-- Plot 2202
Peter & Carole Callaghan, Neilstown, Navan -- Plot 2219
Seamus & Irene Yore, Rockfield, Kells -- Plot 3064
Mathew Tevlin, Chapelbride, Kells -- Plot 4011
On Day 14 -- Ciaran & Lisa Byrne,Loughsallagh, Clonee -- Plot 375
SJD Developments, c/o Sean Dunleavy, Dunshaughlin-- Plot 464
Dermot Carty, Berrillstown, Tara-- Plot 1059
John & Patricia Scanlon, Collierstown, Tara -- Plot 1071
Patrick & Mary Clery, Balreask Old -- Plot 2137
Patrick Sherlock, Gainstown, Navan -- Plot 2151
John Sherlock, Gainstown, Navan -- Not in CPO but now owns land in CPO
Donagh & Sheila Russell, Gainstown, Navan -- Plot 2155
Aidan Lightholder, Hanlonstown, Navan-- Plot 2164
Patrick O'Brien, 23 Moatville, Navan-- Plot 2211
Joseph & Elizabeth Harte, Boyerstown, Navan -- Plot 2216
Liam & Bernadette Harte, Ardbraccan -- Plot 2217
Stephanie Watters,Ballybeg, Kells -- Plot 3020
Matthew & Betty Fox, Pheonixtown, Ardbraccan -- Plot 3022
Laurence & Pauline Stafford, Kilmainham, Kells-- Plot 3097
Sean Flood, Cakestown Glebe, Kells-- Plot 3104
Vivienne & Thomas Jennings, Allendale, Kilmainham, -- Plot 3108
David Kellet, Invyaaroge, Bailieboro, Co. Cavan-- Plot 4067
On Day 22 -- Brendan Donnelly, Piercetown, Dunboyne -- Plot 280
Michael & Dympna O' Brien, Rockfield, Portmanna -- Plot 1053
Sean Bennett, Ardbraccan -- Plot 3003
Andrew Rispin, Grange, Bohermeen -- Plot 3004
Gabriel Coffey, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan -- Plot 3105
and Joe Coffey, Tankardstown -- Plot 3105
Seamus Bennett, Ardbraccan -- Plot 3123
John Kearney, Meenlagh, Carnaross-- Plot 4054
Michael Farrelly, Boolies, Balrath -- Plot 4069
On Day 25 -- Thomas Feerick, Derrockstown -- Plot 195 & 197
John O' Sullivan, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 221
Michael Clayton, 28 Greentrees Road, Dublin 12 -- Plot 222
Laurence Ward, Normans Grove, Clonee -- Plot 320
Gertrude Gregan, Bennetstown, Dunboyne-- Plot 325
Patrick Gregan, Bennetstown -- Plot 339
27
Margaret Neylon, Links View, Bellinter, Navan -- Plot 1093
Danny & Eilish Bermingham, Balreask Old -- Plot 2117
John Dowdall and others, Balreask Old, Navan -- Plot 2121 ( See also Plot 2107 )
Jack McGlew, Boyerstown, Navan -- Plot 2170
Aidan Foley, Cookstown Great, Kells -- Plot 3032
On Day 26 -- Sean & Patrick Galligan, Ardbraccan -- Plot 2210
Conaty Farms Ltd. c/o Kevin Conaty, Boyerstown, Navan -- Plot 3000
Vincent & Pauline Rennick, Cedar Lodge, Pheonixtown -- Plot 3014
Monica Flanagan & Collette Flanagan-Lynch, Archdeaconry Glebe &
Moynalty Road, Kells -- plot 3090
Letters with the various submissions by Mr. Tom Corr giving the details listed above for
each of the Days referred to are listed at the relevant Day in Appendix 4
Mr. Stephen Gunne of Laurence Gunne, Auctioneers & Valuers confirmed to the
Hearing, during the taking of appearances, that the following of his Clients were
withdrawing their objections to the CPO on the basis of undertakings they had been given
by the Council :-
Patrick Delaney, Johnstown, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 159
Nancy Gibney, Piercetown, Dunboyne -- Plots 200 & 298
Paul & Pauline Rafter, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 219
Jason & Karen Huggard, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 220
John & Derek Maher, The Bush, Dunshaughlin -- Plots 233 & 251
Vincent McAuley, Beechmount, Rathbeggan -- Plot 252
K.P.& A. Lavelle, Piercetown -- Plot 259
Brendan Murphy, Quarrylands, Dunboyne -- Plot 265
Hilda Potterton, Quarrylands -- Plot 266
Eugene & Carol Lavelle, Piercetown -- plot 272
Mary Gabrielle Ryan, Piercetown -- Plot 299
Padraig Tierney & Mary Agnes Jackman, Paceland, Dunboyne
& Castletroy, Co. Limerick -- Plot 300
Kilsaran Concrete, Piercetown -- Plot 307
Mary Agnes Jackman & Co. 39 Oaklands, Castletroy,
Co. Limerick -- Plots 321 & 468
Patrick Tierney, Paceland, Dunboyne -- Plots 468 & 469
Liam O'Kane, Drumaweir, Greencastle Co. Donegal -- Plot 1057
Fintan & Deirdre Murphy, Skryne, Tara -- Plots 1077 & 1079
Jessica Magnier, Skryne, Tara -- Plot 1080
Peter & Rosemary McAree, Arovilla, Ardsallagh -- Plot 1120
Noel & Sandra Farrell, Balreask Old, Navan -- Plot 2110
Joseph & Mary Casserly, Boyerstown -- Plot 2167
Dermot English, Bohermeen, Navan -- Plot 3013
Noel & Nuala Gilsenan, Whitecommons, Kells -- Plot 3093
James Meegan, Drumberragh, Kells -- Plot 4015
Margaret Gingles, Derver, Carnaross -- Plot 4045
28
During the taking of appearances when CIE were called, Mr. Butler SC for the Council
handed in a letter from the CIE Solicitor's Office confirming that they were Withdrawing
their objection in respect of Plots 469, 1144, 3032, 3046 & 3115. This letter is listed at
Day 1 in Appendix 4.
On Day 10 Mr. Bernard McHugh of McHugh Consultants, Dublin advised the Hearing
that agreement had been reached between his Clients, Dubai Bloodstock Ltd. Woodpark,
Dunboyne and the Council whereby subject to the matters set out in the Agreement, copy
of which he handed in to the Hearing, their objections to Plot 301 in the CPO were now
being Withdrawn. This agreement is listed at Day 10 in Appendix 4
On Day 11 Mr. Simon Clear, Planning Consultant, Dublin, advised the Hearing that
agreement had been reached between his Client, Eamonn Walsh, Court Hill, Dunboyne,
who also traded as Peakland Industrial Estate, Dunboyne, and the Council that subject to
the matters set out in the Agreement, copy of which he handed in to the Hearing, the
objections to Plot 475 in the CPO were now being Withdrawn. This Agreement is listed
at Day 11 in Appendix 4
On Day 19 Mr. Evan Newall 62/63 Brighton Green, Rathgar, Dublin made a submission
to the Hearing in which he outlined the basis for the agreement he had reached with the
Council on behalf of himself and his brothers Peter & Hugh in respect of their lands at
Readsland and that their objections to Plots 139 & 144 in the CPO were now being
Withdrawn. This submission is listed at Day 19 in Appendix 4.
On Day 22 Mr. Frank Burke, Consulting Engineer, Navan, advised the Hearing that
agreement had been reached between the Council and his Clients, Sherlock Furniture,
Swan Lane, Navan whereby an alternative private entrance off the Kilcarn Link Road
would be provided for use by Sherlock Furniture in its business operations and that their
objections to the CPO and to the extinguishment of the Right of Way at Swan Lane were
being Withdrawn. Mr. Burke also advised that the objections of two other of his Clients,
Pat Fallon, Newgrange Business Park in respect of Plot 1096 at Castletown, Tara and
William & Margaret Smith, Curraghtown, Navan in respect of Plot 2162 were now being
Withdrawn as satisfactory undertakings had given by the Council to each of these two
Clients. The points of agreement between the Council and Sherlock Furniture are listed at
Day 22 in appendix 4.
On Day 24 Mr. Michael O'Byrne of M/s Keaveny Walsh & Co. Solicitors, Kells advised
the Hearing that an agreement had been reached between the Council and his Clients,
Thomas and Veronica Flanagan, Oldcastle Road, Kells, copy of which he handed in to
the Hearing, and that their objections to Plots 3101 & 3111 were now being Withdrawn.
This Agreement is listed at Day 24 in Appendix 4.
On Day 25 Mr. Frank Burke advised the Hearing that the Objections by two of his
Clients, Charles Reilly, Bective Street, Kells in respect of Plot 3052 and those of Cathal
& Vivienne Usher, Cookstown, Kells in respect of Plot 3033 were being Withdrawn on
the basis of the undertakings made by the Council as set out in the letters from the
29
Council's Road Design Office, copies of which he handed in to the Hearing and these are
listed at Day 25 in Appendix 4.
On Day 28 Mr. Frank Burke advised the Hearing that the Objections by Kevin & James
Brady in respect of Plot 2111 and those of Anne Brady in respect of Plot 2322 were being
Withdrawn on the basis of undertakings given by the Council.
10. Order of Appearance of Witnesses :
It should be noted that witnesses did not necessarily appear in the order in which they are
set out in Sections 7 and 8 of this Report. By agreement, and in order to facilitate
different parties, some of the witnesses were called "out of sequence". For the purpose of
this Report "blocks" of evidence from the relevant witnesses have been combined into a
continuous statement so that the evidence can be presented in a logical manner.
11. Format of the Report :
While there were far more objections to the Motorway Order than the number of
submissions to the EIS ( circa 311 as compared to 76 ), when the Hearing opened 50 of
the objections to the Motorway Order were withdrawn, leaving 261 still at issue on the
Motorway Order aspects of the proposal of which some 145 were from Clients of M/s
Gaynor Corr. Most of the objections made to the Motorway Order also included issues
that related to environmental concerns and the cross-examination of the Council's
Witnesses reflected this combination of Motorway Order and EIS aspects, when the
submissions made on the environmental effects were all addressed. The format of the
Report reflects this in the manner in which the evidence has been combined into a
"continuous" statement that deals with both Motorway Order aspects and EIS effects
together, rather than as two "separate" sections of evidence.
The EIS was written in Six separate Volumes numbered 2 to 7, Volume 1 being the Non-
Technical Summary. Volume 2 deals with the general requirement for the Motorway
Scheme, including the scope of potential impacts considered during the EIS process and
consultation undertaken; describes the basis for the design of the road and the Public
Private Partnership (PPP) approach; considers the existing and forecasted traffic
conditions and the alternative route options considered. Volume 3, which consists of 3
sets of documents -- 3A, the main volume with 3B, a set of drawings and 3C a set of
appendices --- deals with the Section between Clonee and Dunshaughlin and sets out an
Environmental Impact Statement for that Section. Similarly an EIS is set out for each of
the other 4 Sections into which the proposed scheme is divided, namely Volume 4 for the
Dunshaughlin to Navan Section; Volume 5 for the Navan By-pass Section; Volume 6 for
the Navan to Kells Section and Volume 7 for the Kells to North of Kells Section. For the
purposes of the Road Development Proposal, the scheme is to be considered as 5
"Integrated Sections" as described above.
30
Evidence was given on behalf of the Council initially, following Mr. Butlers opening
statement, relating to the details outlined in Volume 1 for the Overall Scheme and crossexamination
of this evidence then followed. The Council then moved on to commence
giving evidence on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section with the intention of following
on with the other 4 Sections. As the proposed Road scheme starts in the south of the
County at the present end point of the Clonee By-pass,and extends to the Cavan / Meath
border north of Carnaross over a distance of circa 70 kms, the Inspector directed that the
Council's evidence followed by cross-examination and then followed by the evidence of
the individual objectors for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section was to be completed
before the Council would give their evidence for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section.
This Section would be similarly completed before the succeeding Section would be
commenced and so on for the remaining Sections The reason for this direction, which
was given on Day 6 and was acceptable to all those represented, was to facilitate
objectors in having their objections / submissions dealt with while the Council's evidence
and its cross-examination for that Section was "fresh in everyone's mind" and also to
provide for a possible "timetable" that would allow objectors and other interested parties
to attend at the Hearing only when their "area of interest" was being considered, if that
was what they wished to do. ( See page 182 in Section 25.4 of this Report for details of
Inspector's ruling)
Following on from the presentation and cross-examination of the Council's evidence on
the "Overall Scheme" as generally described in Volume 2, each of the 5 Sections which
make up the "Integrated Sections" were then considered at the Hearing as individual
"stand alone" parts of an overall Hearing. The Format of this Report reflects this process
with the Report being written in Five Parts. These are Part 1-- Preliminaries and General
Overview; Part 2 -- Clonee to Dunshaughlin; Part 3 -- Dunshaughlin to Navan; Part 4 --
Navan By-pass, Navan to Kells and Kells to North of Kells, including the N52 Kells Bypass.
It was more convenient to combine the Navan Bypass and the Navan to Kells
Sections with the Kells to North of Kells Section in view of the relatively small number
of objections/submissions at the Hearing in respect of these three sections of the road
proposal. The objections by the owners of Ardbraccan House are dealt with as a seeparate
module at the end of Part 4. Part 5 includes the Closing Submissions, the Conclusions
and Recommendations and the Appendices.
General Description of Proposed Road :
The following description is taken from the descriptions given by each of the Project
Engineers, Ms Susan Joyce for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin and Navan By-pass Sections;
Mr. Alan Guthrie for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and Mr. Michael Evans for the
Navan to Kells and the Kells to North of Kells Sections.
The Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section of the scheme commences at the northern end of the
existing Clonee By-pass and runs in a northwesterly direction as a dual carriageway
through the townland of Loughsallagh and into Bracetown townland where it crosses the
existing N3, continuing through Bracetown, Bennetstown and Pace townlands on the
31
western side of the existing N3 to the New grade separated Interchange in Pace. The Pace
Interchange, at chainage 2580 to 2730, is located on an embankment between the R157
junction from Dunboyne and the existing Woodpark Road junction. Both of these
junctions will be closed with the existing roads becoming Cul-de-sacs at these points. The
R156 from Dunboyne to Clonee will be realigned at the connection to the Clonee grade
separated Overbridge; a new northbound slip road will be provided from this Overbridge
to accommodate northbound traffic movements from Clonee and Dunboyne. The existing
N3 will be realigned at the Clonee end to join with the R156 ( Dunboyne road ) at a new
Roundabout at the existing Loughsallagh junction and will be taken over the New N3
dual carriageway by the Bracetown Overbridge, at chainage 1030, and connected to the
Pace Interchange by a Roundabout junction on the eastern side of the Interchange. The
R157 will be replaced by the Dunboyne By-pass which runs from a Roundabout junction
on the western side of the Pace Interchange southwards, to pass on the western side of
Dunboyne through the townlands of Bennetstown and Dunboyne, crossing the R156
( Summerhill Road ) at the new Newtown Bridge Roundabout, and continuing
southwards through the townlands of Dunboyne and Castlefarm to join with the existing
R157 (Maynooth road) about 1 km. south of Dunboyne at the new Castlefarm
Roundabout there.
From the Pace Interchange (or Grade separated Junction) the new road continues
northwards as a Motorway, the M3, through the townlands of Pace, Woodpark and
Piercetown, generally along the line of the existing N3, to the existing Blackbull junction
where the R 154 (Trim road) is taken over the M3 by the Blackbull Overbridge, at
chainage 4550, to join with the R 155 (Ratoath road ) and with the realigned N3 at a new
Roundabout which is located on the eastern side of the M3. A new link road will run
from this new Roundabout along the eastern side of the M3 to connect with the eastern
Pace Roundabout and from there it continues on to Clonee, as previously described. This
link road and the realigned N3 will provide for access to properties, and to local road L-
5026, along the eastern side of the existing N3 which will be cut off from the proposed
M3. It will also provide an alternative road for traffic when the M3 is being constructed
on the line of the existing N3 and, subsequent to the completion of the M3, it will provide
an alternative route for traffic affected by the user restrictions on the M3 Motorway.
Access to the Woodpark and Flathouse (L22161) roads from the existing N3 will be cut
off and access to both will be from the realigned Woodpark road at its northern end
where it links in to the realigned R154 as this road approaches the Blackbull Overbridge.
Provision is being made for the proposed Southern Toll Plaza immediately to the north of
the Blackbull Overbridge where the Motorway widens to five lanes in each direction. The
M3 then continues in a north-westerly direction on the western side of the existing N3,
crossing the River Tolka in two locations where the river will be realigned to reduce the
length of the crossings, through the townlands of Piercetown, Quarrylands, Rathbeggan,
Raynestown, Derrockstown, Rath Hill and Johnstown to the Dunshaughlin Interchange
which is located to the west of Dunshaughlin in the townlands of Knocks, Leshamstown
and Johnstown.
32
At chainage 7070 an Overbridge is provided to extend Rathbeggan Lane, L22092, over
the M3 to provide access to Rathbeggan Lakes and access to severed lands. At chainages
8450 and 10110 Overbridge are provided to take the realigned Raynestown Lane, L
22091, and the realigned Derrockstown Lane, L 2209, respectively over the M3.The
realignment of Derrockstown Lane provides for the removal of two bad bends and
requires the realignment of Clonross Lane, L 6208, with an improved junction layout for
that lane. At chainage 11040 in Rath Hill where the M3 is on an embankment, an
Underpass is provided to give access to Three landowners whose lands are severed by the
Motorway and at chainage 12140 in Johnstown an Overbridge is provided to give access
to Two landowners whose lands are severed by the M3.
The Overbridge, at chainage 12910, for the Dunshaughlin Interchange which is located
on an embankment takes the R125 (Trim road) over the M3. A new Roundabout on the
western side with slip roads to the M3 also connects to a New Link road, the New R125,
that joins with the R154 (Trim road) at a new Roundabout at Merrywell, running through
the townlands of Leshamstown, Drumree, Knockmark, Kilcooly and Merrywell. This
New Link replaces the existing R125 which presently runs through Drumree and
Leshamstown. On the eastern, or Dunshaughlin side, of the Overbridge, a new
Roundabout, with connecting slip roads to the M3, provides for a new Link road via a
new Roundabout at Knocks continuing northwards through Readsland townland to join
the existing Dunsany Road , L 2208, at a new Roundabout ( Roestown Roundabout) and
continuing northwards through Cooksland to join with the existing N3 at a new
Roundabout, the Cooksland Roundabout.
The Proposed M3 Motorway continues in a northerly direction from the Dunshaughllin
Interchange through the townlands of Knocks, Readsland, Cooksland and Roestown,
crossing the River Skane at chainage 13080, severing the existing R125 at chainage
13660 ( replaced by the New Link from the Interchange as previously described) and
under the Dunsany Road at chainage 14010 where the Dunsany Road Overbridge takes
the L 2208 over the M3, which is in a cutting along this section, on a slight realignment at
grade. The Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section ties in to the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section
at chainage 14190 to the north of the Dunsany Overbridge and the proposed M3
Motorway continues northwards through Cooksland and Roestown townlands, rising on
an embankment to cross over the existing N3 at the Roestown Overbridge.
NOTE -- For the purpose of the Drawings in Vol.4B, from which the chainage
references are taken for this Report, the commencing chainage for the tie-in with the
Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section is taken as 20000 for the Dunshaughlin to Navan
Section.
From the Roestown Overbridge, at chainage 20900, the Proposed M3 continues on the
eastern side of the existing N3, northwards through the townlands of Garretstown, Trevet,
Berrillstown, Clowanstown, Ross, Collierstown, Skreen, and Lismullin where it passes
between the Hill of Tara to the west and the Hill of Skreen to the east, then swinging
northwest and then westwards through Lismullin into Blundellstown and Castletown Tara
townlands where the Blundellstown Interchange is located at chainage 30950. This
33
Interchange takes the M3 across and under the existing N3 which spans the Motorway
by an Overbridge. The existing N3 will be realigned and connected to the M3 Overbridge
by new Roundabouts from which Slip roads will connect to the M3 giving access for all
traffic movements at this point.
At chainage 23900 the Berrillstown Farm Access Overbridge provides for access to land
severed by the Motorway and the Trevet Road, L 5012-6, is to be realigned where the M3
severs this existing local road and the realigned section will run parallel to, and east of,
the Motorway here for some 450 metres. At chainage 26250 where the M3 is in a cutting
the Collierstown Overbridge will take the realigned Collierstown Road, L 1005-0, over
the M3 and at chainage 27000 the Baronstown Overbridge takes the realigned
Baronstown Road L 5000-0 over the M3. A farm access road runs parallel to and west of
the M3 from the Baroinstown Overbridge realignment for some 1.15 kms to provide
access for lands severed by the Motorway here. At chainage 29700 the Lismullin
Overbridge takes the Realigned Lismullin Access Road L- 50021-0 over the M3 and a
Farm access road runs parallel to and west of the Motorway from this realigned road for
some 550 metres to give access to land severed by the Motorway in Plot 1083.
From the Blundellstown Interchange the proposed M3 Motorway continues, to the west
of the existing N3 and in a westward direction, through the townlands of Castletown Tara
and Philpottstown, turning north westwards and continuing through Dowdstown where it
passes through the western part of Dalgan Park, crosses the River Boyne at Ardsallagh
and into Ardsallagh Townland and then into Kennastown townland where the M3 is
crossed by the Cannistown Overbridge and the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section ends at
the tie-in to the Navan By-pass Section at chainage 35600 to the south-east of Navan.
At chainage 32600 the Dowdstown Overbridge takes the Realigned Dowdstown road
L 2201-29 over the M3 with the River Skane being crossed by the M3 at chainage
32650. The realignment of the Dowdstown Road L 2209-29 also involves the
realignment of the existing junction of the Dowdstown and Bellinter roads to the west of
the M3 to create a staggered junction as well as providing for access to the section of the
Dowdstown road to the east of the M3 and for a farm access road into the Dalgan Park
land from the western approach road to the Dowdstown Overbridge. The River Boyne
will be spanned by a Bridge at Ardsallagh of circa 180 to 190 metres on a 60 degree
skew crossing at chainage 33550/33730 and this Bridge will also provide for the Access
Underpass to Ardsallagh House. At chainage 34400 the Ardsallagh Road Overbridge will
take the Ardsallagh Road, L 4009-8, over the M3 and at chainage 35400 the Cannistown
Road Overbridge will take the Realigned Cannistown Road, L 8034-0 over the M3 and
the tie-in to the Navan By-pass commences at the western side of the existing
Cannistown Road where it crosses the Disused Railway line, with the Cannistown No. 1
Railway Bridge immediately adjacent to the line of the M3 at this point.
NOTE -- For the purpose of the Drawings in Vol.5B, from which the chainage
references are taken for this Report, the commencing chainage for the tie-in with the
Dunshaughlin to Navan Section is taken as 41145 for the Navan By-pass Section.
34
From the Cannistown Road crossing, the proposed M3 continues westwards through
Kennastown townland where at chainage 41660 the Kilcarn Overbridge, part of the
Kilcarn Interchange, takes the Kilcarn Link Road over the M3. From this Interchange the
proposed M3 continues westwards through Williamstown or Bawn, Macetown,
Gainstown and Hanlonstown townlands to the south of Navan and into Boyerstown
townland where at chainage 46200 the Athboy Road Overbridge takes the Existing N51
over the M3. At chainage 46660, and still in Boyerstown townland, the Athboy
Overbridge, part of the Athboy Interchange which gives a connection from the M3 to the
western side of Navan, takes the New Section of the N51 over the M3. From this
Interchange the proposed M3 swings towards the north as it passes through Ardbraccan
townland and at chainage 49700 ties into the Navan to Kells Section before it enters
Grange townland.
From the Kilcarn Interchange the Kilcarn Link Road runs northwards through
Kennastown, Ballybatter or Balreask New and Balreask Old townlands to a new
Roundabout at its junction with the existing N3 on the Navan side of Kilcarn Bridge.
At chainage 42610 the Trim Road Overbridge takes the Realigned Trim Road, R 161,
over the proposed M3 and at chainage 43830 the Robinstown Road Overbridge takes the
Realigned Robinstown Road, over the M3 with the Gainstown Road being severed by the
M3 at chainage 44200. The severed part of the Gainstown Road to the north of the M3
will become a cul-de-sac at this point while the southern severed part will be realigned to
join with the Robinstown Road on the southern approach to the Robinstown Overbridge.
The existing N51 from the present road junction at Townparks, near the Tara Mines to
Drogheda railway line, as far as Clarkes Cross over a distance of some 3.5 kms. will be
replaced by a new realigned Road which will commence at a New Roundabout at
Townparks and runs to the west of the existing N51 through the townlands of Townparks,
Robinrath, Knockumber, Boyerstown (where it connects to the Athboy Road
Interchange), Mullaghmore or Allerstown and Irishtown townlands where it joins back
with the existing N51 north of Clarkes Cross.
At chainage 47770 the Boyerstown Overbridge takes the realigned Boyerstown Road
over the proposed M3 on a skew crossing. The M3 will sever the Haltown Road at
chainage 48450 and this road will become a cul-de-sac on both sides. Road access for
properties on the western cul-de-sac will be given by the construction of a new section of
road in Neilstown townland from the Bohermeen road. There are no residential properties
on the eastern cul-de-sac section of the Halltown road. At chainage 48690 the Bohermeen
Road Overbridge takes the Bohermeen Road over the M3 which is in a 4 metre deep
cutting at this point and at chainage 49610 the Durhamstown Road Overbridge takes the
realigned Durhamstown Road, L 4005-11, over the M3 with the tie-into the Navan to
Kells Section being circa 90 metres to the north of this Overbridge.
NOTE -- For the purpose of the Drawings in Vol.6B, from which the chainage
references are taken for this Report, the commencing chainage for the tie-in with the
Navan By-pass Section is taken as 60000 for the Navan to Kells Section.
35
From the Durhamstown Road crossing the proposed M3 swings westward as it leaves
Ardbraccan townland and enters Grange townland and continues westward through the
townlands of Grange, Pheonixtown, Martry, Ballybeg, Athgaine Little, Nugentstown,
Cookstown Great, Kilmainham, Gardenrath and Grangegoddan Glebe, passing to the
south of Kells through Townparks and Rockfield townlands where the Motorway M3
ends at the Twin Roundabout junction with the N52 Kells By-pass and the New N3 Kells
to North of Kells Section, at the entry to Calliaghstown townland at chainage 71150.
The proposed Northern Toll Plaza would be located in Grange at chainage 61600 where
there would be three lanes in each direction with the Motorway widened to accommodate
these six lanes and the Grange Farm Access Overbridge is located to the west of the Toll
Plaza area at chainage 62025. At chainage 63050 the Pheonixtown Road Overbridge
takes the realigned Pheonixtown Road, L 8001-10, over the proposed M3 and at
chainage 65020 the Ballybeg Road Overbridge takes the realigned Ballybeg Road, L
6833-0 over the M3 , with farm access roads being provided off each approach roads to
the Overbridge giving access to lands severed by the M3 at this location. A farm access
Underpass is provided at chainage 66829 and the Nugentstown farm access Overbridge is
provided at chainage 67350, both of these to provide access to lands severed by the M3.
At chainage 68370 the Kells South Link Road Overbridge, part of the Kells South or
Kilmainham Interchange in Cookstown Great townland, crosses the M3. This link road
runs through Kilmainham ( E.D. Teltown) and Kilmainham ( Headfort) townlands and
connects to the existing N3 at a New Roundabout south of Kells. The Cookstown Road
Overbridge takes the realigned Cookstown Road, L 2813-6 over the M3 at chainage
69600 and at chainage 70160 the realigned R 164, Athboy Road, is taken over the M3 by
the Athboy Road (Kells) Overbridge.
NOTE -- For the purpose of the Drawings in Vol.7B, from which the chainage
references are taken for this Report, the commencing chainage for the tie-in with the
Navan to Kells Section for the Kells to North of Kells Section is taken as 80000.
The proposed M3/N3/N52 Junction, located on a realigned section of the existing N52
consists of Twin Roundabouts, the Roundabout nearer to Kells being the commencing
point for the proposed N52 Kells By-pass. From the western or outer Roundabout the
proposed New N3 continues as a Wide Single Carriageway westwards through
Calliaghstown, Boolies and Chapelbride townlands and then north-westwards through
Drumbarragh, Castlekeeran, Woodpole, Killaconin or Jonesborough, Pottlebane and
Balgree townlands. The proposed New N3 ends at a New Roundabout in Derver
townland from which it connects to the existing N3 at the Meath - Cavan County
Boundary at chainage 90200.
At chainage 80935 the New N3 passes over the Calliaghstown Underbridge which
provides a link for farm lands on the southern side of the Boolies Road, L 68353-0,
where this side is severed by the New N3. A new Roundabout at chainage 83635, located
to the south of Drumbarragh, on the existing line of the R163 Oldcastle Road provides
36
the connection to the New N3 for the R163. At chainage 85540 the New N3 passes over
the Castlekeeran Underbridge on the realigned Castlekeeran Road, L 68292-0, and at
chainage 86250 the New N3 passes over the Woodpole Underbridge on the Woodpole
Road, L 6824-0. An access road is provided along the eastern side of the New N3 from
the eastern approach to the Woodpole Underbridge which links up with the Woodpole
Lane at chainage 86600 which is severed by the New N3. This access road, which
provides access to lands severed by the N3 extends as far as chainage 87600. Farm
underpasses are to be provided at chainage 88150 in Pottlebane and at chainage 88805 in
Derver. The New N3 crosses the River Blackwater at chainage 88300 as the road enters
Derver townland. The Derver Roundabout is located at chainage 89600 to connect the
existing N3 and Derver Lane to the New N3.
The proposed N52 Kells By-pass commences at the eastern of the Twin Roundabouts,
(the nearer to Kells), and runs in a north to north-easterly direction through the townlands
of Newrathlittle, and Newrathbig, crossing under the Oldcastle Road, R163, at chainage
1360 and continuing through the Commons of Lloyd and Townparks townlands where it
connects with the existing N3 at a New Roundabout at chainage 1800 on the western side
of Kells and continues in a northerly direction and then swings eastwards through
Townparks to connect with the existing Moynalty Road, R164, at a New Roundabout at
chainage 2600 as it enters the townland of Archdeaconry Glebe. The N52 By-pass
continues eastward through Archdeaconry Glebe townland and crosses the River
Blackwater at chainage 2900 as it enters Whitecommons townland and then passes
through Cakestown Glebe townland to connect with the existing N52 at a New
Roundabout at chainage 3800 which is located some 500 metres north of Maudlin bridge.
The overall lengths of New roads to be constructed in this proposed Road Development
are 2.3 kms. of Dual carriageway between the end of the present Clonee By-pass and the
Interchange at Pace; 46.5 kms of Dual carriageway as a Motorway from Pace
Interchange to the Twin Roundabouts at Calliaghstown south of Kells and 10.2 kms of a
wide Single carriageway from Calliaghstown to the junction with the existing N3 at
Derver at the Cavan/Meath County boundary, giving a total distance of 59 kms for the
New mainline of roadway. In addition to this the proposed Road Development includes
for 3.1 kms of Dual carriageway in the Dunboyne By-pass; 4.5 kms of Dual carriageway
in the Kilcarn Link Road to Navan and the section of the New N 51 between the Athboy
Road Interchange and Navan; 2.5 kms of Single carriageway in the section of the New
N 51 between the Athboy Road Interchange and Clarkes Cross further out and the
Kilmainham Link Road to Kells and 3.8 kms of Single Carriageway in the N 52 Kells
By-pass. A further 25 kms of National, Regional and Local Roads will be realigned as
part of the proposed Road Development.
The proposal provides for the construction of 52 Road Over and Under Bridges as well as
a New Bridge across the River Boyne and Two New Bridges across the River
Blackwater, both being candidate SACs. The Rivers Tolka and Skane as well as a number
of other smaller rivers and streams will also be crossed by small bridges and culverts. A
footbridge is proposed on the Kilcarn Link Road at the Swan Lane area in Navan.
37
Interchanges ( or Grade separated Junctions) are proposed at Pace, Dunshaughlin,
Blundellstown, Kilcarn and on the Athboy Road outside Navan, with modifications
proposed for the existing Clonee Interchange. There are Twin Roundabouts proposed at
Calliaghstown as well as Roundabouts at Drumbarragh and at Derver on the M3/N3 Road
with 12 Roundabouts at a number of other junctions, including those on the N 52 Kells
By-pass, as detailed previously.
Details of the 16 Wayleaves proposed to be Acquired as described in the Second
Schedule to the Order are listed in Appendix 5 attached to this Report.
Details of the 88 Public Rights of Way and of the 22 Private Rights of Way proposed
to be Extinguished as described in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Third Schedule to the Order
are listed in Appendices 6 and 7 respectively attached to this Report.
Details of the 3 Planning Permissions that have been Suspended and of the 7 Planning
Permissions that have been Modified, as described in Parts 1 and 2 of the Seventh
Schedule to the Order, are listed in Appendix 8 attached to this Report.
13. Details of Objections to the Motorway Order and Submissions made to the EIS :
As stated in Section 6 of this Report the lists of the names and addresses of those who
made an objection to the Motorway Order or a made submission to the EIS within the
time prescribed in the Notices are given in Appendix 1 for the Motorway Order and in
Appendix 2 for the EIS. In what follows a Summary of those objections or submissions is
given, but only in the cases where no formal withdrawal was made by them, or on their
behalf, during the course of the Hearing.
To Motorway Scheme Order :-
Objections were submitted by Frank Burke, Consulting Engineer, on behalf of the
following:-
Plots 149&160 in Rath Hill & Johnstown, owned by Michael & Ann Morrin Johnstown
House, Dunshaughlin. They want access for adjacent owner ( Patrick Delaney Plot159)
removed from CPO as they say his lands can be served other than by Johnstown Farm
O/B. They have Access/ Noise / Drainage/ Landscaping issues, and had a supporting
submission by Dillon Eustace Solrs. re Animal Disease concerns and queries power of
Council to create private RoW on their land.
Plot 2180 in Boyerstown owned by Reps of Patrick Brady, c/o Brian Hughes, 26
Magdalene Street, Drogheda. Objects to the Impact of and Need for Boyerstown
Interchange. Also has concerns about Noise, Landscape & Screening issues.
Plot 3041 in Kilmainham (Headfort) owned by Eugene Reilly, Kilberry House, Kilberry
Wants Farm Access proposed for adjoining owner (Newman) deleted from his land take;
38
Says that his own proposed access is inadequate; concerns about Noise Landscaping &
Screening issues.
All of the following, who were represented by Paul Brady & Co.Solicitors, made the
following general objections -- Inadequate Information was given regarding Works
affecting their property; Noise & Lighting concerns; Drainage & Compensation issues.
Plot 1111 in Ardsallagh owned by Brian & Jean Malone, Ardsallagh, Navan
Plot 1113 in Ardsallagh owned by Peter & Mary Crisham ,Ardsallagh
Plot 1122 in Ardsallagh owned by Emmet Clarke, Ardsallagh
Plot 1125 in Ardsallagh owned by Joseph & Patricia Fitzsimons, Ardsallagh
Plot 1126 in Ardsallagh owned by Robert Fitzsimons, Ardsallagh
Plot 1127 in Ardsallagh owned by Thomas & Anna Farrelly, Ardsallagh
Plot 1128 in Ardsallagh owned by John T. & Breda Connolly, Ardsallagh
Not in CPO but Shared Entrance with Plot 1122 owned by Frank & Marie Clarke, --
t/a Ardsallagh Furniture Reproduction Ltd. Ardsallagh
No details given how access to House and Business premises (shared entrance used will
be maintained). Noise & Lighting concerns; Drainage & Compensation issues.
Plot 2173 in Boyerstown owned by the Reps of Rose Wall, James & Teresa Wall, 16
Woodbine Lawn, Inniscarra View, Ballincollig. Co. Cork. Object that the Order was not
made in accord with Law and the County Development Plan was not approved by LA.
Say that Inadequate Information was given regarding Works affecting their property;
and have Access & Lighting concerns and Compensation issues
Plots 3040 & 3122 in Kilmainham owned by Tom Hickey Kilmainham, Kells. Objects
for the same reasons as in the case of Walls above.
All of the following, represented by Sudway & Co. Chartered Surveyors, made the same
general objections that the CPO would have a detrimental effect on their property with no
details of Design or Acommodation Works provided to their Agent unless the EIS at a
cost of €680 was purchased and that the EIS seems to be justifying a chosen route rather
than assessing alternatives.
Plot 188 at Derrockstown owned by Thomas McManus, Derrockstown, Dunshaughlin
Plot 294 at Piercetown owned by the Reps. of Patrick Peters, -- Theresa & Colum Peters
Piercetown, Dunboyne
Plot 330 at Castlefarm owned by Mary J. Barden, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
Plots 352 & 353 at Bracetown owned by Anthony J. McDonnell, Knockmore, Ballina
Co. Mayo. Also that his family's previous dealings with Meath Co. Co. were
unsatisfactory and he wants these rectified before agreeing to new road works.
Plot 470 at Glascarn owned by P. J. Roche, Glascarn, Ratoath
Plot 1061 at Berrillstown owned by C.A.S Ltd. c/o Jones Engineering, Berrilstown,
Plots 1062 & 1074/1075 as occupier at Skryne owned by James Swan, Skryne, Tara
Plot 1063 at Skryne owned by James Swan junior, Skryne, Tara
39
Also his Property has Full Planning permission for house & stables(5) and asks if CPO
will affect this ?
Plot 1064 at Clowanstown owned by The Limestone Land Co. Ltd. c/o Tara Stud
Plot 1076 at Skryne owned by Vincent & Ann Murphy, Skryne, Tara
Plot 1089 at Blundelstown owned by Noel McGuinness, Blundellstown House,
Garlow Cross
Plot 1090 at Philpottstown owned by Cathal McCarthy, Philpottstown, Garlow Cross
Plot 2117 at Balreask Old owned by Vitgeson Ltd. Moatlands, Navan
Plot 2215 at Ardbraccan owned by Michael Peter Fitzsimons, Ardbraccan, Navan
Plot 3016 at Martry owned by Thomas Tallon, Martry, Kells
Plot 3017 at Martry owned by Patrick Martin Boggins, Nugentstown, Kells
Plot 3018 at Ballybeg owned by Andrew Brooks, Febog, Kells
Plot 3026 at Ballybeg owned by Andrew, James, Lawrence & Terence Brooks, Febog
Plots 3047 & 3053 at Gardenrath & Townparks owned by Mr. & Mrs. Henry Newman
Gardenrath, Kells
Plot 4062 at Castlekeeran owned by Mrs. Betty Newman Maguire, Castlekeeran,
Carnaross. She also objected as Tearmon Artist Studios which were granted Planning
Permission in Feb 2000, and LEADER grant aided to develop a House and Studio on
Kieran road. This was built in Aug. 2000, with the new Road announced in Sept. 2000.
Has concerns about Noise, Visual, Community impacts and that the effects of road
works will destroy the ambience of her Studios.
The following, represented by Laurence Gunne Ltd. Dundalk, Auctioneers,
(in conjunction with Raymond Potterton & Co. Navan and Jim Ryan, Castletown,
Navan), all objected on the basis that there was a better alternative route available which
would have a lesser impact on their holding, and said that a more detailed submission
would be presented in due course:-
Plot 293 at Piercetown owned by Patrick Yorell, 2, Old Fair Green, Dunboyne
Plot 1138 at Ardsallagh owned by Bective GFC, c/o John Moran Secretary, Cannistown
Plot 1074/1075 at Baronstown & Skryne owned by John Wilkinson, Baronstown, Tara
Plot 1094 at Dowdstown owned by Maynooth Missionaries to China, Dalgan Park who
also objected to the route through Dalgan Park as this would seriously impact on the
ethos of Dalgan Park and Dowdstown House. They said that the route from Dillons
Bridge to Dowdstown passed through an area prone to heavy fog.
Plot 2181 at Knockumber owned by Sean Murtagh, Boyerstown
Plot 2221 at Townparks owned by Tara Mines Ltd. Knockcumber, Navan
*Plot 4016 at Drumbarragh owned by Patrick Carry, 154 Woodsland, Navan
*Plot 4039 at Pottlebane owned by Matthew Muldoon, Ballylist, Carnaross
Plot 4051 at Derver owned by Michael Lynch, Derver, Carnaross who objects to the
acquisition of his Hayshed but not to the remainder of the acquisition.
*Later on in the Hearing Mr. Gunne indicated he was no longer representing these two.
Plot 121 in Roestown owned by Tom & Mary Byrne, Ashling, Roestown, Dunshaughlin
objected on the basis of the Order not made in accord with Law & the County Plan not
40
approved by the LA. That inadequate information was given regarding the Works
affecting their property; Access & Lighting concerns; Compensation, Noise and
Water supply issues; and the O/B is obtrusive. Also represented by Paul Brady & Co.
Plots 139 & 144 at Readsland & Knocks owned by Evan, Peter & Hugh Newell
c/o A & L Goodbody, Solicitors, IFSC, Dublin. They objected on the grounds that the
Accesses being provided are unacceptable and are too close to the Roundabout; a relocation
of the Link road is required to reduce severance effects; Walls are required
instead of timber fences; there are Noise, Screen planting, Drainage, Road safety, Road
lighting and Security issues. The impact on their bloodstock business was not adequately
considered in the EIS.
Plot 162 at Rath Hill owned by Michael & Maureen Duffy, Rath Hill, Dunshaughlin
Objected to route as being flawed and could have been kept a further 200 metres out from
Dunshaughlin to reduce severance effects; to surplus land acquisition at 162a 202/203; to
the use of a shared underpass saying that a more suitable access would be from Clonloss
lane and that no access is being given to the severed strip at 162a.203
Plot 171 at Knockmark owned by Christopher Lynch c/o John Lynch, Augherskeagh,
Drumree objects as the route could have been altered slightly to minimise severance; to
the use of a shared underpass; to the loss of use of his watercourse(source of water). Says
the fence height, noise abatement, screen planting and drainage proposals are inadequate
and the EIS does not reflect the full impact on his property or the local environment.
Plot 172 at Knockmark owned by Michael Kieran, Knockmark, Drumree objected
through his Solicitors, JP Redmond & Co. Dublin, as he proposes a more feasible and
cost effective route and said he would outline this at the Hearing. Objected to the
underpass and service road proposed on his lands; says noise abatement, screen planting
and drainage are inadequate; that the provision for a Railway line which may never be
built is un-reasonable; that the EIS did not adequately reflect the negative impacts and
that the Council acted outside their jurisdiction and the proposal is part of a Plan that has
not been approved
Plots 174 &182 at Knockmark & Merrywell owned by Eddie Bannon, Knockmark,
Drumree objects as the Route selected is not the optimum from road safety, cost benefit
analysis and minimisation of negative impacts on properties and an Alternative route will
be put forward at the Hearing. Underpass is flawed as floor below ground level, wants
commitments about service ducts & fence maintenance. Noise abatement, Screen
planting, Drainage, Lighting, unauthorised parking in Cul-de-sac, temporary disturbance
proposals are unsatisfactory and the EIS does not reflect the full impact of the Scheme on
the Local environment or on his property
All of the following living in the Leshamstown Lane area near Drumree objected as
Access details, Services, Well / water table issues, Impact of Overbridge, Screen
planting, Road safety, Roundabout on Dunsany road and use of Leshamstown Lane as an
41
alternative route to the closure of the old R125 have not been resolved to their
satisfaction :-
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
Bridget Bowens, Roestown, Drumree
Carmel & Patrick Carroll, The Haven, Readsland, Drumree
Leo Lawlor, Watermeadows, Leshamstown, Drumree
Paul Manck, Birchlawn, Drumree
Patricia Murnane, Leshamstown, Drumree
Annette & Enda McDonagh, Leshamstown Lane, Drumree
Walter Smyth, Leshamstown, Drumree
Plot 183 at Bedfanstown owned by Gerry & Catherine Carry, Crosskeys, Drumree
c/o M/s Druker Fanning, Dublin. Objected to construction of a roundabout within 40
metres of house which fronts directly onto R125 near junction with R154. Said the
Council refused Planning in 1994/95 for a new house for them further back from the
road. Object to effects of Lighting, Noise levels & Closure of R125 as illegal parking will
follow and lack of details of new access, drainage impacts, boundary replacement, screen
planting and supply of water from wells. Concerned about disturbance and road safety
from proximity to roundabout
Plot 189 at Derrockstown owned by Shane Cassidy. 119 Navan Road Dublin
c/o Shane Redmond Commercial, Swords, Co. Dublin. Objected to severance cutting off
water /electricity supply and to removal of road frontage. Suggested existing road should
only be blocked at north and south margins of M3.
Plot 255 at Rathbeggan owned by David Robinson, Rathbeggan, Dunshaughlin
c/o Kieran O'Malley & Co. Ltd. Consulting Engineers St. Heliers, Stillorgan Park
Blackrock, Co. Dublin. Objected on the grounds that (1) the potential impact of the
preferred route was under-estimated when comparing it to alternatives, quoting extracts
from Section 4 in Vol.2 in support of this, (2) the environmental impact assessment on
Rathbeggan Lakes was inadequately addressed in the EIS and (3) that mandatory
information was not included in the EIS and referred to details about "production
processes" and " inter-relationships" being absent, thus making the EIS inadequate.
Plot 256 at Rathbeggan owned by Ronald Robinson, Rathbeggan, Dunshaughlin
c/o Kieran O'Malley & Co. Objected on the grounds that (1) the potential impact of the
preferred route was under-estimated when comparing it to alternatives, quoting extracts
from Section 4 of Vol.2 in support of this and (2), that mandatory information was not
42
included in the EIS and referred to "production processes" and " inter-relationships"
being absent, thus making the EIS inadequate.
Plot 264 at Quarryland owned by Bucco Ltd., Suite 1, Westpoint Health & Fitness
Centre, Blanchardstown, Co. Dublin. Objected to the acquisition unless a satisfactory
means of access was made available to the remainder of the lands and they were
compensated.
Plot 308 at Piercetown owned by SERLA Print Ltd, Serla House, Grennhills Road
Tallaght, Dublin 24 c/o Frances E. Barron Solicitors, Ashbourne. Objected as there was
an Alternative route available which was more cost-effective. The Council was acting in
excess of their jurisdiction and the Order was not made in accord with Law and the
Scheme was not part of an approved Plan. Also Objections from Joseph & Marita
Rodgers as Occupiers and Gary Rogers, Director of Serla Print as an affected person
Plot 326 at Dunboyne owned by Peter & Edward Henshaw, Benettstown, Dunboyne
c/o Killiney Design Associates, Blackrock, Co. Dublin. Objected due to Severance
effects; does not conform to the emerging preferred line in the Draft CDP of 2000 not so
far amended; that the present line was influenced by as yet undetermined factors --
archaeological reports -- and was unduly influenced by the location of existing cattle
sheds and that there are other more suitable road lines available. Said that they and
Eamon Walsh (Plot 475 ) between them control 70% of the land between the two
Roundabouts and both are in disagreement with the present line. Say that the initial
emerging preferred line, as published in the Draft Development Plan, while it did impact
on both holdings, would be accepted in its approx. location which is to the North of the
Cattle Shed and in an arc of some 2600 metre radius. They refer to considerable
correspondenec with the Council Design Office, enclosing copies, and said several
meetings which did not result in a satisfactory conclusion for them. Having referred to
various points in the EIS, they refer to a comment at page 72 of Vol C on Field 85 that
this field should be avoided and suggest that if their alternative of moving to Field 84 was
followed this concern would then be met and said that this was not referred to as a
possible mitigation measure. They suggest that the present line was determined from
erroneous factors in relation to the archaeological site -- apparently based on a phone
conversation with the Project Archaeologist on 28/05/01 --and suggest that there is a
viable alternative to that put forward by the Council. (Note - Objection by owner of Plot
475 was withdrawn during Hearing on Day 11 )
Plot 331 at Dunboyne owned by Emer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh & Bernard Walsh
Newtown Cottage, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne. Objected to surplus land being
acquired in 331c.201and that their septic tank is being affected; that Noise mitigation /
Lighting/ Access / Construction works controls/ Screen Planting/Drainage/ Traffic
management / Traffic calming proposals are unsatisfactory. Want Footpath provided,
Newtown Bridge preserved, the Roundabout moved further into agricultural land as was
done at Castlefarm and no field gate opposite their House. Object to the excessive size of
the roundabout within 0.5 kms of Dunboyne that will cut off access to playing pitches,
43
when it could have been out beyond these pitches. Fail to see why such a wide road is
required as it is only a Link road off the R157. Not satisfied the Council will take
adequate measures to prevent New Road from aggravating Flooding problems from
Tolka River at Newtown Bridge area as happened in Nov. 2000
Plot 332 at Castlefarm owned by Richard, M.J., & Doris Bruton, Newtown, Dunboyne
c/o Rice Jones, Solicitors, Dublin. Objected to severance, proposed access and
fragmentation of Farm and secondary pollution from Motorway
Plot 340 at Dunboyne owned by Sean Boylan, The Bungalow, Dublin Road, Dunboyne
Objected as land badly severed and access offered to cut off area is unsatisfactory
Plot 346 at Dunboyne owned by John Connaughton (Ltd.), Ballybane, Killiney Avenue,
Co. Dublin c/o Declan Brassil & Co.Planning Consultants, Clonee. While welcoming
the Motorway Scheme, he has a problem with a potentially significant impact which was
not identified in the EIS. Lands at the western part of the holding are identified as
Objective DB 16 in the Meath CDP of 2001 in the Dunboyne Development Area, with
access to the River Tolka (severed by the N3 flyover) being required to facilitate the
zoned development land. Requested that the Scheme be amended to provide for drainage
culverts/ channels and associated wayleaves from their Lands to the Tolka through the
CPO land
Plot 429 at Augherskeagh owned by Mary Redmond, Barnaderg, Drumree c/o
J.A.Shaw & Co., Solicitors. Objected to the scheme being so close to her House and
wants Noise, Screening, Lighting Mitigation and had Drainage and access concerns.
Plot 1052 at Roestown owned by Ben & Margaret Quinn, Westleigh Farm, Roestown,
Dunshaughlin. Objected to destruction of main entrance and 100 year old Beech trees as
present design required new entrance which was not suitable for their farm. Said careful
construction of Roestown Overbridge across the N3 would save the Beech trees but the
farm access should be reconsidered. Concerned about Noise, Light & Air pollution;
negative Visual effect and lack of access to severed land -- 1052a &1052c. Required
better screen planting and want slip roads reinstated into surrounding field to avoid
illegal parking /dumping.
Plot 1056 at Garretstown owned by Gerrardstown Stud, Gerrardstown, Dunshaughlin
c/o Kieran O' Malley & Co. Ltd. St. Heliers, Stillorgan Park, Blackrock Objected to the
location of the M3 on its lands; to the severance effects; to the constructional and
operational impacts on the environment and suggested that there was no determining of
overriding archaeological grounds to justify selecting a route through their property. They
suggested that there are several alternative routes available and supported this by a
Report from DBFL Consulting Engineers; that the Bloodstock Industry in Co. Meath
should get the same degree of support that is given in the Kildare CDP of 1999 in Section
2.11 and that there was insufficient data available either in the EIS or elsewhere to oblige
the Council to pursue any particular route option. Questioning the weighting that should
have been applied to some of the "tentative" wording in the conclusions drawn in the
44
report of Margaret Gowen & Co in Vol 4C, they ask that the alignment in the CPO be
rejected.
Geraldine Hennessey, Spearsview Cottage, Cooksland, Dunshaughlin, c/o Kevin
Walsh & Associates, Robertstown House, Baldoyle Industrial Estate, Co. Dublin.
Objected to the location of the Temporary road needed while the M3 O/B over the N3 at
Cooksland was being built as this wouldl be only 8 metres from her back wall and could
cause structural damage, as well as Noise & light pollution. Wanted this temporary road
moved so it was at least 20 metres away with a solid timber hoarding of at least 3 metres
put in place and 4 metres out on either side of her property. Questioned need for 8 metre
height of finished road level over road level of existing N3 giving rise to loss of privacy
and increased impacts of noise & light. Requested a reduction of 2 metres in this road
level, landscaping of embankments, surface water diverted from reaching her property
and details of lighting scheme. Also wanted assurances about nature of future
developments of lands surrounding her property which would be owned by the Council.
(Note -- property not in CPO)
Plot 1067 at Collierstown owned by Captain Anthony & Catherine Canavan,
Collierstown, Tara. Objected on the grounds that Skryne and Tara hinterland were
already split by the N3 which could easily be upgraded. Said that high levels of noise and
pollution would result from having N3 and M3 so close together. Suggested the Route
was designed to force people to use a tolled road and could have stayed West of
Dunshaughlin and Tara and still link to Navan and Kells. Said that the M3 would destroy
Dowdstown/Dalgan Park and the Hill of Skryne/Tara. Said wells and septic tanks would
be affected by the construction and wanted mains water extended and sewers for the
area. Wants a Footpath from Ross Cross to Skryne to prevent the Cul-de-sacs becoming
an eyesore and the junction made safe. Want Oak tree opposite their house retained.
Plot 1074 at Baronstown owned by John Wilkinson, Baronstown, Tara. Objected to
acquisition as requiring un-necessary removal of front boundary wall; trees; part of tennis
court and said that road could be moved northwards by increasing take in plots 1074f.201
& 1075a.202. Wants his stone wall replaced by using the original stones.
Liam Doyle & Grace Martin, Branstown, Tara. Objected as the degree of Screening,
when their house was at P27 in Vol. 4A and "moderate minor" does not adequately
describe the severely negative impact of the Road on their house and those of their
neighbours. Enclosed the submission of the Skryne /Tara N3 Action Group to the Council
which outlined their reasons for opposing the Preferred Route on the Skryne side of the
N3. Say that the M3 will have an irreparable effect on the Environment, the Local &
National Heritage and the Local Community. ( Note -- property not in CPO)
George & Mary Begley, Collierstown, Tara. Objected to scheme as inadequate
information was provided at the Public consultation Meetings ( Brochure & Briefing
document enclosed) saying no mention of a Tolled Motorway was ever made. Objected
to effects from Noise, on Air Quality and to un-authorised camping/dumping that could
45
follow on disused sections. They live on the road between Ross Cross and Skryne
referred to as "Collierstown Road" in EIS and are close to Baronstown to Skryne Road
and to Collierstown to Trevet Road and can hear traffic noise from the N3 so will hear
more from the M3 as it will be much closer to them.
Plot 1083 at Lismullin owned by Phillip & Margaret Ryan, Lismullin, Navan. Objected
as the degree of severance would make farm un-viable and EIS did not refer to their
breeding of Sport horses and ponies in Vol. 4A. Said that their bungalow was described
as "P52, bungalow suffering no significant effect " at page 91 of Vol. 4A while P51
further away is affected "moderately". Objected to proposed access to severed 105 acres
of land by means of an Overbridge as non-viable for financial, social and agricultural
reasons and say this Bridge should not be confirmed as CR 1345 as previously named by
Meath, and as L5012 ( Lismullin Lane) in the CPO, could easily be accessed from the N3
some 400 metres away. Objected to Screen planting proposals, Noise abatement
measures, Lighting, temporary disturbance, effects on wells, Lack of facilities on severed
lands, fencing type and general disturbance during construction. They said scheme is
unreasonable, badly designed, contrary to Law and Human Rights and forms part of a
Plan that has not been approved, and with Meath CC acting outside their jurisdiction.
Plot 1092 at Castletown Tara owned by Liam Donohue, Garlow Cross, Navan
c/o Donohue Mackey & Co. Solicitors, Railway Road, Cavan. Objected as the EIS was
defective since it failed to consider the impacts of Noise levels; Construction; Air
pollution; and on property values. Objected to excessive and surplus acquisitions; failure
to consider other schemes; to have regard to the CDP; to provide sufficient traffic data to
enable assessment of design made by his advisors or to address drainage issues. Said M3
road Interchange would have a detrimental effect on his lands at Castletown Tara.
Plot 1094 at Dowdstown owned by Columban Missionaries -- See under Laurence Gunne
Ltd. at page 39 for details.
Plot 1109 at Ardsallagh owned by Cormac Murray, Wood Lodge, Ardsallagh c/o Streen
O'Reilly & Co. Solicitors, Navan. Objected to the proposal to demolish his House. Also
Thomas Wimesy, Gate Lodge, Ardsallagh, as Occupier of Plot 1109c, objected to
removal of his access and place to park his car and to Private Right of Way DL1 being
replaced, unless an equally convenient one was put in place.
Plot 1138 at Ardsallagh owned by Bective GFC . Objected to acquisition of their Bus
Park (1138a.201) at the Bective GFC Sports grounds at Cannistown. See also under
Laurence Gunne Ltd. at page 39.
Bellinter Residents Association, c/o Alan Park, Bellinter Cross, Navan. Object on the
basis of the Alternative Route they propose and other factors which will be presented at
the Hearing.
46
James McCaldrin, Oak Lodge, Bellinter, Navan -- See submissions made to Road
Development on page 55 for objections
Joseph Heery, Ardsallagh, Navan. Objected as he has concerns about drainage effects
from the Motorway on his lands which adjoin Ardsallagh Wood. ( Member of
Cannistown Residents Association -- no property in CPO)
Plot 2103 at Williamstown or Bawn owned by Mark Corley, Grange, Bective, Navan
c/o Malone & Martin, Solicitors, Navan. Objected on grounds of surplus land being
acquired in 2103.202. Said Screen planting, Noise mitigation & Land drainage was
inadequate; that it was not necessary to realign the Trim road here and that this would
reduce the area being acquired. Objected to the access being provided and wanted an
underpass.
Plot 2107 at Balreask Old owned by the Reps of Christopher Dowdall, Balreask Old,
Navan, c/o Steen O'Reilly, Solicitors, Navan. Objected on grounds of access being
impeded, service road being too close to House and surplus land being acquired which
may be sold on to others and inadequate access being provided to allow for future
development of lands.
Plot 2142 at Macetown owned by Stan & Bernadette Kennelly, Knockanure House,
Macetown, Navan. Object to surplus land at their entrance being acquired which remove
their privacy. Say the noise abatement proposed; road safety effects at their front entrance
and cul-de-sac arrangements are inadequate and that the EIS is inadequate these issues.
Plot 2165 at Hanlonstown owned by Patrick Darcy, Boyerstown, c/o Shane Redmond
Commercial, Swords. Objected due to severance effects and to the use of shared access
facilities. Said the bend in the access is too sharp for use by articulated trucks he uses to
take hay off his land.
Plot 2200 at Neilstown owned by Margaret & John Donaghy, Ardbraccan, Navan
Objected as they will be hemmed in by the Motorway now being at the front and side of
their house, on part of their front garden taken that has taken them 30 years to develop,
and with Noise pollution etc to contend with.
S.J. Maher, Ardbraccan House, Navan c/o Arthur P. McLean & Co., Solicitors
Objected to the CPO and said that the requirements of Section 9 (1) of the P& D Act
1999 made it a Statutory Duty on her to do so, in relation to the impact of the Motorway
on Ardbraccan House, Ardbraccan Church, the village, burial mound and associated
lands.Referred to (1) the totality of Ardbraccan Estate; (2) non-compliance with Statutory
Archaeological & Architectural Heritage and with CDP; protection of SRUNA; effect on
Burial Mound; effects on Bloodstock activity; effects on Bats at Ardbraccan and other
Wildlife; non- compliance with NRA/Duchas Accord; impact on future development for
Ardbraccan House ( as setting for music events); Noise mitigation measures;
Landscaping and screening requirements; increased traffic on local roads; construction
47
working hours unacceptable. Concerned about Road Policy and Design, Public
Consultation process and Tolling proposals. Said Ardbraccan Estate and area was
inadequately assessed. ( Note -- no property in CPO at time the Motorway Order was
made but it was indicated during the Hearing on Day 26 that Plots 2209 and 2214 had
been purchased by Mahers in August 2002).
Brian Smyth, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan. Objects to motorway and will state reasons
at hearing. (Note -- no property in CPO)
Plot 2223 at Neilstown owned by Vivienne Kennedy, Neilstown Lodge, Neilstown.
Objected to acquisition of a corner of her garden to provide for entrance to new road (
(Neilstown diversion) as there is plenty of land in the adjoining field, part of which is
being acquired as well, to move the entrance out of her garden.
Plot 3039 at Kilmainham owned by Mrs. Winnie Madden, Kilmainham -- See
submissions made to Road Development on page xx for details of objections.
Plot 3046 at Kilmainham owned by Bridget Tansey, Carkfree, Ballinameen, Boyle,
Co. Roscommon, c/o C.E. Callan & Co. Solicitors, Boyle. Claimed CIE released interest
by Indenture of April 1967 to Seamus Smith, Oldcastle line.Said Ms Tansey was one of
the persons entitled to be registered as Owner of the Plot and that CIE relinquished their
interest in this plot by the Conveyance of 12/04/1967 and the Abandonment Order of
7/10/63 of the Oldcastle line and asked that the Records be amended.
Plots 3065 & 3072 at Rockfield & Townparks owned by George Armstrong, Newrath
and W.& G. Armstrong (Kells) Ltd. -- See submissions made to Road Development on
page 61 for details of objections.
Plot 3075 at Townparks owned by Thomas Gavigan, Oldcastle Road, Kells, c/o Donal
O'Buachalla, Merrion Square, Dublin. Objected to the N52 Mullingar to N3 section
where the New is "squeezed" through a narrow gap between his House and St. Columba's
Nursing Home and under the R163. Said this causes major severance to his lands;
impacts on his views; and devalues the property. Also objected to acquisition of lane to
east of Nursing Home and suggested the N52 should be moved westwards to pass west of
the Commons of Lloyd which would allow for Route E and the proposed N3 to tie into
the existing N3 near the Industrial estate as a more efficient and cost effective proposal.
Plot 3094 at Cakestown Glebe owned by Norman Ormiston, Blackwater House, Kells --
see submissions made to road development on page 61 for details of objections.
Plot 3095 at Cakestown Glebe owned by Phillip Dunne, Cakestown Glebe, Kells. See
submission made to Road Development on page 61 for detailsof objections.
Plot 4003 at Calliaghstown owned by Edward & Bridget Whelan, Calliaghstown. -- See
submissions made to Road Development on page 61 for details of objections.
48
Plot 4018 at Drumbaragh owned by James McDonald, Drumbaragh, c/o Shane Redmond
Commercial, Swords. Objected due to Severance effects which would place the recently
constructed slatted Cattle Shed on the wrong side of the road to the land. Suggested that
a new shed be built.
Plots 4025, 4035 & 4036 at Castlekeeran & Woodpole owned by Michael & Elizabeth
Farrelly, & Christopher Farrelly, Woodpole, c/o GVA Donal O Buachalla. Objected to
the effects of severance and loss of water supply on these holdings which are worked as a
single family farm. Details of access arrangements and underpass proposed have not been
made available. Say that route is ill-advised and that the Proposed N3 could have
followed the Existing N3 more closely which would be shorter, more cost effective and
have a lessor impact on the environment.
Plot 4051 at Derver owned by Michael Lynch, Derver, Carnaross. See under Laurence
Gunne Ltd. at page 39 for details.
Plot 4054 at Castlekeeran owned by John Kearney, Meenlagh, Carnaross.
Objected to the M3 as he does not want to have to use a "pathway" through Michael
Farrelly's land as his access road. He wanted a Tunnel ( underpass) instead from one part
of his land to the other and if this was not given the entire farm should be purchased.
The objections made on behalf of their Clients by Gaynor Corr & Associates Ltd.,
Agronomists & Property Consultants, Portlaois were, in general terms, similar and
mainly relate to "Accommodation Works and Related Issues", and are summarised
hereunder:-
Access Details inadequately dealt with and proposals for temporary road access
were unacceptable.
Fencing proposals inadequate / unacceptable.
Additional access gates required and at positions to be agreed with land owner.
Insufficient commitment given re maintenance of Services during construction
work.
No commitment to conducting Structural surveys of Houses near New roads.
No commitment to assess and sample Wells which could be affected by nearby
road construction.
Effects of lowering of Water table on gardens/lands & Pollution not addressed.
Proposals for Over Bridges (O/B) adjacent to property unsatisfactory with
negative Visual Impact and Noise Problems not adequately addressed.
49
Tree Planting and Screening proposals inadequate and unsatisfactory.
The potential for flow of Drainage water from road onto property not adequately
addressed.
Noise Mitigation proposals generally unsatisfactory.
Road Safety issues -- inadequate details given for Traffic Calming on realigned
roads ( O/B & cul-de-sac areas).
-- No provision for Footpath/ Cyclepath in same areas.
Excessive/ Unnecessary area of land being acquired / Inadequate details given of
proposals for surplus land adjacent to property.
Inadequate details of Service Ducts being provided.
Excess Roadway in Cul-de-sacs -- inadequate proposals given to prevent abuses.
Proposals for Road Lighting close to property unsatisfactory.
Insufficient information on reinstatement of boundaries given.
Shared accommodation roads / underpass unacceptable.
Wanted underpasses instead of Rights of Way (shared passages).
Flooding of lands issues.
Tolls -- property owners object to tolling of roads.
The EIS did not adequately reflect the full impact of the scheme on the Local
Environment and on land owners property.
Motorway Order not made in accord with Law / Meath Co.Co. acting in excess of
jurisdiction / Part of a Plan not approved by Council.
A full list of M/s Gaynor Corr's Clients is given in Appendix 3 of this Report and details
of those of their Clients who withdrew their objections during the Hearing are given at
pages 25 to 27 in Section 9 of this Report.
Submissions to Road Development (EIS) :-
Duchas, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2.
(1) Archaeological --- Land & Underwater
50
Agreed with recommendations for Mitigation of Impacts and suggested testing be
carried out as early as possible to formulate Work Strategies to resolve the
Archaeology Issues identified in the EIS.
(2) Architectural.
Said definition of Buildings of Architectural, Artistic & Cultural Heritage in the
EIS was too restrictive of what constituted " Architectural Heritage". Said that
there was no reference in Vols. 3, 4, 5 & 6 to other structures such as Corn Mills,
Millponds etc and said this Section should be reviewed. Indicated satisfaction
with details in Vol.7 for that Section.
An Taisce, Tailors Hall, Back Lane, Dublin 8. ( by Ian Lumley)
EIS failed to consider Induced traffic effects; failed to consider Greenhouse Gas
Emmissions; failed to consider the SPG's for greater Dublin, in particular the rail
alternatives. The Need for the proposed Motorway should be justified in the light
of the "Needs Study" proposals. The impact on the Tara/ Skryne area was not
adequately considered and the "Off-Site" impacts such as Quarrying for Fill
material was not considered. In overall the EIS failed to satisfy EC Directive
97/11/EC requirements.
The Arts Council, 70 Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
Said that the adverse effects on Ardbraccan House as a "Protected Structure" from
Noise and its Impacts on the proposed development of the House and grounds for
Music events should be considered by An Bord. Wanted views of Meath Co.
Council obtained on Potential of Artistic/Cultural value to the County .
Bat Conservation Group, Cavan/Meath Branch, 32 The Old Mill, Rathoath.
The Bat Survey undertaken was inadequate and did not cover the entire length of
the proposed road.
5. Meath Roads Action Group, c/o Eamon Halligan, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
There was inadequate consultation and there was a lack of information given out
at Meetings. Will have severe effects on Tara. An alternative proposal was
submitted and this was to be assessed by the Council but no feed back was given
to them.
Meath Archaeological & Historical Society -- Oliver Ward, Spiddal, Nobber
Wanted all Cultural sites, Natural Features, old Field and Road Names, trees
mapped and recorded before site work commenced.
51
Irish Georgian Society, 74 Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
Concerned by effects on Ardbraccan House, a Protected Structure of National
Importance. Referred to "Venice Charter", Article 6 and the provisions of Part 4
of the P & D Act of 2000.
Dunboyne Historical Society -- Linda Clare, Coolcommon, Batterstown, Dunboyne.
Made similar submissions to Meath Arch.& Hist. Society at 6 above. Want a
Local "Liason" person to be appointed to protect cultural aspect of the Route by
Photographic record.
Liam Scott, Piercetown House, Piercetown, Dunboyne
Suggested by examples that there would be inadequate access to Piercetown at
peak traffic period and said there was inadequate data to be able to assess Noise
abatement. Had concerns about effects from Toll Plaza, increased local journeys
and effects on future sewerage disposal schemes by severance of community.
Newtown Bridge Residents Association, c/o Lorrha Lodge, Summerhill Road
Dunboyne -- Deirdre Deasy & Owen McBreen
See no need for proposed Link Road from PACE Interchange to R157 as this will
increase traffic onto R156, Summerhill Road. They suggested an alternative of
relocating the roundabout and reducing its width. They want reduced Noise, stone
screen walls and better Landscaping.
Garnett Hall Residents Association, c/o 5 Garnett Hall, Dunboyne --
Catherine Connolly & Dawn Tolan
Their estate is 6 years in place where noise is low at present. New road 300
metres away will increase noise. Increased traffic on existing road will follow
from toll avoidance by HGVs and they want noise abatement and landscaping to
ensure quality of life is maintained.
David Deasy, Lorrha Lodge, Dunboyne
Objected to Link to R156 & R157 due to noise; effects on rural environment and
flooding problems. It would increase traffic and junction with R156 would
become traffic hazard. Wanted width of road and roundabout reduced, better
screening and reduced noise
Owen & Mairin McBreen, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne
52
Objected to new Link from PACE to R156 & R157 as it would lead to increased
traffic on both roads from Toll avoidance. They wanted reduced road and
roundabout widths, noise abatement and landscaping and referred to flooding
problems from Tolka River.
Mary Keane, Leshamstown, Drumree
Closure of R125 would divert traffic along Leshamstown Lane which was too
narrow. Asked if a Footpath would be provided along it for walkers ? Had
concerns about effects on Wells by road excavation --- no mains water, sewer or
Lighting on Lane but Traffic diversion was main concern.
Brendan & Dolores Murphy, Leshamstown
Concerned about effect of road excavation on Wells in area. Suggested location of
roundabout on Dunsany Road L2208 would divert all traffic past GAA and Pitch
& Putt grounds, 2 Schools and Community Centre. Closure of R125 would divert
traffic onto Leshamstown Lane which is very narrow. Also Tolling concerns.
Jack Irwin, Roestown..
Frank Fitzmaurice, Leshamstown
Both had concerns about effects on Wells; increased traffic on Dunsany Road and
Leshamstown Lane and objected to "upgrading" of Leshamstown Lane; noise
impacts and disturbance during construction. Suggested location of M3 junction
to NW of Dunshaughlin would increase traffic on R125, Drumree Road and
tolling would result in diverted traffic there.
Andy Morgan, Leshamstown Lane
Concerned with diversion of traffic onto Leshamstown Lane from closure of
R125. Wanted Lane upgraded and footpath provided on the Lane.
Barbara Finlay, Leshamstown Manor.
While generally in favour of Clonee/ Dunshaughlin improvement, had concerns
of effects of making Cul-de-sacs of R125 and diverting traffic onto Leshamstown
Lane. Suggested a Link Road between severed road and a proposed Secondary
Road to link R125 onto the Interchange to facillitate Drumree / Knockmark
Raynestown Residents Association, Raynestown, Dunshaughlin
Objected to acquisition of land for constructing new access road, running south on
east side of M3, to land-locked area that never had direct access to the N3 -- it has
a R.of W. from the N3 and this should continue in use. They said Motorway
53
Order was premature and not made in accordance with Law. Inadequate details
were given to property owners on effects on Access; Septic Tank impacts;
Maintenance of Services; Noise abatement measures; Screen planting; Drainage
issues; Mature Trees; Temporary access during construction and general
Disruption. They objected to the negative impacts on Visual Amenities and the
increased journey times which are detailed at page 75(of the EIS) and said that the
EIS was inadequate as regards impacts on the Local Environment
Patricia & James Conroy, Collierstown, Tara
Have concerns about maintenance of Cul-de-sacs created by O/B arrangements
with the risk of refuse being dumped there. They opposed the concept of Tolling.
Tom Foley & Karen Carty, Collierstown
Objected to noise from Motorway-- their house is on the Skryne Road from Ross
Cross to the Church-- also to the lack of trees along the Motorway to the south of
the Collierstown intersection.
Anastasia Crickley, 30A St. Kevins Road, Dublin 8
Objected on behalf of her Mother, Mrs. Margaret Crickley ( aged 81) living in
Brick, Trevitt, Tara ( in the bungalow described as "P17" in Table 5.4 on page 90
of the EIS), to the effects from the realignment of L5012, the Trevitt road, at
Berrillstown and to the movement eastwards of the M3 at Berrilstown -- Blue
Route 2-- as in Fig. 4.2 on page 14 in the summary. This had a Major Visual,
Noise & Air impact with the road being virtually in her Mother's backgarden.
There was no convincing rationale in the EIS of how these impacts would be
addressed. Also had concerns for other residences there, with the temporary &
longterm Impacts being Major. Said it was not clear why the Blue Route was
selected over the Orange to the West in the light of Archaeological importance of
the Tara /Skryne complex.
Seamus Farrelly, Hill of Skryne, Tara
Objected to Motorway being built in the valley between Tara and Skyrne Hills in
view of Archaeological & Historical importance of this location, and referred to
statements in Vol.4A at Section 13.4.2 on accommodation works and at Section
13.3.2 on mitigation measures in support of this. Objected to suggestion at 8.4
that effects on Wells could be mitigated by their being deepened (by owners).
Said that the Hot Springs in the Skane River were not mentioned in Section 7.
Conor Newman, M.A., N.U.I., Galway
Referred to his involvement with the Tara/ Skryne complex as a Director of the
Discovery Program and as the Author of a number of Papers on the Archaeology
54
of the area. Objected to the M3 being in the Valley between Tara and Skryne as
this would be seriously injurious to Archaeological remains there and referred to
the absence of images of the geophysical survey in the EIS as compromising the
EIS, while acknowledging that the Council Archaeologist offered him the
opportunity of examining these images in their Offices.
26. Dr. Brian Lacey, Discovery Program Ltd., 34 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2.
Objected, on behalf of the Discovery Program, to the M3 being constructed in the
Valley between Tara and Skryne Hills, as the Valley is part of the Archaeological
Landscape of Tara and should not now be destroyed. He suggested that this route
for the M3 affects more known monuments than any of the other options available
27. John Delaney, Montbretia, Grange, Bective, Navan.
Objected to the overall scheme for Clonee to Kells as it impacts on Tara / Skryne
saying there were other and better solutions available for the traffic problems and
suggested that the provision of a future rail system would be affected if the M3
was built.
28. Shiela Bradley, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross, Navan
Objected to M3 coming so near to her house with Noise, and Air pollution; the
effects on the Well and drainage and the loss of privacy. Said that there is Fog in
the valley at Blundellstown in the winter and this would create danger for traffic.
29. Kathleen & Patrick Farrelly, Dowdstown, Garlow Cross, Navan
Objected to M3 being so close to their house ( at the back) with the Bridge
crossing the M3 causing their house to be surrounded by roads with no privacy
left as the New road will be visible from three sides of their house. Objected to
the effects on the Walks in Dalgan Park; to the Noise & Air pollution; to the
effects on their water supply from their well, and to their septic tank. Concerned
for their Safety from traffic travelling above the level of their house; the
disruption during construction and of the possibility of future re-zoning near
them, all of which would disturb the rural environment in their area.
30. Pat Raleigh, Mission Education Department, St. Columbans, Dalgan Park
Objected to proposed route of M3 through Dalgan Park in Dowdstown as this
would impact on the ethos of Dalgan Park and Dowdstown House and the 6 kms
of Woodland / River Walks in the area and would also affect the environment in
which the Mission Education Dept. operates.
31. Catherine Reilly, 48 Blackcastle, Navan
55
Objected to the effect on Dalgan Park and its walks by the traffic noise pollution
and to the effects on the Hill of Tara and tourism. Said the Motorway will
encourage more City commuting.
32. Margaret McGrath, Sion Cottage, Johnstown, Navan
33. Catherine Cleary, Sion House, Johnstown, Navan.
Both objected to the M3 due to its effects on Dalgan Park and the walks there.
34. Pauline Connolly, c/o St. Michaels Secondary School, Loreto, Navan
On behalf of 21 in the School, objected to the M3 through Tara and Bellinter and
to its effects on Dalgan Park. Said that Rail Transport should be considered
instead. Objected to tolling of Road.
35. Bellinter Residents Association, Bellinter
Objected to M3 for its effects on Dalgan Park; on Residents of the area and on
Tara and Skryne. Said that it contravened the Meath CDP of 1994 and the Draft
CDP of 2000 and the findings of the Constraints Report. Said that the proposal as
being an improvement of traffic flows on the N3 is flawed as it will worsen the
problems at Blanchardstown Roundabout and suggested that there were at least
Two Alternative Routes that would avoid their areas of concern.
36. Thomas & Margaret Hamill, Bellinter, Navan
Objected to Route selected as this was a different route to that shown in Public
Consultation documents. It was not a combination of route "D" and "E" and was
not then properly assessed. Objected to effects on Tara, Skryne, Dalgan Park &
Dowdstown House and said no provision was being made for a Railway crossing
for the proposed Navan Rail Link or to take this into account.
37. Helen Ryan, Ardsbeg, Bellinter
Said that the M3 could have been continued onwards ( Northwards) for another
half mile, which would allow it to cut across behind Dalgan Park and so avoid
affecting the Park and walks. Said that all that was needed was for a By-pass of
Dunshaughlin and to re-open the Rail line to Navan.
38. James McCaldrin, Oak Lodge, Bellinter
Had concerns that the proposed M3 would be very close to his property and
wanted a Noise Barrier installed along his entire frontage and at least 4 metres
high to protect privacy as well as to stop noise intrusion. This Barrier should be a
56
4 m reinforced concrete wall, stone faced in keeping with the existing wall at Oak
Lodge and this was his preferred option.
39. Anne Barber, Bellinter
Objected to Route due to effects on Hills of Tara & Skryne; and on Dalgan Park;
to Severe Visual effects and to Air & Noise pollution for Residents of Bellinter.
Said that a Rail link to Navan from Dublin would be better and more
environmentally friendly and also objected to the Tolling & PPP concept.
40. Christopher & Claire Oakes, Bellinter
Objected to proximity of M3 to their houses, with 9 being within 100 metres; 22
within 200 metres and 5 within 300 metres, a total of 36 within 300 metres.
Objected to effects on amenities of Tara, Dowdstown, Dalgan Park, Bellinter &
Ardsallagh and on the Archaeology of Tara & Skryne. Said that the Constraints
document of May 2000 was produced after the Emerging Preferred Route had
been announced.
41. John & Patricia McCormick, San Antonio, Bellinter
Objected to impact of noise & air pollution on their house on county road 369 and
say that the cul-de-sac of 369 would cut off their direct route into Navan and
would affect Cannistown School. Said that the bridge and motorway would have a
detrimental effect on a Landscape protected in the 1994 CDP and the 2000 Draft
CDP and that the Archaeology of Tara and Skryne would be affected.
42. Alan Park, Bellinter Cross
Objected to proposed M3 from Clonee to Carnaross and that he would outline his
reasons at the Hearing.
43. Brendan, Anne, Estelle & Lynette Magee, Bellinter
Objected to effects on Dalgan Park / Dowdstown / Ardsallagh / Bellinter
amenities, areas of High amenity, and on Hills of Tara & Skryne Archaeology.
Said making a cul-de-sac of their road would affect their Community and that
Noise pollution from the M3, only 100 metres away, would devalue their
property. They said the M3 would only bring traffic quicker to Blanchardstown
where the traffic problem already exists.
44. Raymond & Elizabeth Martin, Bellinter
Objected to effects on Dalgan Park / Dowdstown / Ardsallagh / Bellinter
amenities, areas of High amenity, and on Hills of Tara & Skryne Archaeology.
That proximity of the M3, only 100 metres away, would bring Air / Noise
57
pollution to them. They said the proposal is not a Realignment of the N3 but is a
New roadway.
45. Cannistown Residents Association,
c/o Thelma Keating, Talara House, The Avenue, Ardsallagh
Objected as no details of access to individual houses had been given; no
commitment on services & boundaries being maintained; want Noise reduction
and better Screen planting. Drainage proposals inadequate; lighting unsuitable;
cul-de-sacs unacceptable. No commitment given that amenities would not be
eroded or local Habitats would be protected or for construction damage
avoidance. There was no provision for Footpaths and cycleways on Cannistown
O/B
46. Aidan & Thelma Keating, Talara House, The Avenue, Ardsallagh
Made the same objections as in Residents Association submission above.
47. John & Rose Smyth, Ardsallagh
Supported objections by Cannistown Residents Association and also objected to
the destruction of their view of the countryside and to the Noise / Air pollution
and to the removal of the wooded area at the front of their house.
48. James McIntyre, Boyne Hill, Navan
Had concerns about the effects of the Link Road from Kilcarn Interchange to
Navan on his property from Noise and Visual impacts and for safety aspects.
Suggested that lowering the road level opposite their house ( circa chn 1400)
rather than raising it as proposed would reduce Noise/ Visual impacts and would
not worsen road safety. Said their House is P10 Visual and that screen planting
should be further extended from "A" to "C" as shown on the Map he submitted --
Chn 1450 to Chn 1100 minimum.
49. M/s Steen O'Reilly & Co. Solicitors, Navan, on behalf of Ronald Sherlock,
t/a Sherlock Furniture, Balreask Old, Navan.
Objects to proposed Closure of Swan Lane as this will cut off his access from the
Main Dublin Road at Kilcarn Bridge. Said that access via Ardboyne along
Balreask Old road was unsuited to Heavy Vehicles and was too winding and that
Signs as suggested by Council would not help as people say it is too far out of
their way. Said that a direct access to the Kilcarn New Roundabout across Meath
Council Lands would solve his problem and that when this was raised with the
Design Engineers they did not give it sufficient consideration.
50. Ray Keegan, Grange, Bective, Navan
58
Objected to proposed M3 due to inadequate provisions for protection of fauna;
increased surface water discharge of pollutants to waterways; lowering of water
table; replanting of hedgerows disturbed during construction; guarantees of area
being restored to its present state after construction; compensation measures
where farmers adjoining route of CPO for animal stress, inconvenience etc
maintenance of services at all times; reduction of noise; safety of children going
to school during construction work and of how construction companies will
operate to avoid impacting on residents in the area.
51. Moatville Residents Association by Ruth Cahill, Chairperson, c/o 10 Moatville
While welcoming the scheme in general for removing traffic from Navan town,
they wanted Roundabout at N51 junction moved circa 25 metres westwards along
"old N51" to minimise removal of their tree screen. Said that traffic analysis in
EIS ignored the use of Mullaghboy Estate Road and no details were given of the
capacity of the Attenuation Pond to deal with severe rainfall. They objected to the
new entrance proposed for Moatville as the existing one is satisfactory.
52. Patricia Gibney, 5 Woodlands, Navan
Objected to effects on her property at Plot 2387 in Boyerstown as proposal would
not allow her to build a Septic tank or a New entrance. The Bank within 80 metres
would impact on her view and on the value of her property there.
53. Brian Smyth, Tankardstown, Navan
Objected to the M3 Motorway and will state his reasons at the hearing.
54. Richard Byrne, Ardbraccan
Supported the objections by the Ardbraccan / Boyerstown N3 Navan By-pass
Group and said that the Route was selected for the wrong reasons and that a better
route was available as an Alternative; had concerns about Noise / Air pollution,
construction work problems and the aesthetics of the Tool Booths for residents
55. Edwina Dunne, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan
Objected as incorrect reasons were given in selecting Route and had concerns
about Environmental issues of Noise; Light (from Toll Plaza); Air; Location of
Toll Booths; possible rat infestation during construction work; access road
drainage; safety of school going children; additional traffic in construction phase
and also objected to Toll costs for local residents.
59
All of the following submitted objections using a Standard Format from the Ardbraccan
/ Boyerstown N3 Navan By-pass Group and for the same reasons as set out in those of
Edwina Dunne above :-
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
62. Rebecca Rennicks, Coolfore Road
63. Ivan Rennicks, Coolfore Road
64. Brian Smyth, Coolfore Road
65. Fiona Feely, Coolfore Road, Ardbraccan, who also wanted to outline her objections
at the Hearing
66. H.R. & R. M. Pagan, Islay, Ardbraccan, Boyerstown
Objected on grounds of effects on Archaeology & Heritage of Skryne, Tara &
Ardbraccan and that the Traffic volumes did not justify the financial cost of
building a Motorway. They said that the Safety of school children would be in
danger from the Construction traffic in the Boyerstown and Bohermeen areas
and they had Environmental concerns of Noise and Light Pollution.
67. Simon Hilliard, Ardbraccan, Boyerstown
Objected to the M3 and had not been able to establish how close it would be to his
house, he thought it would be about 50 metres away. He raised specific queries
with the Design Staff but his concerns had not been taken on board by Meath /
NRA. He could not establish how his Septic Tank and Site Drainage would be
protected from Motorway surface water; could not get information on Noise
Barriers, Screening or Air quality. Said his Quality of Life in a Rural area would
be destroyed. His house is P92. He attached a copy of a letter of 12/04/02 to the
Project Engineer with 15 separate questions he wanted answers for.
68. Sean Finlay, The Glebe House, Ardbraccan
60
Said that, in principle, he did not object to the M3 but he had observations to
make, which he made previously to Meath Co. Co. but was not given satisfactory
replies. Said that the inclusion of Two "Dubious" routes in the Route Selection
process detracted from the credibility of this process and he referred to a Report
by Frank Burke of October 2000 for the Ardbraccan Residents, which dealt with
future trends in Navan population growth and development, and in which an
alternative route for the Ardbraccan area was outlined -- this was not referred to in
the EIS. He said there was evidence of the effects of Toll avoidance in other
Countries and that it was logical to expect that the Ardbraccan/ Boyerstown roads
would suffer from the same. His house was 400 metres from the M3 and the
nearest Noise Stations in the EIS were those at 10, 22 & 25 -- it was not clear if
toll avoidance traffic effects were taken into account in the predicted noise levels.
Said there are Reports available on the Ardbraccan Mound by Arch Consultants
which he gave to Meath CC but the EIS did not refer to these Reports. No specific
measures were given in the EIS for Landscaping to Mitigate the "moderate"
effects on his Residence. The Neilstown Road would be in cut near to a shallow
well and the impacts on this well, and to St. Ultan's Well, were not dealt with in
the EIS.
69. W. G. Dallas, Martry, Kells
Had concerns about the Construction Phase Traffic and that no requirements were
stated to be complied with in the EIS for mitigation measures when monitoring
noise, dust or traffic frequency. Asked how a decision could be taken about what
routes were to be used when no predictions of traffic movements had been given.
He suggested that local traffic would avoid Toll fees by using local roads giving
rise to increased traffic on them. Said no explanation was given why 55 dBA is
applied to Industry and 68 dBA for Roads as a Noise Mitigation threshold.
70. Phillip Dunne, Cakestown Glebe, Kells
Objected to the way his land was cut in two by the road with the land being left on
the Kells side being of little use to him. Said he has lost the entire road frontage
and wanted the route reconsidered t reduce the impact as three of his fields were
being split.
71. Mrs. Winnie Madden, Kilmainham -- Plot 3039
Objected to CPO & EIS both for the M3/N3 link and the N52 alternative access
for Kells Town Centre. Is owner of a 24 acre holding created by the Land
Commission and said that Visual intrusion was excessive, there was no Noise
mitigation proposed and Landscaping was sub-standard. Said objection would be
withdrawn if plot 3039a.201 was omitted and 3039a.203 was reduced to reflect
only what land was required for construction permanently and direct access was
given from either side of the Link Road.
61
72. Norman Ormiston, Blackwater House, Kells Plot 3094
Said he is a bloodstock and cattle farmer and the N52 By-pass Link would
severely impact on his operations and on the property, Blackwater House, a
protected structure. Suggested that a better route could be found by using an
alignment that passed further to the west and north in the section between the N3
and the N52. This would pass north of the ringfort in Cakestown Glebe, the
property referred to as Archdeaconry Glebe & Archdeaconry House in Vol. 6C of
the EIS report by Margaret Gowen & Co. Mr. Ormiston considered the route was
badly selected and would be an undue burden on the heritage of Kells and on his
property and wanted this section excluded from the CPO (N3 to N52 Ardee Road)
73. George Armstrong and W. & G. Armstrong (Kells) Ltd. Plot 3065 & 3072
Objected to inclusion of part of the "Newrath" lands at plot 3072 for the N52 Bypass
due to the severity of the severance and the lack of detail provided about the
scale of the underpass being proposed and to the inadequacy of the reasons given
for the acquisition of half of the Victorian brick built recess entrance to Newrath
House. They also objected to the lack of detail of the Lighting impact from the
twin roundabouts; drainage details; fencing proposed; impact on Wells and
screen planting. A further objection was made regarding the inclusion of part of
the "Rockfield Lands" on R164 as in Plot 3065 and the Revocation of planning
permission granted for the refurbishment and extension of the existing dwelling
and the provision of access thereto from the R164. Their suggestion for a
replacement entrance has not been responded to. They also submitted that the
Council had failed to avail of the provisions of section 213 of the P&D act, 2000,
to temporarily acquire lands not required for permanent use.
74. Edward & Bridget Whelan, Calliaghstown, Kells (Boolies Road) Plot 4003
Said they were owners of a newly built property, a substantial detached house, for
which Planning Ref 97/1337 refers. This house was specifically designed to suit
Mrs. Whelan's medical conditions with specialist materials used it its
construction. This was the only House being acquired in this section ( North of
Kells) and owners wanted the Council to purchase the House now, rather than
have to go through the Arbitration process, so that they could start on providing
an alternative house. Said that such procedures have been used elsewhere. It was
also contended that Route "E" was not the most economic or advantageous option
and that the M3 should be combined with the N52 By-pass and the existing N3
used as the western extension towards Virginia.
75. John Kearney, Meenlagh, Carnaross Plot 4054
Objected to the M3 as he did not want to have to use a "pathway" through
Michael Farrelly's land as his access road. He wanted a Tunnel ( underpass)
62
instead from one part of his land to the other and if this was not given the entire
farm should be purchased.
76. Gerard Murphy, Cavan Road, Kells
Objected to Toll proposal. Said there should be co-ordination between Road and
Rail developments and the development of the M3 should not make the reopening
of the Rail Line more difficult. Suggested that the M3 would run Over
parts of the Old Railway line and wants assurance that it would run Along side
this rail line instead.
77. Patrick Egan. LATE submission -- No address or details available from file
but listed on "Submissions to EIS" cover sheet.
78. Peakland Ltd., Court Hill, Dunboyne -- Represented by Eamon Walsh, Court Hill
Dunboyne. Plot 475 refers. Objection withdrawn on Day 11.
14. Request for Adjournment of the Hearing by Eamon Galigan S.C. :
14.1. Submission by Eamon Galligan S.C. :
When the appearances had been taken, on Day 1, and before the taking of Evidence had
commenced, Mr. Galligan S.C., who represented Ms Sarah Maher of Ardbraccan House,
Navan, said that he was objecting to the Hearing proceeding and then outlined the
grounds for his objection.
He said that his first ground for objecting rested on proceedings they had initiated in the
High Court in relation to the validity of the Meath County Development Plan (CDP) of
2001,on which the proposals before the Hearing were based, and as the High Court had
not yet ruled on the validity of that CDP, the Hearing could be commencing a futile
exercise if the High Court found the CDP was invalid. He suggested that in the event of
the CDP being found invalid, the Council could not pursue their applications for the
Motorway Scheme and An Bord could not determine or approve the applications either.
He said that even if the Inspector was to work on the basis of the CDP being a valid Plan
his second ground was the lack of correspondence between the Motorway Scheme before
the Hearing and what was in the CDP as there was no reference in the Plan to the scheme
being a Tolled Scheme. He said the EIS contained many references to both tolled and
untolled scenarios and that the proposal to toll a particular motorway, this should have
been referred to as an objective in the CDP itself.
Mr. Galligan then referred to another Bord Pleanala Hearing into a road proposal having
to be adjourned after sitting for two weeks "at great expense to the taxpayer" for a reason
similar to his objection, namely, a lack of correspondence of the scheme proposed and the
objective in theCDP. (Note -- the proposal being referred to is the N25 Waterford By63
pass Scheme) He suggested that if the High Court found the CDP to be invalid after the
Hearing had proceeded, there could then be significant claims for costs against the
Council.
Mr. Galligan then referred to an application for judicial review brought by Ms Maher in
which it became apparent there was no reference to a tolled scheme in the copy of the
CDP that Ms Maher had been given when she had gone to the County Council Offices to
purchase the up-to date Plan. Mr. Galligan said that the Variation of the Plan exhibited in
the High Court in July had a motorway objective but that the copy of the CDP his Client
had obtained in the Council offices on 19 August did not include those variations. He
then went on to refer to the newspaper advertisements published in December 2001for
this Variation and said they made no reference to the reasons for the proposed variation
and suggested this was not in accord with the requirements of Section 13 (3) (a) of the
2000 Act. He said the High Court had quashed this type of variation in other
circumstances where there was no statement of the reason for the variation given. Mr.
Galligan concluded by referring to the effect of the proposed route on Ardbraccan
Demense, where he said there was an objective in the CDP for the preservation of
protected structures such as Ardbraccan. He said he could not see how the Inspector, An
Bord Pleanala or the Council could proceed when there was a pending judgement in the
High Court and in circumstances where the proposal was in contravention of the CDP
and the Variation was not made in accordance with Law.
14.2. Submission by Michael O'Donnell, B.L. :
Mr. O'Donnell said that he was supporting Mr. Galligan's application for the adjournment
of the Hearing on behalf of the Missionary Society of St. Columba while he did not
intend repeating the various arguments made by Mr. Galligan, he also submitted that the
Hearing should not proceed pending the determination of the High Court on the
application made to it as well as supporting his arguments about the procedural
inadequacies which were also replicated in respect of his own Client's case. Mr.
O'Donnell said that he was the Counsel in the Waterford case where the Hearing was
adjourned because of inconsistencies with the provisions of that Development Plan and,
in that case, the Plan had to be amended and the Hearing then re-convened.
14.3. Other Supporting Submissions:
Mr. David Anderson, of Anderson & Co. Solicitors appearing on behalf of Rathbeggan
House Stud supported the application for an adjournment as did Ms Brid Murphy, of
Casey & Co. Solicitors appearing on behalf of An Taisce and also Ms Claire Lord of
Paul Brady & Co. Solicitors appearing on behalf of Mr. Tom Byrne.
14.4. Response by Pat Butler S.C. for Meath County Council :
Mr. Butler said that there were four main points made by Mr. Galligan, the first dealt
with the validity of the 2001 CDP and the Court's decision on that was awaited. He said
the Council was confident that the 2001 CDP would not be struck down but even if it
64
was, that the CDP of 1994 sufficiently identified the buiding of a motorway on the route
of the N3. He submitted that, whichever way the High Court ruled, the Council could
defend the construction of the M3 by either the 2001 or the 1994 CDP. Mr. Butler said
that the second point was that An Bord could give its decision in breach of the Plan and
he referred to a submission in an Affidavit sworn on behalf of Ms. Maher in the High
Court proceedings and quoted -- " however, no such statutory restriction is imposed on
the second-named respondent when considering and determining applications made
pursuant to Sections 49 and 51 of the Roads Act 1993 as amended" -- from which he
submitted that An Bord had the power to proceed.
Mr. Butler said that Mr. Galligan's Client had already been in the High Court seeking an
injunction on a different issue to the first point he had now raised and he did not raise it
there, even though Mr. Galligan and his Client were well aware that the Hearing was
coming and that it would last for several weeks. Mr. Butler, referring to Mr. Galligan's
second point of the absence of a reference to tolling being a material contravention, said
Mr. Galligan had not pointed out that the definition of a "road" in the Roads Act at
Section 2 included "tollplazas" and "other facilities" for collecting tolls in these
definitions as well as that of a motorway being a public road and he submitted that, by
definition, the provision of a motorway included the provision of facilities for tolls. He
went on to say that Section 47 of the Act, which gave the Road Authority competence to
acquire land for a Motorway Scheme, also provided for land acquisition for ramps, side
roads, toll plazas and toll facilities. He said that it followed, once there was provision in
the CDP to build a motorway, that there was authority to acquire land for toll plazas and
the facilities to collect tolls.
He said that in relation to Mr. Galligan's third point about the Hearing in Waterford being
adjourned because of a problem with the Waterford Plan, there was no problem with the
Meath Plan and the Council's Planner would say that the Motorway scheme was in
accordance with the Meath CDP. He said that Mr. Galligan's fourth point was of the
newspaper notices not stating why the Variation was required. Mr. Butler said this issue
was not raised in the High Court proceedings nor in the submission to An Bord Pleanala
when An Bord could have taken cognisance of it and make a decision whether or not to
proceed. He said there was no validity in any of the objections and submitted that unless
the Inspector was stopped by an Order of the High Court the hearing should proceed.
14.5. Further Submission by Eamon Galligan S.C. :
Mr. Galligan said that he wished to correct a number of inadvertent inaccuracies in Mr.
Butler's response. He said that he was very interested to hear the Council now saying they
could rely on the 1994 CDP and asked if the Council were now inviting the consideration
of both CDPs by the Hearing, suggesting that the public and objectors would not then
know on what CDP the Council were basing the applications before the Hearing. He
suggested that Mr. Butler' confidence in the 2001CDP being upheld by the High Court
was being qualified by his reference to the use of the 1994 CDP as an alternative to the
2001 CDP. He accepted that there was no express restriction on An Bord in considering
matters that were in breach of the Development Plan but said there was a statutory
65
restriction on the Council and that was the position in this case. He said no direction had
been given by the NRA to the Council to make a Motorway Scheme that was in
contravention of the CDP and it must be assumed that the Council was not entitled to
pursue applications that were in material contravention of the CDP, which he said was his
first point.
Mr. Galligan, referring to the absence of the tolling issue in the High Court proceedings,
said this was because Ms Maher had not been furnished with a copy of the Variation of
the CDP when she had sought the copy of the statutory CDP in the Council's offices. He
said that he had mentioned this matter to the Judge in the procedings when they became
aware of it in the exhibits in July, and that Mr. Butler should recall this, but tolling did
not currently form part of the proceedings they had brought in the High Court. He said
that Mr. Butler's third point was the definition of a "road" in the Roads Act and while he
accepted that this included toll plazas, toll plazas were very significant structures and one
would be visible from Ardbraccan House, a very important listed house. He said that the
CDP or Variation contained no reference to a Tolled Motorway and, as a tolling scheme
would impact on all of the Council's policies, he submitted that it should be signalled
that the Scheme would be tolled and as there were numerous references to tolled and untolled
scenarios in the EIS, this was something that was very material and there was a
lack of correspondence between the Motorway Scheme before the Hearing and the
objective in the CDP. Mr. Galligan said that in relation to the newspaper notice not being
raised in the proceedings, his Client only became aware that the Plan was varied at the
proceedings in July, not having been given the Variation when she had gone to the
Council offices earlier in the year, and he was now raising this deficiency in the
procedures followed by the Council at the start of the Hearing so that the Inspector would
be aware of this shortcoming which was of concern to his Client and to other objectors.
Mr. Galligan submitted the Hearing was premature pending the High Court's
determination on the validity of the CDP and he again urged the Inspector to grant his
adjournment application.
14.6. Further Submission by Michael O'Donnell B.L. :
Mr. O'Donnell said he supported Mr. Galligan's submission and that he was also
surprised by Mr. Butler's assertion that he could rely on the previous Development Plan.
He also disagreed with Mr. Butler's suggestion that An Bord was not bound by the
Development Plan and, in referring to it being a democratically made document with the
position of Elected Members being now constitutionally protected, he said that An Bord
must have regard to the Plan. He said his Clients would take a diametrically opposite
view to that now proposed by Mr. Butler and said that it was only in the event of an
Inspector not acceding to this manner of application was recourse to the High Court
appropriate.
Mr. O'Donnell said that, in relation to Mr. Butler's last point, it was to dis-regard
established case law to say that when one read the Development Plan one should also
read the definitions of a motorway in the Roads Act as the High Court had on several
occasions ruled that a development Plan was to be construed by an ordinary person
66
reading the Plan without any legal or planning qualifications. He submitted the CDP
must make clear the intentions of the Local Authority and that it could not be believed by
someone reading the Plan that it was a tolled motorway that was being proposed and that
this was clear no matter which CDP was relied on. He submitted that the Council was
operating under a flawed understanding as to how the objectives must be stated in the
CDP and said that in his opinion the additional submissions strengthened Mr. Galligan's
earlier application.
14.7. Eamon Galligan S.C. questioned by the Inspector :
The Inspector asked Mr. Galligan to briefly outline the High Court proceedings he had
referred to and asked if they were to obtain injunctive relief. Mr. Galligan replied that in
the proceedings they made the case that the proposed motorway was a material
contravention of the CDP since there was no reference to it in the copy of the CDP they
had seen. The Variation of the CDP had been exhibited and there had been a number of
applications subsequently made by both the Council and, he thought, by An Bord. As
regards injunctive relief, he had informed the Court that the Hearing was due to start on
21 August and that he wished to make an application for injunctive relief. He also told
the Court that it would be necessary to amend his proceedings to include a reference to
the lack of mention of the toll scheme in the Variation. He then referred to a further
matter which he said was not part of their proceedings and that was the case brought by
An Taisce against Meath County Council in relation to the validity of the CDP for which
a judgement was awaited. Mr. Galligan said that the matter became complex as other
applications would have to be made before he could proceed with an injunctive
application and that the Court indicated it was not disposed to give him a date for that
application before the vacation and, presumably, before the Hearing. He said that it was
in those circumstances he made the application to the Inspector.
14.8. Further Response by Pat Butler S.C. :
Mr. Butler said that Mr. Galligan's reason for Ms Maher not including the toll scheme in
her case to the High Court was that she did not become aware of the tolling proposal
until the proceedings commenced in July. He then referred to her Solicitor's objection to
the CPO/ EIS on 30 April 2002 and quoted from paragraph 16 thereof "Toll scheme and
Viability" with references to the provisions Section 58 of the Roads Act and the
consideration of a tolled and alternative toll free options. He said that the High Court
proceedings were issued on 5 June 2002 and that Mr. Galligan was now saying they did
not know about a toll scheme in June when his Client's Soilcitor knew about it in April
when making the objection to An Bord.
14.9. Ruling by Inspector :
Mr. Galligan in response to Mr. Butler's last submission said that while they were aware
of the toll scheme for the Motorway, they were not aware of the provision for the toll
scheme in the CDP and that was the point he had been making. The Inspector, while
67
noting this last point, said that adequate submissions had been made and that he would
consider these over the break and then give his decision.
After Mr. Anderson had made his submission the Inspector said that he had considered
the points made by Mr. Galligan, the supporting points made by Mr. O' Donnell and
others and the responses by Mr. Butler. He said that he was aware that an application had
been made to the High Court and noted that the learned Judge there was not disposed to
either give Mr. Galligan a date during the vacation for a hearing or to provide for
immediate injunctive relief and also noted that the Judge had been made aware of the
date of this CPO/EIS Hearing commencing. The Inspector said that having heard the
arguments made he was of the opinion there was no injunctive bar preventing the Hearing
from proceeding. He said that a number of issues in relation to the CDP had been raised
by Mr. Galligan and others and Mr. Butler had responded to them and these issues were
likely to be raised again. Saying that while there was an arguable case for both sides to
debate, the Inspector said he was not prepared to grant the adjournment sought by Mr.
Galligan and advised Mr. Galligan that he did have the option of applying to the High
court for a specific injunction against the Hearing proceeding but he now proposed
asking Mr. Butler to open his evidence. Mr. Galligan said that he accepted the Inspector's
ruling and while he could not, in his Client's interest, absent himself from the Hearing to
go to the High Court to seek an injunction, he reserved his position on this.
15. Submission by David Anderson, Solicitor, on behalf of
Rathbeggan House Stud :
Mr. Anderson said that while his Client, Mr. Basil Brindley, of Rathbeggan House Stud,
had reached an agreement with the Council in respect of his objections to the CPO and he
was handing in a copy of this Agreement to the Hearing ( Listed at Day 1 in Appendix 4
of this Report) by which his Client was withdrawing his objections, it had been agreed
with the Council, when agreeing to this withdrawal, he could make a short statement on
the matters which had caused his Client to object. Mr. Butler intervened to say that the
agreement with Mr. Anderson making a submission was only in relation to the issue of
costs but the Inspector said that he was prepared to allow Mr. Anderson a certain amount
of liberty in what he wished to say.
Mr. Anderson referred to the submission made on the CPO /EIS to An Bord which, he
said, ran to 650 pages and included correspondence from 1999 to a recent date with the
Council. He then outlined the history of the Brindley family as dating from 1843 and
described the features of Rathbeggan House Stud including its grounds and the
Determination Order made by the Minister for the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the
Islands on 9/11/ 2000 thereon. He then referred to the details at Tabs 1; 2; 4 & 5 in the
submission made to An Bord and said that his Client had to engage Design consultants,
Equestrian consultants; an Architect David slattery and a Planning Consultant Simon
Clear and that his Clients costs went back over four years and with 110 letters exchanged
with the council to defend the integrity of Rathbeggan House Stud. He said that one of
their principal concerns was the proposed diversion of the River Tolka and the removal of
a shelter belt of trees and the road line had been adjusted to protect the shelter belt and
68
the river diversion was being amended. He said that the purpose of his application was to
submit the settlement agreement and to apply for the costs necessarily incurred in respect
of Mr. Brindley in protecting the Rathbeggan House Stud. He then handed in the
agreement of settlement and withdrawal of objections. The Inspector said he noted that
agreement had been reached for an adjusted alignment which remained within the
original CPO land-take. As regards the application for costs, the Inspector said that this
was also noted but that the matter of costs was not part of his remit and was for An Bord
to consider at another time and from a separate application made directly to An Bord.
16. Opening Submission by Pat Butler S.C. for Meath County Council :
Mr. Butler said that the National Development Plan was the central plank underpinning
the entire policy context of the proposed M3 Motorway and that it had been a long time
objective of the Council to develop by-passes of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells with
stand-alone proposals for three by-passes being developed to outline stages. He said that
the 1994 CDP at Section 2.4 specifically provided for the implementation of the relevant
road development proposals to facilitate National and Regional development proposals
that formed part of the program submitted to the European Commission. He said that in
paragraph 3.2.7. of the CDP a policy statement set out the improvement of National
Primary and Secondary roads with motorways to be provided in locations agreed with the
Department of the Environment in line with national policy. He said that in the late 1990s
the economic surge created pressure to improve the transport corridor between Clonee
and Kells and that it was decided in the late 1990s to develop this corridor in five stages
with each section tying back into the existing N3 where a particular stage was developed
and the corridor was to be developed as a dual carriageway from Clonee to Kells.
Mr. Butler said that the National Road Pogram which had been developed ( as in the
Roads Needs Study ) had been reviewed at the time of the National Development Plan
2000 - 2006 and this corridor was identified as requiring immediate development in one
section to motorway standard and thus it becameGovernment policy to develop the route
as a motorway in a uniform manner. He said that design work which had taken place on
the individual sections was amalgamated and a single overall scheme was developed and
this was the Motorway Scheme which was now presented to An Bord and this would be
further outlined at the Hearing.
Mr. Butler said that having outlined the policy context he would now deal with the
planning context and referred to the 1994 CDP policy statements as confirming the
implementation by the Council of National policy relating to roads and, specifically,
providing for motorways where such were identified as part of Government policy. He
said that the National Development Plan (NDP) identified such a policy and that the 2001
CDP, which was revised in 2001, specifically provided at paragraph 3.5.2. for the
provision of a new motorway on the N3 to Kells and that it included for by-passes of
Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells. Mr. Butler said that as the preferred route emerged it
became apparent that there were some material changes in that route when compared to
what could be called the "schematic identification" in the 2001 CDP and that an
amendment or Variation was made in February 2002 to more accurately reflect the
69
preferred route which incorporated this preferred route line into the CDP. He submitted
that the provision of a motorway on the route was in accordance with the Council policy
as expressed in the 1994 CDP and the 2001 CDP as amended and that it was a reflection
of the requirement that implemented Government policy -- the NDP -- to provide a
motorway on the route. Mr. Butler said the scheme presented to the Hearing was in
accordance with National policy and also complied with the policy and objectives in the
CDP and thus was not in breach of the Plan, nor could it be in any way described as a
material breach of the CDP. He said that in relation to both policy and planning, as
combined in the Strategic Policy Guidelines (SPGs) for the Greater Dublin area, those
guidelines provided specifically for a strategic transport corridor to be developed on the
Clonee to Navan route and onwards.
Mr. Butler said that the final context for the scheme he would refer to was the legislative
context and that commenced with the Roads act 1993 at section 47 which provided for
the making of a motorway scheme by a road authority and the format in which this must
be done. He said that he had earlier referred to Section 47 (2) ( c) and the provision that
the lands and rights " shall include all land and rights necessary or incidental to tbe
construcion or maintenance of the motorway" and said those rights included rights to
build access roads, toll facilities, service areas and maintenance set-ups, making it clear
the Act provided for the acquisition of all lands necessary for the actual constructionof
the motorway and all of the facilities including toll facilities. He said that Section 43
defined a motorway as a public or proposed public road as specified in a Motorway
Scheme and a road was defined in Section 2 as including a toll plaza or other facilities for
collecting tolls, submitting that the Act provided for a motorway Scheme and the power
to acquire land to provide toll facilities.
Mr. Butler then referred to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and said that the
EIS provisions in the Roads Act 1993 were what could be described as stand-alone
provisions for preparing an EIS for Road Developments including motorways. He drew
attention to Section 50 (8) ( b) of the Act which excluded the application of the European
Communities EIA Regulations of 1989 and the Local Government Planning &
Development Regulations 1990. He said that Section 175 of the Planning & Development
Act 2000 provided for the preparation of EISs by local authorities for developments they
proposed themselves but that Section 175 /14 provided --" This section shall not apply to
proposed road development within the meaning of the Roads act 1993 by or on behalf of
the Roads Authority". Mr Butler submitted that the provisions of the Planning &
Development Act relating to EIS requirements did not apply to Road Developments and
that one must look to the Roads Act itself to see the requirements in respect of an EIS. He
added that Section 50 and its amendments transposed the obligations imposed by the EU
Council Directives 85/337 EEC and 97/11 EC. He said that the two amendments made to
Section 50, namely by SI 351/1998 and SI 193/ 1999 reflected the changes brought about
by Directive 97/11 EC and outlined the requirements of Section 50 as amended by these
SIs in respect of the likely significant effects, direct and indirect, on the environment of
the proposed Road Development by reference to the possible impact on human beings,
fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate and landscape, on material assets and cultural
heritage and with the interactions between these factors.He said that where significant
70
adverse impacts were identified in the EIS, a description of the measures envisaged to
avoid or reduce and if possible to remedy these effects should be set out.
Mr. Butler said that an EIS had been prepared for the proposed Motorway Scheme by
three Consulting Engineering Groups on behalf of the Council, these groups being Arup,
Halcrow Barry and MC O'Sullivan who had the assistance of specialist sub-consultants
where required. He submitted that when the evidence of these consultants and subconsultants
had been heard An Bord would be satisfied that the legislative requirements
to identify the likely significant on the environment, and the mitigation measures
proposed to remedy any adverse effects, had been fully set out and laid before the public.
He said that he proposed to call a number of witnesses firstly to give a broad outline or
overview of the Scheme and then to move on to the individual disciplines after that. He
said that his first witness was Mr. Alan Guthrie of Halcrow Barr, Consulting Engineers.
The Inspector asked for copies of the relevant sections of the 1994 Development Plan
from which Mr. Butler had quoted and that Plan was handed in on Day 2, as listed in
Appendix 4 of this Report.
17. Evidence of Alan Guthrie, Project Engineer of Halcrow Barry,
Consulting Engineers :
17.1. Examined by Pat Butler S.C. for the Council :
Mr. Guthrie said that he was a Principal Engineer with the Halcrow Group and had 24
years experience in the design and construction of road schemes in Ireland, the UK and
Africa for both the public and private sectors. He said that since September 1999 he had
been the Project Technical co-ordinator for the Dunshaughlin to Navan section and was
at present the Project Manager for the scheme.
Mr. Guthrie said that Meath County Council had appointed three Consultants -- MC
O'Sullivan & Co. Ltd; Arup Ireland and Halcrow Barry Ltd. -- through a multiple
framework contract in June 1999 following a procurement process through the European
Journal with a brief to act as Project Consultants on various sections of the N3 from
Clonee to North of Kells. He said that the Council was the executing authority for the
Project and the National Roads Authority (NRA) was providing funding with the scheme
intended to be progressed under a Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement. He said
that for the purposes of the EIS and the Route Development the scheme had been
proposed as Five Integrated sections by the Three Consultants as follows :-
Clonee to Dunshaughlin --- MC O'Sullivan, Consulting Engineers
Dunshaughlin to Navan --- Halcrow Barry, Consulting Engineers
Navan By-pass --- MC O'Sullivan, Consulting Engineers
Navan to Kells & N52 Kells By-pass --- Arup Consulting Engineers
Kells to North of Kells --- Arup Consulting Engineers
71
He said that the evidence would be given to the Hearing by a combination of the
Consultants and their specialist Sub-consultants and that his evidence was being
presented as an "introduction" that would provide a summary of the scheme which would
then be followed by the integrated sectional reports for the various sections. He said that
the Project Engineers would give in their evidence a more detailed description of local
and geographic issues and that this method of presentation reflected the layout of the EIS
and the historical development of the scheme.
Mr. Guthrie said that the existing N3 from Dublin to Cavan linked Dublin to the
Northwest and that the proposed M3 Clonee to North of Kells Motorway Scheme
extended from the end of the dual carriageway at Clonee, bypassed Dunshaughlin, Navan
and Kells and ended at the Cavan / Meath border, referring to the Map shown at Figure 1
in Vol.1 of the EIS. He said that the Meath 2001 CDP identified the improvement of the
N3 as a development objective by supporting the provision of a motorway (M3) from
Clonee to North of Kells, with By-passes for Dunshaughlin, Navan & Kells, in the
interest of commerce and enterprise. He said that at a local level the CDP set out socioeconomic
and environmental objectives that would be supported by the proposed M3 and
that the realignment of the N3 in conjunction with town by-passes would benefit local
communities by re-routing vehicles, particularly heavy goods vehicles, around towns
thereby reducing journey times, traffic congestion and accident rates. He said that there
would also be improvements in air quality and a reduction in noise pollution in the urban
centres which would make towns more attractive to shoppers and visitors.
Mr. Guthrie described how the public were invited to take part in a number of
consultation sessions by advertisements in the local and national press and by locally
displayed notices and said that some 4000 people attended those sessions where the
Project and Council Engineers were available to answer questions, objections and
suggestions of alternative routes. He said that numerous submissions were received and
all were considered, with adjustments being made to the scheme where feasible, and that
most of the submissions made were related to the impact on individual properties, on
communities and on community facilities. He said that most of the landowners affected
by the scheme had been contacted by members of the Design Team and that the
alignment had been adjusted to minimise the impact of the land take and to reflect
environmental concerns, where it had been feasible to do this. He said that the Emerging
Preferred Route (EPR) had also been presented to the Meath Councillors as part of the
consultation process and that the EPR had been developed through the preliminary design
stage to form the basis for the EIS now the subject of the Hearing.
Mr. Guthrie referred to the National Roads Needs Study of 1998 identifying the need for
a new road between Clonee and North of Kells with the various levels of service required
and the appropriate carriageway widths between Dublin and Belturbet on the N3 being
detailed in paragraph 7.5.1. of the Needs Study. He said that between Clonee and Navan
a dual carriageway was required in the "Backlog" phase while from Navan to North of
Kells dual and wide two lane roads were included as "Phase1" needs. He said that
"backlog" meant those routes that could not provide 80 kms. per hour for average inter72
urban speeds at the end of 1999. He said that the need for a new road on this
transportation corridor (N3) was evident from the following :-
-- Increasing Traffic volumes on National Primary routes due to increased
population and vehicle ownership levels and these likely to further increase
from population predictions of between 2.5 to 4 times existing levels. Navan
population was predicted to increase from present 15000 to about 60000
by 2020.
-- To provide a consistent standard of road by comparison with that emanating
from Dublin.
-- Increasing congestion at peak times on N3, particularly at Dunshaughlin, Navan
& Kells and at the many cross roads and tee junctions along the N3; this
congestion giving rise to disruption to community life; unwanted noise and
other environmental impacts and with these impacts being exacerbated by the
traffic increases of recent years and the introduction of increased European
vehicle weight limits.
-- The need for a major improvement in the environment for people living in
towns and villages along the N3 and for those living adjacent to the N3.
-- The need to improve safety and comfort of local users of the existing N3.
-- The need to reduce vehicle versus pedestrian, cyclist and equestrian conflicts.
-- The need to reduce transport costs to improve competitivness in the production
and export of goods.
Mr. Guthrie said that the N3 would be developed from Clonee to North of Kells as part of
the Primary motorway and dual carriageway network to meet the Country-wide Strategy
and that the provision of a motorway would restrict the type of vehicle user and prevent
direct access and would allow for access improvements by means of interchange
locations to provide a safe environment and for separation of the through traffic. He said
that since direct access to the motorway would be prevented, it was necessary to provide
an "all purpose" secondary road network to meet the needs of the non-strategic and
restricted vehicle types and to maintain local access. He said that the present alignment of
the N3 due to its route geometry, topographical and population restraints suggested it was
not possible to upgrade the existing N3 to cater for a dual carriageway motorway at an
acceptable standard, as well as having an "all-purpose" secondary road using an "on-line"
do-minimum option. Mr. Guthrie said that an "off-line" M3 as the motorway solution
while keeping the existing N3 as the "all-purpose" route was the only preferred and
recommended option.
Mr. Guthrie said that the scheme would provide an integral section of the national road
network along the N3 at a National level, providing a strategic transport link between
73
Dublin through Cavan to the Northwest and that this more efficient road network would
assist in greater certainty in travel times; greater traffic capacity and route-wide
consistent safety improvements all leading to a reduction in journey timea and transport
costs. He said that at a Regional level, as the M3 alignment was close to the present N3,
the installation of intermediate interchanges would remove through traffic from the
adjacent regional and local road networks and that at Local level, the M3 would serve as
a By-pass of Kells, Navan and Dunshaughlin and would link into the present Clonee Bypass.
He said this would remove a proportion of through traffic, particularly heavy
vehicles, which would improve environmemental conditions and reduce accidents with
the provision of interchanges for local access giving an improved and free-flowing route
that would reduce stress for drivers and passengers using that route.
Mr. Guthrie then referred to the NDP 2000-2006 as the most recent statement of
Government policy on the development of transport infrastructure and said it included the
development of the entire Dublin to Belturbet N3 link by 2006. He said that the NRA had
designated the M3, Clonee to North of Kells, as a Public Private Partnership (PPP)
scheme that was to be developed as a Design/Build/Finance/Operate contract with a long
term concession of possibly 30 years, with the concessionaire recouping some or all of
the upfront construction costs and the ongoing operation and maintenance costs through
the collection of Tolls. He said that concept of the PPP approach was that better value for
money could be achieved through the use of private sector enterprise with an enhanced
scope for innovation and the allocation of risks to the party best able to manage them and
that such schemes were being used successfully elsewhere to provide vital public
infrastructure. He said that they also injected private finance into the Public Capital
Program which could accelerate the delivery of this Program in remedying the
infrastructure deficit in Ireland. He said that the NRA were progressing all of the PPP
schemes as Toll roads and that the tolls would be set at a level consistent with balancing
the objectives of producing satisfactory revenue and attracting the maximum level of
traffic on to these new roads. He said that the toll charges would be determined through
the procedure set out in the Roads Act, 1993 as amended by the Planning and
Development Act, 2000 following an Oral hearing if objections were received but that
Oral Hearing was a separate procedure and did not form part of the present Hearing.
Mr. Guthrie then referred to the way in which the early planning phases of the
development of the M3 had been considered. He said that when they commenced this
process in 1999/2000 it was intended to progress the scheme in Five discrete sections
which allowed for a phasing of the improvements and of the construction costs. These
sections were (a) Clonee to Dunshaughlin, (b) Dunshaughlin to Navan By-pass, (c) the
Navan By-pass, (d) Navan to Kells and the N52 Kells By-pass and (e) Kells to North of
Kells. He said that Constraints and Route Selection Reports were being prepared for both
the Route Corridors and Alignments within these Corridors which would allow for all of
the schemes to be linked as a single scheme in the longer term and they also allowed for
tie-backs to the existing N3 and to completed sections of the improved network.
He said that when it was decided to progress the scheme from Clonee to North of Kells as
a single Toll Scheme to Motorway standard and as a PPP, further development work was
74
undertaken which examined the overall Route Strategy at Corridor level and removed the
temporary tie-backs to both the existing N3 and the completed phased sections of the
route. He said the purpose of this "Corridor Alignment assessment" was to identify any
constraints that might have a bearing on route alignments within the basic corridors and
that to do this Four broad "Corridors" were identified for analysis and comparison in each
section along the overall length. He said these "Corridors" were identified as "Orange",
"Green", "Blue" and "Pink" and that the comparison considered "Existing Conditions",
Engineering" " Environment" and "Economics".
Mr. Guthrie then gave a summary of the "Corridor" assessment findings commencing
with Section 1 -- Clonee to Dunshaughlin and referred to Figure 4.6 taken from Vol. 2 of
the EIS to show the existing road network and the Four "Corridors" being assessed. He
said that within this Section the N3, which was now at or near capacity, dominated the
road network and provided the main access to the agricultural, business and tourist
centres. He said that all corridor options would alleviate congestion and improve access
so that, for all factors relating to the impact on existing conditions, the net effect would
be positive from all four corridors. He said that there were no identifiable constraints that
impacted on the mainline geometry with possible junctions for all except the Pink
corridor being on or near the existing National or Regional roads. Since the Pink corridor
did not cross the N3 any link south of Dunshaughlin from it would require a new
connecting road giving a slight negative impact for the Pink corridor. He said that the net
engineering effect would be a positive impact for the Orange, Green and Blue corridors
and a neutral impact for the Pink corridor.
He said that the environmental impacts were more definitive on each corridor but that
there was no significant impact from any of the corridors on archaeology, cultural
heritage or landscape settings with flora and fauna habitats having a greater impact on the
Blue, Green and Pink corridors. He said that all corridors affected a similar number of
farm holdings but that there were significantly more planning sites to the east of the N3
which gave a greater impact on the Blue, Green and Pink corridors. He said that
perceived community severance impacts in the Dunshaughlin area would be reduced with
the use of the more remote corridors in the Orange and Pink options and that the net
environmental issues effect would be neutral for Orange and negative for Blue, Green
and Pink. Mr. Guthrie said that a coarse economic evaluation of the corridors indicated
that each of the corridors gave large benefits so that all were assessed as positive and he
said that when the four factors were taken together, the Orange corridor was assessed as
the better one in satisfying the criteria for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section and was
the preferred corridor there.
Mr. Guthrie then referred to Figure 4.7 from Vol. 2 of the EIS showing the corridors in
the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and the existing road network and said that this was
also dominated by the N3 and the regional and local roads with the N3 being at or near
capacity and requiring upgrading to avoid future congestion. He said that each of the four
corridors would thus have a positive impact. He said that an assessment of traffic
movements indicated a need for a single grade separated junction (an interchange) to
satisfy local requirements and thatthis could be achieved close to the existing junctions
75
on the N3 near to Blundellstown for the Blue and Green corridors. He said that for the
more remote Orange and Pink corridors it would be more difficult to provide either a
single or split interchange and that extensive new link roads might be required to provide
adequate connections to the existing N3. He said the more remote corridors would
require local users to travel additional distances to reach the N3, as well as causing
additional disruption during construction, and an added cost, for these longer link roads,
all of which would detract from the overall positive assessment of the corridors and thus
giving a neutral impact for the Orange and Pink options. Mr. Guthrie said that the coarse
economic evaluation indicated large benefits from the Blue and Green corridors but that
the higher operating costs for the more remote Orange and Pink corridors from travelling
to and from the interchange locations reduced the benefits. He said the overall assessment
was positive for the Blue and Green and neutral for the Orange and Pink corridors.
Mr. Guthrie said that the Navan By-pass was shown on Figure 4.8 in Vol. 2 of the EIS
and that Navan was the central node of the road network in central Meath, with the N3
and N52 crossing the town centre, and that the existing network was severely congested
which would be relieved by all four corridors. He said that the Pink and Green corridors
crossed areas designated for both planned and potential residential and industrial
development and that the Blue corridor had the Tara Mines overground facility within the
limits of its potential effects. He said that only the Orange corridor was unaffected by
identified zones, that both the Pink and Green corridors had more dramatic crossings of
the River Boyne and they also crossed the River Blackwater and the Orange and Blue
corridors affected fewer utilities. He said that the net effect of the impact on existing
conditions was positive for the Orange and negative for the Blue, Green and Pink
corridors. He said that there were no identified constraints on the corridor geometry in
this section but that it was possible the Green and Pink corridors would require
substantial links to the R162 Kingscourt road and that all four corridors would give a
positive impact.
Mr. Guthrie said that the Pink and Green corridors had a greater impact on archaeology
and cultural heritage then that of the Orange and Blue, with the Pink and Green having a
significant impact on planned and potential residential and industrial sites. He said that
the Orange corridor affected the least number of properties and that it and the Pink
corridor had the least effect on community facilities and that the net effect of
environmental issues on each corridor was positive for the Orange, neutral for the Blue
and negative for both the Green and Pink. Mr. Guthrie said that as this Section was
further from Dublin than the first two, traffic flows decreased and this reduced overall
benefits. He also pointed to the corridor length and the effects of link transit benefits and
vehicle operating costs as influencing the economic assessment on this Section with the
assessment giving a neutral impact for the Orange, Blue and Green corridors and negative
for the Pink. He said that, taking the four factors into consideration, the Orange corridor
better satisfied the assessment criteria for the Navan By-pass and was the preferred
corridor.
Mr.Guthrie then referred to Figure 4.9 in Vol.2 which showed the road network around
the Navan to Kells Section and said that the N3 formed the spine of the network for local
76
road connections and that Kells town centre, which was also crossed by the N52, the
R163 and R164, suffered from severe congestion at times and that all four corridors
would relieve this congestion. He said that the River Blackwater was the main river
feature in this Section and this would be mainly impacted by the Pink corridor and that
with no other existing conditions impacting on any of the corridors, each of them was
assessed as having a positive effect. He said that there were no constraints affecting the
alignment and all four corridors were assessed as having a positive impact for that. He
said that the Blue, Green and Pink corridors would have a major negative impact on
archeaology and cultural heritage, while the Orange corridor had no discernible impact
and that the Green and Pink corrodors also had a major negative impact on flora and
fauna due to the numerous crossings of river and land sites. He said that the Orange and
Blue corridors affected less sites and thus had a moderate negative impact.
Mr. Guthrie said that the impact on landscape setting and visual intrusion was a severe
negative for the Blue and Pink corridors due to the proximity of archaeological and
heritage sites and was major negative for the Green and moderate negative for the Orange
corridor. He said that the Pink had the most severe impact on land-use, with the Blue and
Green serving a large number of holdings giving a moderate impact and that the Orange
was preferable due to the impact on fewer of the larger holdings. He said that while there
were no road closures proposed, community severance was perceived as an issue
affecting all corridors to varying degrees and that the area around Kells had been
identified as a possible location for "karst" effects, these were not expected to have any
great impact on any of the corridors. Mr. Guthrie said that the net environmental effect
was to give a positive impact for the Orange corridor, neutral for the Blue and Green and
negative for the Pink corridor. He said that the economic analysis showed no advantage
for any one corridor with each being assessed as neutral and thus the overall
consideration was that the Orange corridor better satisfied the criteria for the Navan to
Kells Section and was the preferred corridor.
Dealing with the Kells to North of Kells section, Mr. Guthrie said that Figure 4.10 in
Vol.2 of the EIS showed the existing road network and that the local road network and
existing conditions would benefit from any of the four corridors so that each was assessed
as giving a positive impact. He said that from an engineering perspective the Blue and
Pink corridors were constrained by the impact on a nursing home adjacent to R163 and
had the highest number of junctions, generating a high demand for local access and
giving a minor positive impact. He said that the Orange and Green had a lower number of
junctions and a reduced access demand and that the net engineering effect was positive
for the Orange and Green and neutral for the Pink and Blue. He said that the
environmental impacts increased from the southwest to the northeast across the corridor
band with the Pink and Blue having major impacts on archaeology and cultural heritage
sites and there being many churches within the boundaries of the Green corridor giving a
major impact. He said that the Orange contained few sites of significance and thus had a
minor impact. He said that the Orange corridor had several habitats including a salmonid
river giving a moderate impact while the sites on the other corridors had a mnior impact.
He said that the two central corridors, Blue and Green, affected a listed cultural landscape
and a"view and prospect" site giving a severe impact while the remoteness of the orange
77
and Pink reduced the landscape impact to moderate. He said land severance increased
slightly from the Pink to the Orange corridor but that the overall impact was a major
negative one for each corridor and that perceived community severance was an issue with
all corridors even though access would be maintained for all local roads. He said that the
net environmental impact was neutral for the Orange and negative for the other corridors.
He said that there was no economic advantage as between each corridor giving a neutral
assessment for all of them and that from the overall assessment the orange corridor was
the preferred corridor as it best satisfied the assessment criteria.
Mr. Guthrie referred to the Summary Matrix Table 4.6 at page 60 in Vol. 2 of the EIS
which contains a summary of the impacts of each corridor against the four main areas
used for the assessment and, also, has a comparison rating for each corridor relative to the
others within each assessment area. He said that from the assessment they had
undertaken, which was summarised in Table 4.6, the preferred corridor from Clonee to
North of Kells was "Orange -- Blue -- Orange -- Orange" and this was shown in Figure
4.7.1 in his Brief of Evidence.
Mr. Guthrie then referred to the "Do-Nothing" option which would be to improve the
existing N3 along its present route. He said that north of the Clonee By-pass the crosssection
had a variable width but was primarily a single carriageway with hard shoulders
and was further constrained going through towns and villages by kerbed carriageways
with footpaths and many traffic signal controlled junctions. He said the existing
horizontal and vertical alignment was sub-standard in many places with overtaking and
stopping sight distances being below standard over many stretches. He said that the large
number of junctions and direct accesses from commercial, agricultural and residential
properties along the road influenced the capacity of the N3 and that the existing traffic
volumes were such that the road could not provide the required level of service"D". He
said that if the existing N3 route was to be improved to a 2 X 2 on-line motorway style
dual carriageway to meet the future capacity needs, this would be a poor solution for the
following reasons :-
-- It would require extensive property demolition to fit a motorway on-line
through towns and villages and as this would be un-acceptable, off-line bypasses
would be required for Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells with demolition
and encroachment being required on the remainder of the route.
-- Excessive disruption to services located in grass margins and excessive
disruption for traffic using the N3 during construction over a 3 to 4 year
period.
-- Accident rates and adverse social and environmental impacts would not be
resolved and it would be almost impossible to provide local access to
standards while maintaining motorway standards.
-- There would be no alternative route for non-motorway trafficsuch as
agricultural vehicles and learner drivers.
78
Mr. Guthrie said that there would be some benefits as less severance of farmland would
occur, there would be less reduction in passing trade for local business and a reduced
adverse impact on the landscape but he said these benefits were only achieved with the
route going through the towns and villages. He did not consider this to be a practical
option and said that an off-line new motorway was the only economic, environmental and
socially acceptable option for improving this National Primary Route.
Mr. Guthrie said that the NRA proposed a PPP Tolled strategy for progressing this
scheme and that Two mainline Toll Plazas were proposed, the southern one located
between the Pace and the Dunshaughlin Interchanges and the northern one located
between the N51 Athboy Road and the Kilmainham Interchanges.
He said that the Motorway Scheme had been developed to provide the motorway as an
off-line route with the existing N3 providing the on-line all-purpose road and that this
method met the need for a "route wide" improvement with the least environmental
impact. He said that the layout of the Scheme was shown in Figures 3.1 to 3.5 in Vol.1 of
the EIS representing the Five Sections of the Scheme.
He said that the proposed mainline motorway section consisted of a two lane dual
carriageway with a reduced cross-section, the lane widths being 3.5 metres, the hard
shoulders 2.5 metres and a central median of 4 metres minimum. He said that grass
verges would be a minimum of 2 metres and the maximum gradients would generally be
less than 4 %. He said that from Kells to the County border the mainline would be a wide
single carriageway with lane widths of 5 metres and hard shoulders of 2.5 metres and the
grass verges being 3 metres wide. He said that the route would be designed to the
standards defined in the NRA Design Manual for roads and Bridges, Vol. 6, T.D.9 and
the design speed was 120 km per hour for the motorway section and 100 km per hour for
the wide single carriageway section with the junctions designed to the standards in the
NRA design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the relevant technical directives as
specifiedby the NRA. He said that new sections of side roads would be designed to suit
the nature of the existing roads and to comply with the NRA Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges, Vol. 6, TD 9/00.
Mr. Guthrie said that there would be six motorway grade separated junctions
(Interchanges) located at Pace; Dunshaughlin; Blundellstown; Klicarn; Athboy Road and
Kilmainham with new direct links to these interchanges to connect with the existing road
network. There would also be a number of road closures and road realignments
associated with the preferred route option and the Scheme provided for the realignment
of local roads either over or under the motorway. He said that there would be 35
overbridges, 17 underbridges and 3 river crossings ( 2 over the Blackwater and 1 over the
Boyne) in the entire scheme and 28 significant culverts were also required.
Mr. Guthrie referred to the Earthworks requirements of the Scheme and said that, to
attain the design profile, some 2.75 million cubic metres would be excavated from
cuttings along the Scheme and some 7.1 million cubic metres of filling would be required
and the difference would have to be imported, or excavated from local borrow pits. He
79
said that additional material might be required for bunding, for noise mitigation measures
and for landscaping purposes along the scheme and that if there was an excess of
unsuitable material left over, suitable sites would then be needed to dispose of this.
He said that Road Lighting would generally be provided at the Interchanges, Toll Plazas
and at all Roundabouts; that this would be restricted to the immediate approaches to
interchanges and for safety reasons across the bridges and that, for environmental
reasons, all the lighting would be of the fully cut-off type to eliminate upward light
spillage. He said that the Southern Toll Plaza would be located to the north of the
Blackbull Overbridge, partially on the existing N3 and some 100 metres north of the
existing R154 Trim road junction and crossing the River Tolka, with the disused
Clonsilla to Navan railway line to the west and the realigned N3 to the east. He said that
the Northern Toll Plaza would be located at Grange to the northwest of Navan and west
of White Quarry near Ardbraccan, where it was positioned in a nominal cutting on a
relatively straight stretch of the M3.
Mr. Guthrie said that the estimated cost of the Scheme at 2000 prices was £461.3M
including VAT,( equivalent to € 585.7 M ) and this included for land and design costs.
He said that an economic evaluation of the preferred route had been undertaken using the
COBA cost benefit analysis program with the Performance indicators of NPV ( net
present value) and IIR ( internal rate of return) being calculated. He said that the NPV,
which provided a measure of the benefits compared to the costs, indicated a positive
economic return of some £580M with benefits exceeding costs by a ratio of almost 3 : 1.
He said that an IIR of around 12 % had been calculated which was significantly higher
than the discount rate used of 5% on the base year of 1996 to give a measure of the
scheme's overall profitability and this concluded his direct evidence.
17.2. Alan Guthrie cross-examined by Frank Burke, Consulting Engineer
on behalf of several Objectors :
Mr. Burke asked why a segmental approach had been adopted with five individual
sections linked by pluses and negatives from the various impacts assessed rather than
taking an overall view of the route ? Mr. Guthrie replied that the segments were the
geographic extent of the schemes each of the Consultants had been originally allocated
by the Council as the original concept was for individual sections and it was only after
the design work had been commenced that it became clear it would be more economic to
design one complete scheme. Mr. Burke suggested that the EIS was not being presented
as one complete scheme and when Mr. Guthrie disagreed with his suggestioin, Mr. Burke
said that if 15 individual sections one would get a different route to that based on 15
segments being "tied" together. Mr. Guthrie again disagreed with this suggestion and said
that the purpose of doing the Corridor assessment was not to identify a route as such but
to identify where the Constraints that would affect the choice of the route were likely to
occur and, from these Constraints, the route of least effect was likely to be produced..
Mr. Burke suggested that some of the routes considered were non-runners from day 1 and
asked how a route that ran through Headfort House and the new Golf Club there could be
80
considered as a viable option. Mr. Guthrie replied that the Corridors presented in his
evidence were about 600 metres wide and they were trying to identify a geographic
location that had the least impact on the community in which the Section Engineers
would then look for a Route through the Corridor that had the least impact. He said it was
to try and identify the "line of least resistance". Mr. Burke again suggested some of the
routes were non-runners from an engineering perspective and Mr. Guthrie agreed that
some Corridors that were acceptable from an engineering aspect but not from an
environmental aspect. Mr. Burke said that in fairness to the public and the consultation
process routes that were genuine non-runners should not have been included in the
assessment but Mr. Guthrie did not accept this, saying they had to put forward all
possibilities if even to generate a discussion with the community.
Mr. Burke referred to Mr. Guthrie's role as Project Co-ordinator and asked who he
reported to since there was no mention of the "management team" that made the
decisions of what went into the EIS. Mr. Guthrie said there was a team approach within
the three Consultants, that a Corridor Selection Report was prepared which contained the
corridor combination that they considered was most likely to produce the Prefered Route
and this corridor or sequence of Corridors was recommended to the Council and to the
NRA, and this recommendation was approved. He said they did not recommend a Route
with the Corridor Selection report.
Mr. Burke then referred to his evidence where he had said " where feasible adjustments
of the alignment to minimse impact on landtake and environmental concerns had been
accommodated in the design" and asked how he would prioritise the various factors
relating to a particular road such as landtake, severance, costs etc. Mr. Guthrie said this
was a rating procedure and that formed part of the route Selection process which would
be dealt with in the individual sections when the Hearing came to them later on. Mr.
Burke said this " where feasible adjustment" was a core policy, which Mr. Guthrie had
accepted it was, and that he wanted to know where did individuals fit in relation to that
core policy as regards the impacts on them and the overall route selection policy. Mr.
Guthrie replied that each route was considered on its merits with a full assessment in
terms of archaeology, air, noise and the factors mentioned and all of these were taken into
account when selecting a particular alignment. Mr. Burke then put a specific example of
an increased journey time of less than two minutes, being minor, with route A where
routes B, C & D might impact in a major way on five or six farmers while route A
impacted on nine or ten farmers and asked how the route was selected. Mr. Guthrie
replied that it was very difficult to draw up a ranking or weighting system across a range
of environmental impacts since what one person might perceive as a serious impact on
archaeology, someone living on a farm might not perceive that as a major impact at all.
He would not accept that there were any firm conclusions available on which a weighting
system could be produced while agreeing this might be an aspiration to be aimed for.
Mr. Burke asked where the need for a motorway as against a dual carriageway was
shown in the design and Mr. Guthrie referred to the Roads Needs Study of 1998 and the
reference therein to the need for dual carriageway standard between Clonee and Kells
with the difference between a motorway and dual carriageway being in the user
81
restrictions rather than in the cross-section. Mr. Burke then put it to him that the EIS did
not set out the projected AADT as requiring a particular road type at a specified level of
service or the relevant carrying capacity. He said that the road could well be a dual
carriageway with at-grade junctions which would require less land and that while he was
not saying a motorway was not required, the EIS did not make a case for a motorway.
Mr. Guthrie replied this was outlined clearly in Section 3.4 but Mr. Burke stated that
nowhere in the EIS were the road options for carrying 20000, 30000 or 40000 vehicles
given as justifying the selection of a motorway as such. Mr. Guthrie replied that the
justification for individual sections would be explained in each part of the Scheme but
Mr. Burke suggested this should have been outlined as part of the overview of the
Scheme and said that he would like to see the projected traffic figures compared to the
various options available for accommodating these figures as part of the alternatives
considered, since those options formed alternatives that should be considered as well as
the various route options themselves. The Inspector commented that it was a matter for
the Council how they organised the presentation of information and that Mr. Guthrie had
indicated this might be coming in later sections.
Mr. Burke then referred to a discrepancy between the population growths of 2.5 to 4
times in population and the figures quoted by Mr. Richardson in Table 3 and said that Mr.
Guthrie spoke about Navan growing from 15000 to 60000 while Mr. Richardson gave car
ownerships of 1900 for Navan at15000 population and 2900 for the year the motorway
was in full flight and that the population of 60000 would have an affect distinct from that
in the model. Mr. Guthrie said there was a link between population and traffic growth but
it was not a direct link. Mr. Richardson intervened to clarify his Table 3 and said that
these were growth factors and that for Navan in 2024 it was 2.997, which meant that the
number of trips to and from Navan would grow by a factor of three.
Mr. Burke asked, in the context of the projected traffic volumes, when he was looking at
the DTO policy of reduced traffic volumes should he not have included this in his
assessment, but Mr. Guthrie said the figures would show that, for the transfer of traffic to
other modes of travel, the forecast levels of traffic on the road would exceed the capacity
of provision of one step below but that the standard of cross-section was well justified.
Mr. Burke suggested the one of the benefits sought from PPP was innovation and asked
where the provider of the Toll scheme could be innovative since he was getting a fait
accomplis design as various concessions agreed with land owners were fixed. Mr.
Guthrie agreed that the boundaries of the CPO were fixed and that cost savings would
come from the concessionaire and his design team working in tandem to come up with
novel ideas of achieving an efficient method of operation rather than this being left to a
designer specifying a particular type of construction.
17.3. Alan Guthrie questioned by Evan Newall, Readsland, Dunshaughlin :
Mr. Newall ( who represented himself and his brothers as the owners of Plots 139 & 144)
said that his question was what work had been done on local and specific needs as
opposed to the general design. He said that he was referring to the Link road from the
Interchange to Dunshaughlin and wanted to know what would be done from the
82
community, as well as their own, point of view as he understood the type of fencing
proposed for there was post and rail which he considered was not the appropriate type for
this location on the approach to the town. When Mr. Guthrie replied that this was
something the Section Engineers for Clonee to Dunshaughlin would be better able to deal
with, the Inspector suggested that Mr. Newall's query could be paraphrased by asking
what was the approach that would be taken for fencing as one approaced urban rather
than agricultural areas. Mr. Newall said he would like this to be broadened to identify
how the different needs of different areas all along the motorway were being addressed
since it seemed to him from his discussions with the Design Engineers that only general
standards were being applied and some of those were, in his opinion, inappropriate. Mr.
Guthrie replied that Phillip Farrelly and Partners had been employed to speak with all of
the landowners and their views were taken on board in the production of the final design
details.
Mr. Newall said he was trying to be more general than that and referred to the type of
walls that had been built elsewhere as part of other major projects that were to last for
many years. He said that in his discussions with Phillip Farrelly he got the impression
that a standard type of fencing was available and that was what was going to be provided
and he was seeking to establish if there were examples of where some specific need or
interest of a local community was being looked after and he instanced a small park or
something like this as the road approached a town as an example. Mr. Guthrie said that
there was a Landscape architect involved in the preparation of the EIS and where small
areas of severed land were acquired, screen planting to strengthen existing woodland was
intended and that this was all outlined in the EIS. Mr. Newall said he did not find this a
satisfactory answer and asked if there had been sufficient meetings with the local
Community and with local Councillors on the design of the Link road into Dunshaughlin
as he had asked a local Councillor who told that they had the greatest difficulty in having
any effective discussion with the NRA designers. Mr. Guthrie said that there had been
constant meetings with Steering committees during the process from Constraints mapping
through Route selection to the Emerging Preferred Route and the preparation of the EIS
and the various stages were presented to the Councillors in Navan. He said that he could
not answer about the detail in Dunshaughlin since he was with Halcrow Barry and the
Dunshaughlin area was dealt with by MC O'Sullivan and they would be giving evidence
at a later stage.
17.4. Cross-examined by Michael O' Donnell BL on behalf of Missionary Society
of St Columba (Dalgan Park) and Others :
Mr. O'Donnell asked if he could clarify how the team was structured, who did he answer
to and how did the design tean operate and Mr. Guthrie said the three team members
were MC O'Sullivan, Halcrow Barry and Arup Ireland and they were employed by Meath
County Council. Asked what was the involvement of the NRA and if they had an input
into the design, Mr. Guthrie replied that the NRA had an overview because of their
financial input, and he agreed with Mr. O'Donnell's suggestion that the NRA supervised
financed and had an overall co-ordinating role for the Scheme. Mr.O'Donnell asked for
the name and title of the NRA person he dealt with and how often they met and, on being
83
given these details, then suggested that the Council and the NRA werc the joint
developers of the Scheme. He then asked for the chronology of the steps taken after their
appointment, when was the decision for a motorway taken and was this before or after the
decision to prepare an EIS. Mr. Guthrie replied that the team was appointed in 1999 with
the contract let in five sections and, as he had described in his direct evidence, when it
became clear it would be more efficient to have one overall scheme, a joint Venture was
formed by the three Consultants to prepare the EIS. He said the motorway decision was
made in June 2001 and, at that time, they were already working on the preparation of the
EIS this starting from when the Constraints Report was prepared.
Mr. O'Donnell asked by whom was the motorway decision made and when told it was by
the NRA, asked when they were told about it. When Mr. Guthrie said that there had been
a briefing at a Steering Commiteee that the motorway was being promoted as part of the
Government's PPP initiative, Mr. O'Donnell suggested the motorway was devised
because of the need for a PPP but Mr. Guthrie replied that the Clonee to Navan sections
had already been identified as requiring a motorway on the basis of traffic flows and the
effect of that decision was to extend the motorway from Navan to Kells. Mr. O'Donnell
suggested that the motorway decision followed from the PPP decision and while Mr.
Guthrie accepted that, he said the Government saw the funding coming from a PPP
approach but that the justification for the motorway was not only from the PPP approach
but there were traffic justifications as well. Mr. O' Donnell put a series of questions to
Mr. Guthrie which related to the different consequences of a dual carriageway and a
motorway and sought a "yes" or "no" answer but Mr. Guthrie said the difference could
not be dealt with that way and this led to questions on the issue of tolling. Mr. O'Donnell
suggested the EIS was a justification for the direction given by the NRA that the scheme
was to be for a tolled motorway as NRA policy was to toll motorways. Mr. Guthrie
would not accept that and maintained the N3 could not cope with the traffic predicted for
20 years time and they were justifying an alternative route that happened to be a
motorway .
Mr. O'Donnell suggested they had the answer of a tolled motorway before they started to
prepare the EIS and this answer was as a result of the NRA's direction. Mr. Guthrie
replied that the decision of the EIS was not whether the scheme was tolled or untolled but
whether or not adequate provision should be made for transporting traffic through Central
Meath and that he had already explained how the N3 could not cope and a dual
carriageway standard of road was needed to cope with the predicted traffic, with the only
difference between a "motorway" and a "dual carriageway" being in the user restrictions.
Mr. O'Donnell said an untolled motorway could be provided which would have
significantly different consequences but Mr. Guthrie said the only differences would be
that no toll plazas would be needed. A lengthy series of queries and replies followed on
the function of the existing N3 in the context of the off-line proposal to cope with
projected traffic with Mr. O'Donnell suggesting the existing N3 could be upgraded if
tolling/PPP was not involved and Mr. Guthrie not accepting this and referring to his
earlier evidence. Mr. O'Donnell returned to the date of the NRA "direction" and when
Mr. Guthrie said it was June 2000, reminded him he had said 2001 previously, Mr. Butler
confirmed it was June 2000 and Mr. Guthrie accepting he was mistaken earlier. Mr.
84
O'Donnell then said that the Route Selection Report was published in September, over a
year later and said this was now only being revealed to the Hearing and suggested this
must mean a post-facto justification for the NRA "direction". Mr. Guthrie replied that in
the chronology they had discussed earlier, the five sections were let as five contracts, then
in June 2000 there was a decision to join them into one section and , because each of the
five were being individually tied back to the N3, it was decided to revise the individual
route options reports to provide a continuous line throughout the single scheme.
Mr. O'Donnell suggested that in using tie-backs to the N3 for their original five sections
they were using the N3 as he had been suggesting could have been done instead of the
M3 but Mr. Guthrie said he was missing the point because the five sections, while all
having tie-backs to the existing N3, in the long term the objective was to provide a
continuous new dual carriageway from Clonee to Kells and it did not include for an online
improvement. Mr. O'Donnell said the sequence was now established and asked how
would the PPP arrangement operate and when Mr. Guthrie said this was an arrangement
to be reached between the Government and the Concessionaire when appointed, Mr. O'
Donnell asked if this was not a critical issue for the operation of the Scheme. Mr. Guthrie
accepted this but said that was for the next stage after the EIS was approved. Mr.
O'Donnell suggested a private company would own the stretch of road from Clonee to
Kells, Mr. Guthrie accepted that but said they would be obliged to keep the road open, to
maintain it and hand it back to the Government when the concession period ended. Mr.
O'Donnell suggested all of this relationship should be in the EIS but Mr. Guthrie said the
two elements of the provision and the operation aterwards were unrelated in his opinion,
but he agreed there was no legal arrangement in place setting out the relationship between
the concessionaire and the Local Authority.
Mr. O'Donnell said that a private person would build the road and asked if they would
have to apply for Planning Permission; Mr. Guthrie replied the EIS was the Planning
consent and Mr. O'Donnell suggested it was the first time he heard of a private developer
building something for profit to operate for 20/30 years that would not be required to
apply for Planning Permission. Mr. Butler intervened to say these were legal matters for
which Mr. O'Donnell could make a submission but Mr. O'Donnell said these were crucial
to the direct and indirect effects of the Scheme and should be addressed in the EIS. Mr.
O'Donnell asked a series of questions about the detailed design of the scheme including
the bridges, the schedule of accommodation works and whether the layout could be
changed and on being told all of these were matters for agreement with the
concessionaire in due course, suggested this was speculation as the agreement details
with the concessionaire were not agreed.
The Inspector then intervened and said that what was before the Hearing was a CPO and
an EIS with drawings prepared by the Local Authority to support their applications, that
if these were approved by An Bord anything built aferwards had to conform to these and
to whatever modifications were applied by an Bord. He said that rather than as was being
argued, if the Contractor wanted to do something outside of the CPO line, he could not
do it. Mr. O'Donnell said he was flagging his concern about the latitude for modification
85
within the line of the CPO and the Inspector replied that if anyone was making
modifications, the first would be An Bord.
Mr. O'Donnell suggested to Mr. Guthrie that if a clear need for the scheme could not be
shown, An Bord should not approve the scheme and he should be so recommending to
An Bord as the person proposing the scheme. Mr. Guthrie said they believed there was a
strong need for the Scheme and he was then asked if this was based on the Roads Needs
Study. When he replied that it was this as well as subsequent traffic counts, Mr.
O'Donnell asked if he accepted the Roads Needs Study did not indicate the type of
scheme he was now proposing. Mr. Guthrie agreed and Mr. O'Donnell then put it to him
that he was accepting that the Roads Needs Study did not justify the M3 scheme but Mr.
Guthrie said the Needs Study was published in 1998 and the growth of traffic was greater
than the Needs Study anticipated which was why a motorway was now required. When
Mr. O'Donnell again sought a yes or no answer on the Needs Study justification and Mr.
Guthrie again pointed to their traffic counts showing growth above what had been
expected in that study, Mr. O'Donnell suggested he was questioning the validity of the
Needs Study and that, despite what had been said previously in his evidence, Mr. Guthrie
was now saying it did not help his case. Mr. Guthrie disagreed with this and a debate took
place on the findings of the Needs Study, on where dual and reduced dual carriageways
were to be provided, on the relevance of the traffic figures and on the need for their
updating. Mr. O'Donnell then asked if the traffic figures used had regard to the SPGs for
the Greater Dublin Area and when Mr. Guthrie replied that they were linked with the
limits of the brief again asked for a yes or no answer. Mr. Guthrie referred him to Mr.
Richardson who carried out the traffic modelling, Mr. O'Donnell said as the Project coordinator
he should know the answer and the Inspector said Mr. Richardson had been
offered to reply instead.
Mr. O'Donnell asked where was there a reference to Public Transport issues in the EIS
and Mr. Guthrie replied that the EIS did not deal with those issues since it was concerned
with the impact of the road but that the projections of traffic growth had allowed for the
increased use of public transport. When Mr. O'Donnell suggested the road had been
designed without integrating it with public transport options, Mr. Guthrie said that was
not correct, that they had contacted the various Bus companies using the N3 and advised
them of what was intended for the M3 and the N3. Mr.O'Donnell suggested this was an
extraordinary way in which to have preparted the scheme by ignoring what was in the
policy of the SPGs and said this fundamentally flawed the basis for preparing the scheme.
Mr. Guthrie responded by saying they believed all of the issues that arose had been
addressed in the preparation of the scheme.
Following an exchange between the Inspector and Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Guthrie was asked
about his reference to "existing conditions engineering, environmental and economics" as
being the appropriate criteria against which the corridors were judged and how each was
rated in order of importance. Mr. Guthrie explained that there was no one factor that had
an overriding importance for the scheme as a whole since some factors were more
important in certain sections but not in others. Asked if there was a matrix or document
showing weightings, Mr. Guthrie said there was no document on weightings but they had
86
a document showing the comparisons between the factors relevant to each route. Mr.
O'Donnell asked who dealt with the economics and when told it was a traffic engineer in
Halcrow Barry, asked if he was satisfied that the exercise carried out but this traffic
engineer met the requirements of the NRA on an economic evaluation. Mr. Guthrie said
that he was and when Mr. O'Donnell said he had not seen any document indicating the
analysis carried out of the benefits and costs relative to his Client's properties, Mr.
Guthrie said that the cost benefit analysis (CBA) carried out was on a scheme wide basis
and not on individual properties as that would be part of the socio- conomic study in the
EIS. When told it was not intended that the person who undertook the cost benefit
analysis would give evidence, Mr. O'Donnell said he wanted to cross-examine this person
since 90% of the land owners along the scheme would not be receiving compensation as
their land was not in the CPO but they were being affected. The Inspector said it was a
matter for the Council who they made available to give evidence and, when asked by Mr.
O'Donnell, the Inspector said he was not disposed to issuing a direction on the matter.
Mr. O'Donnell asked if he was happy with a CBA where no regard was taken of the land
owners whose property would be affected by the Scheme but who were not in the CPO
and thus wouldnot be compensated was an adequate CBA. Mr. Guthrie replied they had
followed the government guidelines in carrying out the CBA and the compensation issue
he referred to did not have to be included according to those guidelines. Asked what was
the cost of the actual road construction leaving out the cost of the land and design, Mr.
O'Donnell was told "about £310m in 2000 prices". Mr. O'Donnell concluded his crossexamination
by asking which of the documents -- General DTO Policy, National
Sustainable Strategy and Residential Density Guidelines -- was he familiar with or had
he read them and which of them had he had regard to. Mr. Guthrie said he was aware of
all three but was not familiar with their contents.
17.5a. Questioned by David Robinson, Rathbeggan, Dunshaughlin (Plot 255) :
He asked Mr. Guthrie as the Project Leader if he was satisfied they had fulfilled to 100%
all of the legal and practical terms within the EIS in providing for hydrological and noise
abatement investigations and Mr. Guthrie confirmed all of these had been carried out.
17.5b. Questioned by Bernard Walsh, Newtown Cottage, Dunboyne (Plot 331) :
He asked why a 50 metre diameter was chosen for the design of the Roundabout on the
Dunboyne By-pass Link Road and Mr. Guthrie replied that his colleague from MC
O'Sullivan would be answering that question when that Section was being dealt with.
Asked if the safety factor was taken as a factor in the design of roundabout design and
Mr. Guthrie said that it was a major factor as it was in any junction design.
17. 5c. Questioned by Sandra Ryan, Lismullin (Plot 1083) :
Ms Ryan asked if he was aware that the area where the Blundellstown Interchange
was to be built was a well-known Fog-pocket in Wintertime and fog lingered there
after it had cleared everywhere else. Mr. Guthrie said that climatic conditions had
87
been taken into account when that junction location was selected and the fact the
motorway was below the N3 with the roundabouts at the higher areas should mnimise
fog effects on turning traffic there.
17.6. Cross-examined by Seamus Farrelly, Hill of Skryne :
Mr. Farrelly said Mr. Guthrie had said in evidence the idea of the motorway came as a
result of the Roads Needs study and asked that this be explained to him. Mr. Guthrie then
outlined the sequence of the traffic assessments they had carried out on the consequences
of the actual growth in population compared to the predictions in the Needs Study which
lead to their study recommending the motorway extension from Clonee to Navan and a
full, rather than a reduced, dual carriageway from Navan to Kells. In response to a series
of questions Mr. Guthrie agreed that there were six segments originally between Clonee
and north of Kells; that one of these was the Dunshaughlin By-pass and that there was a
major traffic problem in Dunshaughlin. He confirmed that it was Meath County Council
who decided not to have a separate Dunshaughlin By-pass and to include this as part of
the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section, as part of the Five Sections that were allocated to
the three Consultants to assess. Mr. Farrelly asked if this was because they felt no-one
would object to a Dunshaughlin By-pass but that many would object to a motorway but
Mr. Guthrie said he could not comment on that.
Mr. Farrelly referred to the increase in cost from £156M in the roads Needs Study to the
M3 cost of £450M, a threefold increase, and suggested the final cost could be € 1BN by
the time it started and asked how many cars were going to travel daily through the two
tolls. Mr. Guthrie replied that it would be 54700 vehicles in the design year on theClonee
to Dunshaughlin Section and Mr. Farrelly said that, taking those figures, the reurn over
30 years was going to be about a € 1BN and that no-one would finance a scheme that
would cost €1BN and then wait for 30 years to get back that outlay with no profit or
interest. Mr. Guthrie said he had explained earlier the financial details were something
for the Government and the concessionaire and he could not surmise what they might be
and when Mr. Farrelly said it was misleading to suggest that a €1 per trip was going to be
sufficient for 30 years when it was not, Mr. Guthrie said the issue of tolling had been
referred to by the Inspector earlier as being for another hearing and was not part of this
Hearing.
Mr. Farrelly then referred to the quote from Mr. Guthrie's Brief of Evidence --" to permit
the efficient movement of goods and persons in the interests of commerce and enterprise"
( from Section 3.2 on CDP) and asked if he was saying there was a lot of commerce and
enterprise moving between Kells and Clonee. When Mr. Guthrie said he had been
referring to the potential for Navan to grow which would create an increase in commerce
and enterprise in the Navan area, Mr. Farrelly asked if he knew that an Industrial Estate
built in Navan some years ago had no industry in it and that if the Council provided
industry for Navan there would be no reason for people to travel daily on the N3 to
Dublin and no need for this M3 at all. Mr. Guthrie said the predictions were of an
increased growth of traffic on the N3 but Mr. Farrelly maintained the people buying
88
houses in Navan were all Dublin people who could not afford to live in Dublin and it was
all commuter traffic that would use this motorway.
Mr. Farrelly then referred to the Public Consultation session held in the Ardboyne Hotel
and asked if he recalled saying there that "we had the money therefore we were building
the roads" but Mr. Guthrie said he could not recall making such a statement. Asked if he
gave an indication that the NRA had money for the road, Mr. Guthrie said part of the
NDP was money to improve the infrastructure and the N3 was part of the overall Plan.
Asked if he could recall saying at the Ardboyne Hotel that " the road was going to be
built whether it went over the Hill of Tara or not", Mr. Guthrie denied saying that and
when Mr. Farrelly said he could bring witnesses to say that he did say this, Mr. Guthrie
said he rebutted this allegation and it was not a statement either he or his colleagues were
likely to have said, as they were looking only at potential route corridors then so there
was no reason for anything of that nature of reply to be given which he again said he did
not.
Mr. Farrelly referred to his Brief of Evidence at section 3.5 on the function of the scheme
as a strategic link between Dublin and the Northwest and said the road went nowhere
near Dublin and that with the huge bottleneck at Blanchardstown, when the road was
built this bottleneck would stretch back to Clonee and, after paying their Euro toll,
people would join a bottleneck there. He said this would not make it any quicker for
people to get into Dublin in the morning than at present. Mr. Guthrie said the end of the
N3 tied into the M50 around Dublin and so linked the Northwest to the Dublin area. He
agreed there was a short term problem at Blanchardstown but said there were studies
ongoing about that and when all of the improved network was in place, the situation
would be considerably improved for peak time travel and he also referred to LUAS and
DART works being in progress. Asked if he had seen a timetable for all of these
improvements, Mr. Guthrie said he had not as he was not involved in those schemes. Mr.
Farrelly said he found it hard to understand why the Project Leader did not seem to know
what else was going on and how these linked into the M3 and it seemed as if the road
from Clonee to North of Kells was going to be built regardless of what else happened
around it. Mr. Guthrie said their Brief from Meath County Council was to look at the
design of the N3 from Clonee to north of Kells and studies outside of that were not
included in their Brief.
Mr. Farrelly asked why there was no mention of Heritage, Culture or Archeaology in the
section on Dunshaughlin to Navan in 4.3 in his Brief of Evidence. Mr. Guthrie replied
that this was a summary of the constraints assessed but that it was acknowledged in the
environmental section at 4.3.4 that the archaeology of the Tara area would be a main
constraint in a corridor assessment to be studied in more detail when looking at the
individual sections and routes within those corridors. Asked if he had read the Meath
Strategic Development Plan which said that no earthworks or building was to take place
in the environs of Tara and Skryne or in the valley in between them, Mr. Guthrie said he
had not read this but these sentences were in the CDP as well and they had taken
cognisence of them. Mr. Guthrie suggested these issues were more appropriate to being
dealt with when the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section came to be dealt with by the
89
Hearing. Mr. Farrelly said he would come back for this but the areas a Strategic Green
Belt according to Meath CC and he did not know how one could build a motorway
through a Strategic Green Belt.
17.7. Cross-examined by Eamon Galligan S. C. for Ms Maher, Ardbraccan House :
Mr. Galligan suggested he was not familiar with planning in Meath or Dublin and Mr.
Guthrie agreed that he relied on his colleagues in Meath County Council for the planning
aspects, while he was aware of the contents of the CDP but not the documents mentioned
earlier. Mr. Galligan asked was he clear if they were relying on the 1994 or 2001 CDP in
the context of what Mr. Butler had said and when Mr. Guthrie replied he was familiar
with both Plans, asked him what was the route of the Navan By-pass in the 1994 Plan.
Mr. Guthrie said it was some time since he looked at that and he could not remember the
detail but he accepted it was not a motorway and that it was on a different route to that
now proposed. Asked if their Brief included considering the SPGs, he said it was not but
agreed the Meath CDP was part of their consideration. Mr. Guthrie also agreed he had
not read the Platform for change document from the DTO. Mr. Galligan asked if he, as
the Project Manager, should have condsidered the SPGs as a case had been taken against
Meath Co. Co. in relation to these in the context of the CDP but Mr. Guthrie replied he
did not consider that was necessarily part of his brief since the Planning Department
advised them on all planning issues. In response to futher questions Mr. Guthrie
confirmed that the Planning Department did not advise him about the specific or more
general requirements of the SPGs, nor did they advise him of their impacts on Counties
outside of Meath; that he could not say what Counties were covered by the SPGs; that he
was not aware of ministerial planning guidelines outside of the NRA Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges; that he had not taken the residential guidelines into account and he
accepted that the cost of the road building program had exceeded the predicted estimates
but did not accept that this meant there was no money to build the M3.
Mr. Galligan asked what was the current opening date in the context of the Government's
funding shortfall and when told it was now seen as 2006, suggested it could slip further to
possibly 2008 depending on factors outside their control, and Mr. Guthrie accepted this
was possible. Asked about the CBA undertaken and if this had been done for each of the
five sections of the route, while Mr. Guthrie initially indicated that was so, from further
questioning he clarified that Halcrow Barry had only undertaken the CBA on the overall
preferred route and that no stand-alone CBA was done for the Navan By-pass Section.
Mr. Galligan then referred to the various Reports produced by the Team and sought
clarification as between the Constraints Report of May 2000, the Route Selection Report
dated December 2001 and "Corridor" Selection and asked if there was an overall Route
Selection Report as distinct from the Section Reports. Mr. Guthrie said that the overall
report was part of the Corridor Selection Report referred to in his Brief of Evidence; that
separate reports had been prepared for the five separate schemes going on up to the time a
single scheme was decided on and that the purpose of the Corridor Selection Report was
to identify the main Constraints within a selection of corridors throughout the Scheme
and that this Report was dated January 2002. Mr. Galligan suggested it would have been
good practice to have identified the corridors before individual routes were selected and
90
Mr. Guthrie said that process would have been carried out as part of the selection of each
of the individual routes and explained that they wanted to identify for the route as a
whole, once it was to be a single scheme, was whether there was any alternative that they
had not considered in the individual scheme process and said they had concluded the
combination he had outlined earlier was where the emerging preferred route (EPR) would
come from.
Mr. Galligan asked if a draft route selection report had been produced for the Navan Bypass
and when Mr. Guthrie replied he was not familiar with that section, asked if a draft
had been prepared for Dunshaughlin to Navan. Told there had been working copies, Mr.
Galligan asked if these had been published or presented to the public and Mr. Guthrie
said they had not been presented as these were only working documents and that when
the decision for a single scheme was made the preparation of the Route Selection Report
was held over until after the outcome of the Corridor analysis that he had already referred
to. Mr. Galligan asked was he familiar with the National Road Project Management
Guidelines and referred to paragraphs 9.1 and 3.4.5 which deal with public consultation
and suggested that, by not presenting the Route Selection Report in either draft or
summary form to the public, these Guidelines were not followed by the Team. Mr.
Guthrie said that copies of the final report were available for the public and said the
public's comments were sought at the Route Selection Exhibition. Mr. Galligan put it to
him that the Exhibition was in March 2000 and the Report was dated December 2001so
this was a post dated exercise and Mr. Guthrie said the purpose of the Exhibition was to
get comments that could be incorporated into the Final Report. Following further
exchanges on what presentations were made and to whom Mr. Galligan put it to him that
the procedures set out in the National Roads Project Management Guidelines were not
followed on that issue and Mr. Guthrie said that was true.
Mr.Galligan then asked who formed the Joint Consultants Team and when was this set up
and Mr. Guthrie replied that the Team comprised members of MC O'Sullivan, Halcrow
Barry and Arup staffs with the members being those present to give evidence. Asked
about the Steering Committee he said this comprised the same Consultants, with
representatives of the Council and the NRA and that the development of the design was
discussed at Steering Committee meetings. Asked about the alternatives considered by
that Committee and specifically if after June 2000 no further consideration was given to
other options to a motorway, Mr. Guthrie said that, as he had previously explained on a
few occasions, a motorway was always required for the Clonee to Navan section and that
the effect of the June 2000 decision was only to extend that requirement to the Navan to
Kells section. Asked if there was any consideration in their Brief for rail transport as an
alternative to road transport, Mr. Guthrie said that was not in their Brief. In reply to
further questions on the issue of rail transport, Mr. Guthrie agreed there were objectives
in the Meath CDP to re-open the rail link between Navan and Dublin and said they had
made provision to facilitate this in the future in the design of the Road Scheme. Mr.
Galligan said he would have further questions for the witness later on when the Section
was being dealt with. The Inspector asked Mr. Galligan for a copy of the National Roads
Project Management Guidelines he had referred to and this was handed in on Day 4, as
listed in Appendix 4 of this Report.
91
17.8. Cross-examined by Brid Murphy, of Casey & Co. Solicitors
on behalf of An Taisce :
Ms Murphy referred to the original Brief and asked if the intention then was to upgrade
the N3 to a dual carriageway. Mr. Guthrie said that the Roads Needs study had predicted
the need for a dual carriageway between Clonee and Navan and that when they reviewed
the existing traffic flows they found the growth now required a motorway as a minimum
standard and that a full, rather than a reduced, carriageway was needed between Navan
and Kells. Ms Murphy asked if he had details of the number of property demolitions he
had referred to for an on-line route but Mr. Guthrie said he had not these to hand as they
would be in the section reports. Ms Murphy asked what changes in the design followed
from the recent "withdrawal agreements" referring to Rathbeggan House Stud
specifically and Mr. Guthrie replied that he had not had an opportunity to review these as
yet.
17.9. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman on behalf of An Taisce :
Mr. Sweetman said that before he started he wanted to point out that the Hearing was an
EIA process and that it was already going for the European Court as a case against
Ireland that the public shall be consulted.
Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Guthrie where the 4.35 M cu. metres fill referred to in his Brief
of evidence at 5.2.5 was coming from and when told that this would be sourced from
"borrow pits" within the Scheme or from identified material sites outside the Scheme
asked where these were in the EIS. Mr. Guthrie said they had been given a map by the
Council and that the earthworks filling would be dealt with under a licensing process at a
later stage and they were looking at where existing licensed Tip sites were and this map
would be available to the Hearing later on. Mr. Sweetman said he was not interested in
what was going to be produced and asked where in the EIS was this material stated to be
coming from. Mr. Guthrie replied they had not identified sites in the EIS as that would be
left to the Contractor to source but they would have some details of possible locations
during the Hearing. Mr. Sweetman said that in the EIS all likely significant effects were
to be provided and asked if he was saying 4.25M tonnes was not significant. Mr. Guthrie
said he did not say that and they were working with the Council to identify suitable
material sources along the route, having only just completed a detailed site investigation.
Mr. Sweetman said the extraction of raw materials of gravel and the like required
Planning Permission, and an EIS if the area was more than 5 hectares, that it was part of
this project and was a planning matter and asked where it was coming from. Mr. Guthrie
again said that a map was being prepared showing the locations of present licensed tips
within the County and this would be presented when it was completed. After some
further exchanges Mr. Sweetman asked if he was aware of a request for further
information made by An Bord to Waterford Corporation relative to the Waterford By-
Pass and when Mr. Guthrie said he was, asked him what was required. Mr. Guthrie
92
replied that it was to furnish the information they were presently putting together for the
M3.
18. Request for Adjournment of Hearing by Peter Sweetman :
18.1. Submission by Peter Sweetman :
Mr. Sweetman then said to the Inspector that the Waterford By-pass information sought
by An Bord was relevant to the EIS and as it was not available he thought the Hearing
should be adjourned until they had an EIS. When the Inspector said his point was noted
Mr. Sweetman said it was not a point but it was a request for an Adjournment under the
precedent set in Waterford by An Bord and the request for further information. He said
An Bord felt the procedure in Waterford could not proceed further until this information
was avaliable before the Hearing and the same information was required here, as Mr.
Guthrie knew. He said going further was a waste of time as they could not assess the
implications of the development with traffic movements etc. and that An Bord could not
then assess the likely significant impacts of the development.
18.2. Supporting submissions by Michael O'Donnell B.L. & Eamon Galligan S.C. :
Mr. O'Donnell said he supported the application for an Adjournment of the Hearing; that
he was involved in the Waterford Hearing where that issue arose and it had arisen here
earlier than he had expected it to do so. He said it was extraordinary that Meath County
Council had proceeded with the clear knowledge that information, which should have
been available before the Hearing commenced, was stiil being prepared. He said that in
the Waterford case the suggestion was made that the documentation would be produced
but that was deemed un-acceptable since it must be in the public domain and the public
must havean opportunity of being made aware of the documentation. He submitted An
Bord had no alternative but to adjourn the Hearing to allow the documentation be
published and the public allowed a period to comment on this additional information.
Mr. Galligan said he also supported the application being made by Mr. Sweetman. He
said that it seemed clear the Council were engaged in "project splitting" by there being
another project involving the extraction of materials which they were not being told
about. He said it was unsatisfactory that the Hearing was being asked to address the
Scheme in a piecemeal basis and they needed to be able to address the significant impacts
of the operation in an integrated manner and for those reasons he supported the
application.
The Inspector said that he noted the points made; that he had indicated before Mr.
Sweetman had commenced his cross-examination the Hearing would be adjourning at
about 6.30 pm and that it was now 6.25 pm. He said that he had no knowledge of what
An Bord had sought and the Hearing was now being adjourned until 10.30 am tomorrow
morning, which would allow him time to make some enquiries.
93
18.3. Ruling by Inspector :
When the Hearing re-commenced on Day 3 the Inspector referred to the request and
supporting submissions made for an adjournment of the Hearing and said he had
considered these and had re-read the EIS documents last night. He said that he had also
obtained by FAX before the Hearing re-commenced a copy of the document issued by An
Bord to Waterford Corporation referred to by Mr. Sweetman and that he now proposed to
read extracts from a number of documents that were relevant to his decision on the
request.
The Inspector then read out the contents of Section 3.6 relating to Construction Impacts
at page 23; the contents of Section 8.4 relating to Soil at page 196 and the contents of
Section 12.2.2 on Landtake and Soil Requirements at page 246, all of these being from
Vol. 2 of the EIS. He said Section 8 dealt with Soil, Geology and Hydro geology and
Section 12 dealt with Materials andNatural resources and that similar wording, but with
slightly different quantities, appeared in Sections 8 and 12 in Volumes 4A, 5A, 6A and
7A and that he did not propose to read those to the Hearing.
The Inspector referred to Mr. Butler's opening comments on the EIA for Road
Developments being carried out having regard to the requirements of Section 50 of the
Roads Act 1993 as amended and substituted to reflect the requirements of two Statutory
Instruments the most recent of these being SI 193/1999 which brought into effect the
requirements of EC Directive 97/11/EC. He said that he did not intend to read out all of
the sections and sub-sections except for one particular paragraph, part of Section 50 (2) -
- " An Environmental Impact Statement shall contain the following specified information
: " -- with sub-sections (a) to (e) inclusive following and then -- " 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 proposed 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 informatioin, having regard inter alia to current knowledge and method of
assessments."
The Inspector then read out Sub-section 1 of Section 2.20 of the Planning and
Development Act 2000 on the entitlement of a person holding an oral hearing to hear
evidence and said he did not propose to read the qualification in Section 175--14 of
Section 175. He then read extracts from the Submission made by An Taisce to An Bord
in the letter of 3 May 2002 signed by Ian Lumley, Heritage Officer.These extracts were at
the end of Point 7, relating to Climate Change Strategy -- " Apart from the immediate
environmental impact of the road in terms of construction and landscape and traffic
generation, the extraction of quarried hard-core material and the use and production of
cement, steel and concrete is of intrinsic environmental impact. We are concerned that
the cumulative impact of road proposals including off-site impact in quarries has not been
addressed and that this proposal is a significant example of such. We would draw your
attention to the recent opinion of 27 July 2001 of the European Commission with regard
to project splitting." He said that Point 8 was entitled " Failure to Consider Off-site
94
Impacts. The application would require extensive quarrying and rock extraction, the
location of which or the environmental impact of which is not addressed in this
application" and he said they concluded by saying that " The EIS fails to meet the
requirements of the Regulations 1989-2000 and Direction 97/11/EC" He then read, in
full, the letter from An Bord of 11 March 2002 sent to Mr. Tom Hartrey, Waterford
Corporation which referred to " Waterford By-pass Scheme and N25 Waterford By-pass
(No.1) CPO 2001". This letter is listed at Day 3 in Appendix 4 of this Report. The
Inspector said he understood an Oral Hearing followed from this letter from An Bord and
that An Bord had not yet made a determination on that Waterford Road Development and
also that this recent Oral Hearing had been the second Hearing into the N25 Scheme.
The Inspector said the extracts he had read from the EIS documents indicated that fill
material would have to be imported and that this was referred to in the EIS with the
Extracts at Section 8.4 also referring to the need for further regard to legislative
procedures in relation to identifying non-licensed sites. He said that Mr. Guthrie in crossexamination
referred to information being assembled with the intention of presenting this
to the Hearing and said that, in his opinion, this type of evidence fell within the scope of
Section 2.20 in the 2000 Act. He said that he had obtained from An Bord that morning
(of Day 3) through Mr. Egan the details of the Waterford case and copies of the FAX
would be made available for anyone who wanted one after the mid morning break. He
said that there were Five separate sets of "Clarifications" sought of which the clarification
about the "Quantity of Materials" was only one. He said that in reviewing the sections in
Volumes 3A to 7A the total quantities seemed more than what Mr. Guthrie had stated but
this was not an issue at the moment but said he would be raising this with the Council
later on.
The Inspector said he had been asked to adjourn the Hearing until the information that
was not set out in the EIS had been made available and the letter issued by An Bord in
the Waterford case had been suggested as a basis for this. He said that having now seen
the letter from An Bord, having regard to the information available in the EIS as it stood,
having regard to the various section of the Acts he had quoted and noting the wording in
An Taisce's submission to An Bord, he was not prepared to adjourn the Hearing at this
time. He said that he considered there was sufficient information available in the EIS for
the Hearing to proceed and the additional information that Meath indicated they were
assembling would be considered when presented in due course. He said that Mr.
Sweetman and those who supported the application were at liberty to raise the issue later
when the information had become available, if they wished, or they could make a
submission at the appropriate time. He said he would be referring to this in his Report to
An Bord and it would then be a matter for An Bord to decide if they required further
details, or information, from Meath County Council.
18.4. Further submission by Peter Sweetman on behalf of An Taisce :
Mr.Sweetman submitted that the Inspector had not referred to the 1999 EIA Regulations
and did not refer adequately to the Directive. He said the developer in this case was an
"animation" of the State, that the theory of direct effect took place and there had been
95
prosecutions against Ireland in the European Court over Ireland's non-implementation of
the EIA Directive with a recent opinion, as quoted in An Taisce's original objection and
now going to the Advocate General, of the Commission that the Irish Regulations did not
comply with the Directive. He said there were two fundamental points from this
Directive, one being that before a consent was given for an EIS all of the likely
significant effects must be taken into consideration and the public must be consulted. He
said that the evidence was of thousand trucks a day being used to shift material and this
could mean some unfortunate person, living possibly 20/30 miles from this site, would
have a thousand trucks passing their door, if only for a short time. He said that if that
person had been aware of this when the EIS was published they could have objected and
that it was not adequate for this information to be only available to the Inspector and An
Bord and the few people who had objected already. He said the Directive and the
European Court judgements were clear that the public must be consulted. He said it was
also "project splitting" and this had already been made known to An Bord in other recent
cases and something that had been taken to the European Court by the Commission. He
referred to the Kildare By-pass case and said the Commission found the Minister's
consent was fundamentally flawed since a consent could not be given that was subject to
further investigation and that all relevant and significant effects must be before the public
and the data supporting them. He concluded by saying there were numerous other issues
which had not been addressed such as archaeology and he would go into that in his crossexamination.
18.5. Further submission by Michael O'Donnell B.L. on behalf of Dalgan Park
and Others :
Mr. O'Donnell said he was extremely concerned by the manner in which the Inspector
had come to his decision since he had dealt with the adjournment request without taking
any contrary submission from the Council and had gone back to the EIS and made a
determination based on what was in the EIS. He submitted that to have made a decision
without giving any opportunity for arguments to be made on the determinations made
was not consistent with the Inspector's role as part of the Hearing and fundamentally
contrary to fair procedures. He said the manner in which the Inspector had determined the
issue caused him and his Clients serious concern and while he accepted the Inspector's
ruling that the Hearing should not be adjourned, that the decision was reached on a
particular set of criteria without these being argued was what caused him most concern.
He said that the approach take by the Inspector in looking at the EIS and placing a gloss
on it and then making a determination made it difficult to see what could come of this at
this stage as, effectively, the stable door was open and the horse was gone and he wanted
to place on record his serious concern at the approach taken by the Inspector.
18.6. Further submission by Eamon Galligan S.C. on behalf of Ms Maher,
Ardbraccan House :
Mr. Galligan said he understood the Inspector's position in having a duty to act
expeditiously but was concerned that this should not be achieved at the expense of natural
justice and public participation. He said this was an issue relating to the application of
fair procedures in the context of the EU Directives on EIAs and the information must be
96
made available to the public prior to the consent being given and, he submitted, before
the Hearing into the EIS and the assessment was commenced by An Bord. He submitted
that the Hearing should be adjourned if it became clear during the Hearing that there was
significant information being prepared by the Planning Authority until that information
was available and until objectors who had locus standii could consider this and draft
submissions on the likely effects. He referred to the 1000 truck movements, the absence
of details of locations of pits or quarries to supply the fill material, possible noise and
dust impacts and said it would be difficult in the absence of the information for objectors
to address these issues. He said he shared Mr. O'Donnell's concerns ion the manner in
which the Inspector had reached his decision without hearing contrary arguments or
giving an opportunity to Meath County Council to express their opinion, saying they
might also have supported the application for an adjournment. He said he was availing of
the opportunity to ask the Inspector to reverse his earlier ruling that he had made in
relation to the High Court case on the Validity of the CDP and was doing this in the light
of Mr. Guthrie's admission that he had not read the SPGs. He said it should cause the
Inspector the gravest concern that the Council had not considered these Guidelines, or at
the least their Project Manager had not done so.
18.7. Submission by Brid Murphy, Solicitor on behalf of An Taisce :
Ms Murphy said she did not intend to repeat Mr. Sweetman's various points with which
she concurred and said she fully supported and shared the concerns expressed by Mr.
Galligan and Mr. O'Donnell.
18.8. Comments by Inspector :
The Inspector said there were a few points that he wished to make arising from these
submission, the first being that no time limit had been placed on the hearing and it was
his intention to remain as long as was necessary for everyone to have their say. He said
that he was conscious of the need to deal with people in a fair and equitable manner and
that he was also conscious of there being a substantial number of people at the Hearing
who would not have been at such a Hearing previously and who might not be too familiar
with the "ins and outs" of these sort of situations. He said that in reading extracts from the
EIS he was not, as was suggested, consulting them but took the view he would outline the
background to what had been looked at before giving his determination. He said the
purpose of reading the extracts was to indicate that the quantities of fill and the need for
excavations were actually in the EIS as published and had been available when objections
were made.
Following some exchanges with Mr. Sweetman, the Inspector said there was information
available in the documents, whether it was adequate or not was another day's work but
the EIS information did indicate large quantities. He said he accepted there were differing
views as to the adequacy from the objections made to the EIS originally but these would
get an airing as the Hearing progressed. He said his references to the Acts were also to
give the people in the hall the background to procedures which the Legal advisors were
well aware of. Following further exchanges with Mr. Sweetman, the Inspector said that
97
his Report would cover this particular issue and An Bord Pleanala would have it when
making their assessment. He said that the request for the adjournment was made by Mr.
Sweetman and M/s O'Donnell and Galligan supported him. He said he choose not to ask
the Council for their view and stood over that decision. He told Mr. Galligan that he was
not reversing his previous decision on his request for an adjournment and that he
expected the Council to submit the information that Mr. Guthrie had referred to at an
early date and said the Hearing would now return to Mr. Guthrie's cross-examination by
Mr. Sweetman.
18.9. Submission of Maps by Pat Butler S.C. for the Council :
When the Hearing resumed on Day 4 and before evidence had commenced, Mr. Butler
said that the information relating to the various quarries, sand pits and disposal pits had
been recorded on a Map and this set out in detail first the authorised quarries within
Meath, second the authorised sand and gravel pits, third the licensed disposal pits under
the Waste Management Act and fourth the location of potential borrow pits along the line
of the route and he handed in a Map with all of these marked saying that, as was stated in
the EIS, those borrow pits would be subject to all necessary legislative authorisations
whether by way of Planning Permission or EIS regulation.
19. Continued cross-examination of Alan Guthrie, Project Manager :
19.1. Further cross-examined by Peter Sweetman :
When Mr. Guthrie said that he might have given the impression of the CBA being done
for each of the Sections but, if so, that was incorrect since it was only done for the Whole
route and not for the Sections. Mr. Sweetman asked if he had included for the community
dis-benefits, the socio-economic costs or the cultural heritages costs and when told that
only the construction and land purchase costs that were in the COBA program, said it was
not a cost benefit analysis that was done but only an economic appraisal. Mr. Sweetman
asked where in the EIS was the drawings with design of the Toll Plazas shown and when
Mr. Guthrie replied there were indicative drawings in Vol. 3B and 6B, he asked for the
scaled construction drawings. Mr. Guthrie said they only had the indicative drawings and
Mr. Sweetman referred to one of the points of clarification sought by An Bord for the
Waterford By-pass read out by the Inspector earlier ( Note --This was Item 4) and said
this information was not available in the EIS and repeated his request for the architectural
drawings as a planning permission was being sought.
Mr. Sweetman then referred to Figure 2.0 in Vol. 3B and said these were only indicative
drawings and there were no facilities for an outline permission in the EIA Directive so he
required full drawings of the elevations of the toll plaza. Mr. Guthrie said they did not
have full drawings there and the drawings in the EIS were those being presented. The
Inspector asked the Council to put up the details of what was in the EIS on the screen,
Mr. Sweetman said this was missing his point, the Inspector said his concern was for the
people at the back of the hall who could not know what was being referred to but Mr.
98
Butler said the Council could not project these details that day but would be able to do so
on the next day. Mr. Sweetman asked what was the distance from the toll building to the
septic tank and what was the result of the porosity test for the discharge from the septic
tank. Mr. Guthrie replied that the detailed design would be part of the PPP contract and
Mr. Sweetman, stating one could not apply for outline planning permission for a cottage
without that information, asked if he knew the ground was suitable for a septic tank. Mr.
Guthrie said he did not know that and Mr. Butler intervened to say all of this could be
dealt with in the particular Section. Mr. Sweetman said that an EIS shall contain all the
likely significant effects of the proposed development on the environment and that
putting a septic tank where one probably could not get planning permission for a cottage
was wasting peoples time. He said the project could not be assessed as the information
was so inadequate and that rather than seeking an adjournment he submitted that An Bord
could not grant permission for the application since the relevant information required by
law was not available. He said that he did not propose to have any further part in the
Hearing as there was no point in doing so, since the information was so lacking as
regards traffic movements, borrow pits and the porosity where the septic tank was to go
and that any further consideration of the EIS would be farcical.
The Inspector said that, for the information of people attending the Hearing, this was not
an application for planning permission as such but an application to An Bord Pleanala for
approval of a CPO and the associated EIS and was considered under the amended
provisions of Section 50 of the Roads Act 1993, parts of which he had read out earlier.
He said that while Mr. Sweetman was perfectly correct in the statement he made in
respect of a normal planning application, the Council had put forward a proposal that
they consider meets what is set out in Section 50 as amended and Mr. Butler had referred
to this in his opening statement. He said that while Mr. Sweetman might disagree with
what he had said, the fact was that the application to An Bord was not a planning
application but was a procedure where detailed design drawings were not necessarily an
absolute requirement.
Mr. Sweetman said he would make a further submission on the next day and this would
be based on European Law and would show what was being said was wrong. He said it
was a fundamental point in the European judgements of the European Court that the
public shall be consulted, not that there should be a private deal between the Council as
the developer in this case who, he said, was fraudulently applying for consent as they
were neither the financier, the builder nor the controller of it.
Mr. Sweetman then asked Mr. Guthrie for detailed drawings of the Railway line crossing
showing the height between the road and the railway line where the rail line crossed over
the road. Mr. Guthrie said this was not available since Iarnrod Eireann had not said what
they required at crossing points. Mr. Sweetman then asked about a diversion of the Tolka
river and when Mr. Guthrie said this would be dealt with by the Section Engineer, Mr.
Sweetman said he was the Project Leader and should know, and asked if any river was
being diverted. Mr. Guthrie said a number were and these were indicated in the EIS and
Mr. Sweetman asked if the Boyne River was being crossed and when told that it was,
asked for its status under the Habitats Directive. Mr. Guthrie suggested he should ask
99
their Environmental consultants on that issue. Mr Sweetman then asked if he had
assessed the effects on climate in the EIS and when told the Environmental Consultants
had done this, said the macro-climates were dealt with in the EIS but he was asking about
climate, not macro-climate. He said that Ireland had signed the Kyoto accord. The
Inspector intervened to say that if it helped Mr. Sweetman, he saw no reference to Kyoto
or climate change effects in the EIS. Mr. Sweetman then asked a series of questions about
cultural heritage and referred to Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 in Vol.1 of the EIS on
archaeology and buildings and cultural interest and then asked about the effects of the
EIA Regulations 2001 and wanted to know how the grounds of Ardbraccan House were
going to be preserved by record, Mr. Guthrie again referring him to the environmental
consultants. When Mr. Sweetman said he was the Project Leader and should be able to
answer the general questions, the Inspector intervened and said Mr. Guthrie had offered
the relevant authors of these topics and after some exchanges with the Inspector, Mr.
Sweetman asked if the reference to the 1000 truck movements was in the non-technical
summary. Mr. Guthrie said they were not referred to in Vol.1 and Mr. Sweetman said he
would continue on the next day.
Mr. Butler said that, to clarify a point, the Kyoto protocol was mentioned in every
volume of the EIS eg in 3A at Section 9.3 where there was a full section on macroclimate.
Mr. Sweetman said it was climate he had raised, not macro-climate and the
Inspector concurred with him on this.
19.2. Exchanges regarding availability of Transcripts :
Mr. O'Donnell then said he would require a copy of the transcript and when the Inspector
said the transcript would not be made available as it was covered by copyright between
an Bord and the Stenography firm, Mr. Sweetman referred to the EIA Directive and the
Freedom of Information Directive and said this meant it could not be copyright. Mr.
Galligan then said he was making a similar request and when Mr. O'Donnell repeated his
request the Inspector said his position was quite clear, he would not make it available, in
any event the arrangement was for the transcript to be supplied one week after the
Hearing was over and that if they wished to pursue this they should get in touch with the
Secretary of An Bord Pleanala. When Mr. Sweetman placed a document purporting to be
a request under the "Freedom of Information" in front of the Inspector, the Inspector said
that he was not accepting it from him, that for the purposes of the Act he( the Inspector)
was not an officer of An Bord and if he wanted to pursue that he should pursue it with the
Secretary of An Bord Pleanala. When Mr. O'Donnell sought a copy of An Bord's
instructions to the Inspector on the transcript, the Inspector said this request had been
raised on a previous occasion and what he had said was what he had been told by An
Bord at that time and he was working on the same basis now.
100
19.3. Mr. Guthrie cross-examined by Brendan Magee of the
Meath Road Action Group (MRAG) :
Mr. Magee asked for a copy of the Corridor Selection Report and this was given to him
by the Council and then asked Mr. Guthrie to describe how the rail line would cross over
the motorway at Bellinter or at Cannistown. Mr. Guthrie said they did not have a final
design of the rail line from Iarnrod Eireann but the indicative height of clearance required
was 5.5 metres above the motorway and allowing for a bridge deck of 1.5 metres depth,
this gave a height of 7 metres above the motorway surface. Mr. Magee suggested a 7
metre high railway line would be environmentally unaceptable from a visual aspect but
Mr. Guthrie said the Motorway going over the Railway would have the same visual
impact. Mr. Magee said the plans of the rail crossing should be available at this stage but
Mr. Guthrie said that was a matter for Iarnrod Eireann who had a study going on into the
feasibility but no definite plans were available and they had decided to proceed with the
motorway and accommodate the railway in the motorway design. Mr. Magee asked if the
residents in the area were aware of this 7 metre rail line and Mr. Guthrie said this was
part of the eventual railway hearing, if it went ahead. In response to further questions Mr.
Guthrie agreed the residents did not have details but said that the Council did not have
these either and he confirmed the railway bridge was not in the EIS since no firm details
could be provided by Iarnrod Eireann and the 7 metres came from the minimum
clearances required for any overbridge. Mr. Magee maintained that the details of this rail
line crossing over the M3 should have been in the EIS as the residents in the arrea were
not informed of this.
Mr. Magee referred to the mention in his Brief of Evidence that changes had ben made in
response to submissions received and asked were there documents available to prove
those changes were made. Mr. Guthrie said they had copies of all correspondence
received during the feasibility studies and agreed these could be made available if
required. Mr. Magee said that the Bellinter Residents Association (BRA) had been
requesting this information since June 2001 and had not been given it. Mr. Guthrie
replied that, at the request of the Council for this, they had provided packages of material
to the BRA and understood that all that was required had been given. He said there was
some question about the timing of some reports but he had explained the sequence of the
change from five separate sections to one earlier. He said another request was recently
received for information and that was also passed on with an offer to meet with the BRA
to discuss their particular requirments. If they felt there were some items of information
still missing. Mr. Magee said that there was no information of any use in the last lot they
received and none of what they specifically sought, with most of the largest file only
containing weekly site inspection reports.
Mr. Magee said they had never heard of the Corridor Selection Report until it arose
during his cross-examination by Frank Burke and asked why this was not in the
information supplied to the BRA. Mr. Guthrie said they had initially asked for the Route
Selection Report which was given to them and that the Corridor Report was done, as he
had explained earlier, after the Route Selection Report when they had moved from five
sections to one scheme. Mr. Magee suggested they had been very selective in what
101
information was supplied and they felt they were not being given what they sought, Mr.
Guthrie replied the Council felt they had supplied what was sought and that a meeting
could discuss what was still missing. Mr. Magee said it was information they wanted, not
a meeting, that they had reams of correspondence with the Design Office and were very
specific about what they required but did not get it. He said he wanted to make that
available to the Inspector to see the quality of the information given to them.
19.3. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh, Newtown Cottage,
Summerhill Road, Dunboyne (Plot 331):
Mr. Walsh asked if the ancillary roads and link roads would be privately owned like the
motorway would be and Mr. Guthrie said the private company would only be responsible
for the motorway with the Council being responsible for the Regional and County roads.
Mr. Walsh said he was concerned about the Roundabout on the Dunboyne Link Road
where all of the roundabouts seemed to be 50 metres and asked was that a standard size.
Mr. Guthrie said the size was more a function of the geometry of the entry and exit
widths rather than the traffic and if the roundabout was too small there was a tendency for
traffic to drive through the central island. Mr.Walsh asked was it not safer to have a
perpendicular entry rather than a tangential entry as it would slow down traffic and when
Mr. Guthrie agreed there was an optimum, Mr. Walsh asked about Continental and UK
experiences where roundabouts smaller than 50 metres were found to be safer for
pedestrians and cyclists and quoted UK Department of Transport, Nordic Road Research
Group and American Road Design Manuals in support of his suggestion. Mr. Guthrie
suggested this was getting into specifics that would be better addressed at a later stage in
the Hearing but Mr. Walsh said this would have an effect on his family and felt he should
answer this as the Project Manager. Mr. Guthrie replied that he accepted Mr. Walsh had a
particular point but the decision on the actual roundabout was made by a different
consultant and that Susan Joyce was the engineer involved with Clonee to Dunshaughlin.
Mr. Walsh then asked why a new R125 was being built with a cross-section of 10 metres
carriageway, two 2.5 metre hard shoulders and two 3 metre verges when the typical
cross-section of a regional road was given as 7.5 metres carriageway, a 0.5 metre hard
strip and a 3 metre verge. Mr. Guthrie said that while he was not party to the reasons for
why this road was of these widths but usually the cross-section was a function of the
traffic flows and expected future demand. Mr. Walsh asked what dictated its size when
this was about planting a road through agricultural land where it ws going to cut across it
for only a few miles. He could not see why this amount of traffic was going to be shifted
away from Dunboyne when it came off a small regional road that connected to
Maynooth. Mr. Guthrie said he could not comment on this as he did not know the
background.
19. 5. Cross-examined by Mary Begley, Collierstown, Tara :
Ms Begley asked him to explain the relevance and significance of the Public
Consultations to the overall planning of the road as referred to in his Brief of Evidence.
Mr. Guthrie said the first public consultation presented a series of potential corridors to
102
give an idea of where they were looking to design a road and initial views came from
this. When the comments received from both the public consultation and written
submissions had been analysed, the designs were further developed and formed the basis
of a Route Options Report. He said the Emerging Preferred Route was identified from the
Route Options Report and this formed part of the second public consultation process
where more detail of where the route would go was presented and adjustments were made
to the design from comments received from people directly affected. He said this was
then adjusted to produce the preliminary design which had now gone into forming part of
the EIS. Ms Begley asked if the adjustments were the tweaking of the design that was
referred to at the public consultations and Mr. Guthrie agreed, saying it was an
evolutionary process as they were trying to identify what were the constraints and their
sub-consultants as well as the public comments were all part of that process.
Ms Begley said he had referred to the Roads Needs Study in his Evidence and asked to be
reminded of its details. Mr. Guthrie said that was published in 1998 and identified a
requirement for a standard dual carriageway for the first half between Clonee and Kells
with a reduced dual carriageway for the second half. Asked about his reference to a
motorway need, he replied that this came from the increased traffic growth that had not
been predicted by the Needs Study figures, as these had taken a sort of global view of
traffic growth in Ireland. Ms Begley suggested he had said the Needs Study itself said
Clonee to Navan would require a motorway but Mr. Guthrie disagreed he said that and
said it was the development of the traffic figures from their re-assessment which
indicated a motorway was likely to be required. Asked at what stage did these figures
show this, he replied their traffic counts were taken in late 1999 and early 2000. When
Ms Begley suggested it was strange that at the public consultations in March 2000 no
reference to a motorway was made, Mr. Guthrie replied that they did not have all of the
facts then and that it was in June 2000 when the NRA advised the route was to be a
motorway between Clonee and Kells. Ms Begley asked if it was the NRA who made the
decision for a motorway and Mr. Guthrie confirmed this.
Ms Begley asked why there was no further public consultation to give the public an input
into the motorway decision and she compared this to the planning permission process
where one described what was intended to be built whereas in this case there had been no
real indicatioin to the public of what was being applied for. She said that the public
consultation process used was about the public being "consulted" about some kind of
road somewhere in Co. Meath joining a point south of Clonee to a point north of Kells.
Mr. Guthrie said that was the process and Ms Begley replied the reality was people were
being consulted about a dual carriageway about which people had some experience,
while motorways were a recent development and people saw the two as having very
different impacts on their lives in an area. Mr. Guthrie said that in construction terms
there was very little diffference between them but Ms Begley said she was talking about
the impact after construction. Mr. Guthrie said that the difference between what was now
proposed, and the initial dual carriageway options at the time of the public consultation,
was only in the inclusion of restricted access by using grade separated junctions and a
free flowing design, but Ms Begley said there could still be buses, motor bikes and
agricultural vehicles on a dual carriageway. Mr. Guthrie said buses could travel on the
103
motorway but Ms Begley said they could not stop and there was a higher speed allowed
on motorways and she could think of some major fatalities on the motorway north of
Drogheda so why increase speed. Mr Guthrie said the NRA figures showed a lower
accident rate on motorways per vehicle kilometre and this was also the case in the UK.
Asked were they safer than the N3, Mr.Guthrie said they were and that personal injury
accidents were about two thirds of those on dual carriageways.
Ms Begley said she felt strongly that they were given inadequate and as most misleading
information with the way the project was presented to the public being on a "need to
know" basis. She said it seemed that if you did not word the question to the technical
people in a particular way then it could be taken you were asking for a particular thing.
She drew a comparison of going in to a medical consultant and needing to know a certain
amount about it before one could ask questions and said all of the public consultation
spoke about a dual carriageway and that it was only when that process was over that there
was the first mention of a motorway. She said the people were not really consulted about
what was actually going to happen.
19. 6. Cross-examined by Alan Park on behalf of Bellinter Residents Association :
Mr. Park said he was the Secretary of the Bellinter Residents Association (BRA) and
referred to the Evidence about the railway bridge at Cannistown and suggested there
would be another one near Kilcarn and asked at what level would the line cross the road
there. Mr. Guthrie said he understood the Consultants for that section had taken the line
into account in the design but he was not aware of the levels. Mr. Park said his reading of
the CDP was that Meath wished to re-open the old MGWR line and when Mr. Guthrie
agreed that was the aspiration, asked what would be the width of the embankments
needed to support the railway line. Mr. Guthrie replied they had no details of where the
line would go as Iarnrod Eireann had no design available and Mr. Park suggested it
would not be too difficult to see where the footprint went since they knew where the line
was and the Meath CDP followed that line. When Mr. Guthrie replied there were no
precise details of where in relation to the old line would the new line follow, Mr. Park
said he was saying it was impractical to support a railway line 7 metres over the road
since it would encroach on many properties in that area. Mr. Guthrie said the line could
be adjusted but Mr. Park said there were properties on both sides of the line and Mr.
Guthrie then said he was not familiar with the area and this could be raised with Ms
Joyce of MC O'Sullivans.
Mr. Park referred to his answers to Mary Begley's questions about the public consultation
process and said that the first document they received was headed "Route Option Public
Consultation" and showed Ten possible "route options" beween Dunshaughlin and Navan
and "route options" were repeated on the third page ( Note -- This refers to the Brochure
issued, see Day 18 submission by Thomas Hamill at Appendix 4 of this Report) Mr.
Guthrie said they had made it clear at the consultation that these lines represented
corridors and could be moved. Mr. Park said he did not entirely agree but said he would
leave that point as he wanted to move on to the information they had requested about the
route options.
104
Mr. Park outlined the details they had sought from the Design Office in January 2002,
and said they got a reply on 20 february which said "Meath considered it inappropriate to
make available submissions received after the EMR was announced but they could make
available Halcrow Barry's assessment of the BRA submission". Mr. Park said they did
not ask for the submissions, they sought the response to the submissions and that, to date,
they had not got the Halcrow assessment and asked was there a reason for this. Mr.
Guthrie replied they had told Meath there was no formal assessment of the BRA
submission but that they had taken the comments on board and incorporated them within
the design.
Mr. Park said the assessment was offered to them, they said "we'll take it, they were then
told it was not made or it is not available or we are not going to give it to you", and asked
if it they were going to receive the assessment promised to them in February. Mr. Guthrie
said they had responded, that the BRA submission formed the basis of their objection to
the route and that a formal reply to that objection was available which dealt with all of
the information gathered and incorporated into the design. Mr. Park again referred to the
letter of 20 February and that a response was indicated in it. Mr. Guthrie repeated the
various points made were taken into consideration and when asked again about the
promise in the letter of 20 February, said that was a letter that came from Meath Co. Co.
Mr. Park said it was difficult for them to understand why something promised in one
letter was then not produced. He then said they had asked for minutes of the meetings
where their submissions were discussed and when Mr. Guthrie suggested these were
included in the package of information supplied, Mr. Park said they had got no response
to that request, which was one of the items in their January letter and asked could they get
them now. Mr.Guthrie said he would look into this and agreed the minutes would be
made available, that was if the meetings took place. When Mr. Park suggested this
response indicated their submissions might not have been considered, Mr. Guthrie said all
of them were considered but that it was not always necessary to hold a meeting to discuss
implications. He referred to a decision not to"cul-de-sac" the Ardsallagh Road as being
an example of one of their submissions that was accepted. Mr. Park said that was not one
of their submissions and suggested this was never a realistic option, given the traffic
using it, but was put in by the Consultants to be removed later as a device for them to say
yes to something small.
19.7. Re-examined by Pat Butler S.C. for the Council :
Mr. Butler asked Mr. Guthrie to outline the chronology of the selection process for the
route to clarify some of the issues raised. Mr. Guthrie said the first proposal was to build
five separate sections tying back into the N3, that was upgraded to develop a dual
carriageway scheme following from the Roads Needs Study and then a further decision
was made to upgrade the development into a motorway. Asked to deal with Mr. Burke's
suggestion that the traffic did not justify a change from a dual carriageway to a
motorway, Mr. Guthrie said Table 4.3 in the Roads Needs Study showed the maximum
AADT for different classes of route, namely, 56500 AADT for a motorway as a
commuter route and 43500 AADT for a rural route with the predicted design year traffic
105
for Clonee to Dunshaughlin being 45700 AADT and that for Dunshaughlin to Navan
being 44000 AADT. He said the step below those would be a dual carriageway for which
the commuter route AADT was 45000 and for a rural route the AADT was 34600 and
that it was clear the design year figures were higher than that of a standard dual
carriageway and fell into the motorway class. Asked what was the result of the traffic
counts they caried out after the Roads Needs Study had been published, Mr. Guthrie said
the Needs Study set the baseline for thresholds between dual carriageways and
motorways and their subsequent traffic counts showed there had been a much higher
growth rate than had been predicted and traffic had moved into the motorway provision.
He confirmed that he was satisfied the traffic figures justified the provision of a
motorway on the route.
Mr. Butler then referred to Mr. O'Donnell's suggestion of the EIS being prepared to
justify a motorway rather than describe the effects of a motorway and asked for his
response to this. Mr. Guthrie replied the impact of a motorway was the same as that for a
dual carriageway and said the motorway was justified by the traffic figures and he
believed the EIS described the effects of that on the environment, not to justify a
motorway. He said the cross-sections and land-take for either a motorway or a dual
carriageway would be the same for this route. Asked about the rail link he said their
design took account of a possible future development of a rail line but that it was not part
of their Brief to design that rail line. Mr. Butler referred to Mr. Park's queries about the
assessment of the Bellinter proposals and Mr. Guthrie confirmed that no formal written
assessment had been made by Halcrow Barry of those proposals and that the Council's
promise of giving that assessment was based on a mis-understanding of an assessment
having been done. He also confirmed they had taken the Bellinter proposals into account
in designing that part of the Scheme.
19.8. Questions arising from the re-examination :
Mr. O'Donnell referred to his reply to Mr. Butler about the land take being the same for a
dual carriageway and a motorway and put it to him that he was incorrect as there were
proposals for Toll Plazas where the land "fanned out". When Mr. Guthrie said he was
referring to the comparison of a standard dual carriageway and a motorway, Mr.
O'Donnell said he gave a specific answer to a specific question and Mr. Guthrie agreed
there was more land required on the M3 for the Toll Plazas.
Mr. Park asked Mr. Butler about assessment not having been done and why the BRA
were not told that it never existed. When Mr. Butler said he would find out and come
back to him, Mr. Park said the response they got on 4 June to their letter of 15 March did
not address that issue at all and he asked if the documentation they requested be available
that day. Mr. Butler said he would take instructions on those issues but he had understood
the Council had given them all of that information.
Mr. B. Walsh asked if a private company was going to own and operate the motorway
how could the Council force people to sell their land to hand over to this private
company. When the Inspector intervened to say that what was before An Bord was a
106
CPO and EIS from the Council and the ownership of the road in a tolling scenario was
for another Hearing, Father Pat Raleigh of Dalgan Park objected to this intervention and
said it should be answered by Mr. Guthrie as representing the Council. Mr. Guthrie then
said this was a matter for the County Council as the Consultants did not deal with the
land issue and Mr. Butler said he would make a submission on that point later on. The
Inspector suggested that someone from the Council might be made available to deal with
the issue raised as it was clear from the questions people at the Hearing wanted some
clarification and Mr. Butler said he would take instructions on that matter.
Mr. Sweetman asked for details of the planning status of all of the sand and quarry
locations shown on the maps that Mr. Butler had handed in earlier and Mr. Butler said no
survey of the status had been made but if Mr. Sweetman gave details of which sites he
wanted checked, they would endeavour to provide this. Mr. Sweetman said he wanted
this for every site and said that in the Kildare By-pass case, an Taisce found five of the
nine quarries being used were unauthorised. Mr.Butler suggested this could be dealt with
during Mr. Killeen's evidence as the Council Planner but Mr. Sweetman said there was
nothing in Mr. Killeen's Brief of Evidence about this material or the 1000 truck
movements. The Inspector said Mr. Killeen seemed an appropriate person to deal with
this matter and Mr. Guthrie would be back for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and
this could also be pursued with him then, if necessary.
19.9. Alan Guthrie questioned by Inspector :
The Inspector referred to section 3.4.1 in his Brief of Evidence and asked that various
cross-sections for the different types carriageway identified at Section 7.5.1 of the Roads
Needs Study be set out in tabular form and the cross-sections now being proposed in the
M3 to be compared to the cross-sections of the carriageways identified in the Needs
Study, for each of the five Sections in the M3 proposal. The Inspector said he also wanted
the overall width of roadway from "back of verge" to "back of verge" on each side to be
compared. Asked what was proposed for north of the Meath / Cavan border, Mr. Guthrie
said he was not aware of what was intended there as it was not in their Brief and he had
not heard anything about that section. The Inspector said the other part of the information
he required had been touched upon in his re-examination and this was to do with the
levels of service being provided. He wanted the predicted flows for each section set out in
tabular form with the level of service that the type of carriageway being proposed
provided, having regard to the capacity available. The Inspector also asked that the
accident rates, per million kilometres, be set out for the N3 between Clonee and the
Cavan border as well as the number of junctions outside the speed limits and the number
of direct accesses, both residential and commercial but excluding agricultural field
entrances, again outside speed limits. He said if it was readily available, the proportion of
accidents from side road manoeuvres and private accesses should also be provided.
The Inspector then asked what countrywide strategy was he referring to at section 3.4.2 in
his Brief of Evidence and Mr. Guthrie said it was taken from the NDP which outlined
various routes throughout Ireland and identified the upgrades into motorway and dual
carriageway standard. The Inspector asked if the Roads Needs Study specify the
107
improvements recommended for the N3 as being on-line or off-line and Mr. Guthrie
replied that they did not specify either on or off line for the improvements and that when
they came to look at the route in detail, their view was that the Needs Study only
identified the provision of future requirements and left it up to the designers of the time to
work out the actual details. He said that he had explained in cross-examination how their
assessment found an on-line solution would not be feasible for the type of road required.
The Inspector asked that extracts from the Needs Study at section 7.5.1. for the N3 and
from the NDP covering the N3 should be given to him.
The Inspector then referred to the details at 3.3.1 in his Brief of Evidence about the EMR
having been presented to the Elected Members of Meath Co. Co. and asked if the
Councillors had taken a formal decision at any stage to adopt or support the Route
selected for the M3. He said he was looking for a presentational report with a Resolution
adopting the report if such a report had been made. Mr. Guthrie said they were not
present at that part of the presentation and could not say if there had been a resolution and
the Inspector suggested that Counsel might research this. Referring to the dates given for
when the decision to adopt a motorway solution of June 2000, the Inspector asked if there
had been any formal letter from the NRA to the Council specifying the Scheme was to
proceed as a Motorway and if there was such a letter, a copy of that letter was to be made
available to him.
The information requested by the Inspector was handed in by M/s Butler SC and Keane
BL for the Council on Days 5, 15 and 25 and are listed in Appendix 4 of this Report.
19.10. Exchanges between Counsel, the Inspector and Others :
Mr. Sweetman again referred to the Map of Quarry locations and said all of the borrow
pits appeared to be on the line of the road and Mr. Guthrie said that was so since they had
not shown the locations of cuttings where a substantial part of the fill would come from
as these were part of the earthworks excavation. He said the locations shown were places
that seemed likely to be suitable for borrow pits from the site investigation records. When
Mr.Sweetman asked if the way these borrow pits would look like was shown in the EIS
and Mr. Guthrie said it was not.
Mr. Galligan referred to the Inspector's query about a possible letter from the NRA to the
Council about the motorway decision and said he did not hear a reply from Mr. Guthrie.
When the Inspector said he had not expected an immediate response, Mr. Galligan said
the question was put to him and such questions were normally answered and if Mr.
Guthrie did not know he should be required to say so. Mr. Butler intervened to say he
took the question as being addressed to him and he would deal with the matter later. Mr.
Galligan repeated his request for an answer from Mr. Guthrie but the Inspector said he
had followed upon something Mr.Galligan and other Counsel had been asking about and
was not going to direct Mr. Guthrie to give an answer when he did not require an
immediate response on the matter.
108
Mr. Galligan then referred to the map of the quarry location which he said he had just
seen and wanted to know if it was intended to explain the Map in more detail. Mr. Butler
said that Mr. Flynn, who was with Mr. Galligan, had been given the Map previously and
that the details would be dealt with in the evidence by the Section Engineers. When Mr.
Galligan asked about the borrow pits, Mr. Butler said this had already been dealt with
earlier in that day and the Inspector said that as he had indicated at the opening of the
Hearing, the Inspector's queries came when all of the cross-examinbation had concluded.
He said that he had allowed a certain amount of latitude but was not disposed to allowing
a re-opening of issues that had already been well ventilated in cross-examination and he
told Mr. Galligan he could raise this with the Planning Officer who would be the next
witness. Mr. Galligan said he wanted it recorded that this map was relevant to the likely
effects of this project and that it had been withheld from him until a late stage of the
Hearing.
Mr. O'Donnell said he was not present earlier and, for clarification, asked Mr. Guthrie
when was the Map prepared. Mr. Guthrie said it was completed over the weekend ( since
Day 3) and that the map was as complete as it could be since it was based on the site
investigations that were only just ended. He said there might be a different scenario as
regards locations when the scheme actually started in a few years time. Mr. O'Donnell
then asked the Inspector if the Hearing was going to proceed on that basis and the
Inspector replied "yes". Mr. O'Donnell asked how his Clients were expected to consider
the Map and wait for additional information that Mr. Guthrie might come up with, the
Inspector said that it had been generally agreed the Hearing would deal with the Scheme
on Section by Section basis, after the initial general evidence had been given, and he saw
this as the most practical way of dealing with this issue. When Mr. O'Donnell said his
Clients had not the resources to be present at all stages of the Hearing, the Inspector said
that while he could see the point he was making, it was developing into a further
submission on the issues for which he had already given a ruling on Mr. Sweetman's
request and he was not disposed to having this re-opened. Mr. Butler asked if he could
make a comment and said the locations identified on the map were all in the public
domain at present, they were all existing quarries and gravel pits, the borrow pits were
potential pits and if used could only be used in accordance with proper legislative
permits. He said he had outlined that earlier but Mr. O'Donnell was not at the Hearing at
that time. Mr. O'Donnell said it was impermissible to introduce something as radical as
this after the EIS was published and this point was supported by Mr. McGrath B.L.
representing Gerrardstown Stud and Mr. Sweetman. The Inspector said he noted the
points being made but his ruling stood.
20. Evidence of Charles Richardson, Traffic Engineer, Arup Consulting Engineers ;
20.1. Examined by Pat Butler SC for the Council :
Mr. Richardson said that he was an Asssociate in Arup and Partners and had been
actively engaged in transportation planning for 19 years in numerous rural and interurban
highway projects and had been responsible for the traffic forecasting studies for all
109
of the Sections of the N3 between Clonee and North of Kells for the joint Consultancy
Team. He said that he would firstly describe the traffic data used and secondly describe
the methodology applied and then the traffic forecasts for the study area and the changes
in daily traffic using the N3 and the M3.
He said that traffic forecasts were made for standard daily units known as "Annual
Average Daily Traffic" (AADT) and these forecasts were used in the noise, air quality
and economic assessments and that the geographic extent of the Study Area was designed
to capture the main potential traffic effects of the proposals, the most significant being
those between the existing N3 and the propposed parallel M3. He said the study area
modelled focussed on the N3 corridor between the M50 to the south to Carnaross to the
north, with the N2 as the eastern boundary and the R154 ( Trim road) as the western
boundary, as was shown in Figure 1 in his Brief of Evidence. He said that four main
types of existing traffic information were required to construct the traffic model for this
study, which was then used to predict the changes expected in the road network, and said
these were Traffic Volumes from counts provided from Council and NRA databases as
well as by the Scheme Consultants. He said that Origin / Destination Data was collected
by roadside interviews which interviewed a sample of drivers on the existing roads and
the locations of those interviews was shown in Figure 2 in his Brief of Evidence and that
this showed traffic flows on the N3 were intercepted north of Kells, between Kells and
Navan and near Clonee with all radial roads approaching Navan surveyed as well as the
N52 and regional roads at Kells. He said that traffic on the N2 was sampled south of
Ashbourne so that the principal movements likely to be affected by the motorway were
intercepted but the surveys did not atempt to intercept short distance local traffic as this
was unlikely to use the M3.
Mr. Richardson said that the origins and destinations (O&D) of the trips were allocated to
one of 60 "zones" in the Model with separate O&D matrices developed for cars and
Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). He said that drivers routes and responses to potential
tolling are affected by their trip purposes and recorded trip purposes derived from earlier
studies were that 32% of total traffic comprised non-working time for journeys to and
from work; 28% constituted non-working time for other purposes and 40% was working
timespent on business purposes with all HGVs assumed to be on business travel. He said
that moving Vehicle Time Surveys were undertaken for the Study with the intermediate
times recorded at 23 locations and a sample of timed runs, in both directions, made from
the M50 to Carnaross along the N3, and with 11 timed runs being completed to represent
conditions throughout the day as delays can be highly variable on a day to day and at
different times and directions of travel.
Mr. Richardson said that the Road Network represented in the Model was shown in
figure 3 in his Brief of Evidence and covered the National Primary and Secondary roads
and Regional roads as well as those local roads likely to carry traffic affected by the
motorway proposals, with "Link" lengths measured from the OS 1:50000 maps and other
characteristics taken from a network inventory survey. He said that Traffic Model was
verified to show that the Model was capable of reproducing existing conditions before it
was used to forecast future changes and this was shown in Tables 1 and 2 in his Brief of
110
Evidence. As requested by the Inspector he outlined the main details of these Tables and
said the Base year for validation used was 1999 and that comparisons had been shown
for sections of the N2 and the N3 between observed and modelled AADT in terms of
absolute and percentages differences in the flow. To explain the significance of the
differences he took the first line in Table 1 where the observed flow was 6400 on the N3
north of Kells when the modelled flow was 7175, a difference of 775 or 12%, and said
that there were always some statistical variations in a model due to the sampling process
as a model was a simplification of existing conditions. He said the significance of these
numbers was that they demonstrated the model was within the range of variation
normally expected for a model in a scheme of this nature. He said Table 2 showed a
similar presentation but it was for journey times between Carnaross and the M50 and,
taking the first row as an example, said that the observed average time was 344 seconds
with the modelled time being 299 seconds for a difference of 45 seconds or 13%. He said
that if you took the bottom two lines which summarised the four sections, there was a
difference of 3% on the northbound journey and 1% for the southbound journey which
showed the model was capable of reproducing existing conditions within the required
statistical levels.
Mr. Richardson then dealt with the Traffic Forecasting methodology which, he said, was
based on a simple fixed martrix approach that did not include for induced traffic or
explicit mode competition effects. He said that Traffic growth forecasts made for the
N2/N3 Study were based on economic and land-use factors in a document prepared by
Dr. O 'Cinneide of UCC "Prediction of Traffic Volumes on the N2 / N3" dated 1 Sept.
1999 and that the N2/N3 traffic forecasts were for 2014 and 2024 with the trip end
changes for each of the 15 zones in the N2/N3 study being applied to the zones in the M3
study. He said the resultant growth factors for cars and HGVs in 2014 and 2024 were
shown in Table 3 in his Brief of Evidence, the overall growth factor for cars from 1999 to
2024 being 2.69. He said the UCC study divided the area into 15 zones and, from the
UCC research, each zone had a different growth factor. As an example he quoted the
Dundalk zone with a growth factor of 1.56 for 1999 to 2014 and said that if in 1999 there
were 1000 trips from Dundalk, this would be factored up to 1560 trips in 2014. He said
that the growth factors were summarised in the Table for the overall study area which
gave a factor for cars of 1.803 from 1999 to 2014 and 2.687 for 1999 to 2024, with HGVs
increasing by 1.498 to 2014 and by 2.014 to 2024. He said that the matrices for 2004,
which was the assumed opening year for the M3 scheme, were estimated by linear
interpolation between 1999 and 2014.
Mr. Richardson said they had constructed Three future road network Scenarios in the
Model :-
"Do Nothing" scenario which was without the proposed M3 Scheme
" Do Something tolled" scenario which was the M3 with tolls
"Do something no tolls" scenario which was the M3 with no tolls.
Toll collection was assumed at the northern end between Navan and Kells and at the
southern end between Navan and Dunshaughlin with the actual toll assumed as € 1.05 for
111
cars in 1999 prices and tolls were applied to the model by a time delay penalty method.
He said that the results from the Model forecasts, as AADT for each Section, were given
in the EIS in Vol. 2 at Figures 3.1 to 3.6 which were also shown in his Brief of Evidence.
He said that from Figures 3.1 and 3.2 -- Do Nothing scenario -- traffic growth occurred
on the N3 and surrounding roads and with increasing congestion on the N3 traffic
increased on other roads in the area. He said that Figures 3.3 and 3.4 -- Do something
with tolls -- showed the effect of the M3 Scheme as through traffic was attracted from
the existing road network. He said the Model forecast a reduction in through traffic in
2004 of 75% in Dunshaughlin, 78% in Navan and 90% in Kells.
Mr. Richardson said that the effect of tolling was to reduce the attractiveness of the
motorway as shown in Figures 3.5 and 3.6 with some trips staying on the N3. He said this
"Diversion" rate varied along the motorway but was most pronounced at the two Sections
where Tolls were collected and that these "Diversion" rates were shown in Table 4 in his
Brief of Evidence. He said the Table showed each Section of the Motorway with
forecasts for 2004, 2014 and 2024 and the AADT for a "No toll" and "Tolled" scenario
and that the "Diversion" rate was the percentage reduction in the "No toll" scenario in
each case. He gave an example of the section between the Athboy Road and Kells of a
15600 AADT in 2004 being reduced to 12600 AADT, if Tolls were applied, giving a
"Diversion" of 19%. He said the "Diversion" rate for the Dunshaughlin to Pace Section
for 2004 was 14% and that "Diversion" rates tended to reduce in future years as traffic
levels increased and Tolls reduced in real terms, with the rate for Kells to Athboy Road
being 13% in 2024 and that at Pace to Dunshaughlin being 5%. In concluding his direct
evidence, Mr. Richardson said that the Model also gave predictions of average journey
times in each scenario and that traffic travelling the entire length of the Scheme could
expect an average reduction of over 17 minutes in the opening year of 2004.
20.2. Charles Richardson cross-examined by Frank Burke, Consulting Engineer
on behalf of several Objectors :
Mr. Burke said the Traffic Model was based on population as there was a element of car
ownership in its projections and the car ownership figures quoted did not reflect the
Strategic Development proposals in the Greater Dublin area and he suggested the figures
used by Mr. Richardson did not match with those quoted in Mr. Guthrie's presentation.
( Note -- Mr. Richardson's response to this issue is given in Mr. Guthrie's crossexamination
by Mr. Burke at page 81 of this Report) Mr. Burke suggested there was no
guarantee of the toll figure of € 1.05 used in assessing the Diversion rate would actually
drop in real terms as this depended on the agreement reached between the NRA and the
concessionaire. He said the Toll would not pay for the overall cost of the scheme and that
irrespective of the concession terms the taxpayer would be largely funding the Scheme.
He suggested it was disingenuous to be saying there would be a drop in the toll as far as
the car user was concerned since the concession terms were not yet known. Mr.
Richardson replied that was an indicative scenario provided by the NRA. The Inspector
intervened to say he thought Mr. Burke was referring to section 3.17 in his Brief of
Evidence and Mr. Burke confirmed this was so, adding that if Tolls increased in real
terms he saw the Diversion being higher. Mr.Richardson agreed this would happen but
112
said they were using an indicative toll level with the assumption of it remaining fixed
which would then decline in real terms with inflation.
Mr. Burke referred to the document prepared by Dr. O'Cinneide of UCC and asked if this
could be made available as it had been referred to in the Traffic Report. The Inspector
said this Report should be made available to the Hearing, if it was in the Council's
possession, and to any of the Objectors or their Advisors who sought a copy but it was
not something that had to be done that day. Mr. Butler SC said he would have this
arranged and the Report was circulated on Day 2 as listed in Appendix 4 of this report.
Mr. Burke asked where in the Model had any allowance been made for the various
measures in the DTO policy to reduce traffic flows into Dublin. Mr. Richardson replied
that while the model did not make an explicit allowance, Dr. O'Cinneide's reseach had
taken account of all of the relevant planning factors available at the time including a
presumption of significant traffic restraint in Dublin City. When Mr. Burke suggested Dr.
O'Cinneide's Report was made in 1999 and the DTO Policy Document was also in 1999,
the Inspector suggested this could be better pursued when the Report had been made
available.
20.3. Cross-examined by Michael O 'Donnell B.L. on behalf of Dalgan Park
and Others :
Mr. O'Donnell asked if the Traffic Model figures had regard to the SPGs for the Greater
Dublin Area and Mr. Richardson said the figures were inherited from the UCC study and
he understood they were considered in Dr. O'Cinneide's work but said he could not
immediately confirm that absolutely without checking the actual report first. Asked if he
was aware of what the Regional Planning guidelines for the Greater Dublin area referred
to, Mr. Richardson said they set out a land use strategy but that he had not read them in
detail. Asked if he had read the SPGs he said he had not but was aware the document
existed and formed the background to Dr. O'Cinneide's work. Mr. O 'Donnell asked how
he could give evidence as to the likely traffic effects when he had not read the SPGs and
Mr. Richardson said his evidence had referred to the UCC research as being the starting
point for the traffic forecasts and that it was not necessary to re-visit original new work.
Following a series of queries from about the extent and provisions of the SPGs for the
Greater Dublin Area, Mr. O'Donnell then asked where was the issue of public transport
addressed in his evidence and Mr. Richardson referred to his own direct evidence and the
growth factors in Dr. Cinneide's Study and suggested that since the output of that work
yielded a factor of three as the growth factor to be used and as the projected population
growth for Navan was more than four, this implied a degree of modal shift by an
improved public transport in Dublin and the N3 corridor. He said the modelling process
used was quite conventional being based on existing traffic movements plus traffic
growth for the future, taking into account growth of centres like Navan. Mr. O'Donnell
asked if it turned out that the mode of transport used was unsustainable and in direct
conflict with government policy, would that not also make the traffic modelling
unsustainable. Mr. Richardson asked was it the method or the mode of transport he meant
and when Mr. O'Donnell said he was asking him if he would recommend that An Bord
adopt an approach that was inconsistent with government policy, he replied that this was
113
outside hs competance to answer. Exchanges followed between Mr. Butler and Mr.
O'Donnell and the Inspector suggested that Mr. O'Donnell should move on.
Mr. O'Donnell then asked if he was aware that a key element of the SPGs was the
sustainable approach to future development including a reduction in car transport and Mr.
Richardson agreed this was a familiar sustainable objective and that they had inherited
that methodology from Dr. O'Cinneide's work. When Mr. O'Donnell then suggested the
model he had used proposed an increased growth in transport based on private car usage
and that this was clearly contrary to what was in the SPGs, Mr. Richardson said he must
have mis-understood what he had said earlier about growth factors. He referred to the
Navan example he had used and said Dr. O'Cinneide's study implied a reduction in the
level of traffic of about 40 % which was consistent with those sustainable objectives and
the land use policies being spoken about. Mr. O'Donnell suggested there was no reference
to how this would be achieved in any of the documentation before the Hearing but Mr.
Richardson replied that it was in Dr. O'Cinneide's report, which Mr. O'Donnell now had,
and this report was referred to in his own direct evidence. Concluding his crossexamination
Mr. O'Donnell then asked Mr. Richardson if he was familiar or had read the
same three documents that he had asked Mr. Guthrie about, namely,-- General DTO
Policy, National Sustainable Strategy and Residential Density Guidelines -- and Mr.
Richardson said he was aware of the Platform for Change document and had read the
executive Summary
20.4. Cross-examined by Seamus Farrelly, Hill of Skryne :
Mr. Farrelly referred to his evidence of the M3 being built parallel to the N3, and asked
why then did the M3 cross the N3 at Dunshaughlin and at Navan and when Mr.
Richardson said this referred the routes being parallel in the corridor, he said all of the
route was to the left of the N3 except for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section and asked
why the Council sought to cross over to the right here. Mr. Richardson said that was a
route selection matter and he only dealt with traffic matters. Mr. Farrelly referred to the
increase from the model of 2.9 times for traffic but said elsewhere a 4 times increase for
cars was expected and asked which was correct. Mr. Richardson replied that earlier in the
day they had discussed the relationship between their study and the UCC study and
referred to table 3 in his Brief of Evidence where this was set out for the 15 sectors they
examined. Mr. Farrelly pointed to two mathematical errors in Table 1 where he said the
differences shown between observed and modelled for Blackbull to Clonee and N2
South of Ashbourne were wrong and he suggested if there were errors in Table 1 how did
they know there were not more errors elsewhere. Mr. Richardson accepted these two
figures were wrong and said he would come back with the correct figures for him.
Mr. Farrelly said he had great difficulty with the diversion rates quoted for when the
motorway was built and asked how he could stand over a figure of 1% of people in
Meath who would refuse to pay a toll in 2024 on the Pace to Dunshaughlin Section and
when Mr. Richardson said this was a forecast projection so a degree of uncertainty was to
be expected, Mr. Farrelly said this was a mis-understatement. He said they should take
114
into consideration that lots of the people who had moved to Navan, to get cheaper houses
than they could get in Dublin and commuted up and down, were now fed up of living in
Navan and they have abandoned their houses in Navan with lots of re-possessions there
by Building Societies. When Mr. Richardson said he had not taken that into the model
specifically, Mr. Farrelly repeated his assertion that the reason for cars on the N3 was
from commuters who could not get houses in Dublin and that building another Industrial
Estate in Clonee, when the one in Navan was empty, was not a solution to the problem.
When Mr. Richardson said that his evidence dealt with the traffic forecasts based on the
model and Dr. Cinneide's research, Mr. Farrelly again asked about the industrial estates
in Navan. The Inspector suggested this was a matter to address to the Council's Planner
as Mr. Richardson's evidence dealt with traffic. Mr. Farrelly returned to the commuter
issue and referred to cars being parked along the road and the absence of park and ride
facilities and all the work on the road being done in isolation from what were already
problems in Dublin. The Inspector told him those were issues he could raise with the
Planner and that his points were noted.
20.5. Cross-examined by Eamon Galligan for Ms Maher, Ardbraccan House :
Mr. Galligan suggested to Mr. Richardson that he had not read the Meath CDP which
was an essential document and Mr. Richardson agreed he had not read it but said that the
CDP was not directly essential for the model. Mr. Galligan then suggested traffic
forecasting should be integrated with other land use strategies and Mr. Richardson
referred to the Dr. O'Cinneide report as having taken that into account but, when the date
of that report, Sept. 1999, was put to him, he acknowledged that the Report could not
have allowed for the requirements in the 2001 CDP. He also acknowledged that his
forecasts could not have taken into acount the various 2001CDP strategies, except where
these were the same as in the previous plan. When Mr. Galligan suggested they might be
relying on either the 1994 or 2001 CDP from what Mr. Butler had said, Mr. Richardson
said the UCC work predated the 2001 CDP. Mr. Galligan asked why he did not read the
full DTO Platform for Change, having seen the summary, Mr. Richardson said that he did
not have an opportunity for that. Asked if he took into account the Orbital M50/ Port
Tunnel/Eastern By-pass in the model he said he imagined those were part of the strategy
in Dr. O'Cinneide's traffic forecasting but he could not see them listed in the report and
Mr. Galligan said this could not be assumed. Asked what other project was included, Mr.
Richardson said the N2 between Ashbourne and the M50 was in the model and when
asked about a proposed new road from Drogheda to Navan, Naas and Newbridge, Mr.
Richardson said that road was not taken into the model
Mr. Richardson said he was not particularly aware of what Counties constituted the
Greater Dublin Area. Asked if his traffic figures would need to be revised in the context
of a revised opening date of 2006 or 2008 rather than the 2004 used, Mr. Richardson
replied that a linear interpolation could be used for 2006. Asked if this could be done
without taking into account the proposed Drogheda to Navan to Newbridge road, Mr.
Richardson said that road was not in the Model and if new forecasting was to be done the
latest planning information would need to be incorporated and he agreed with Mr.
Galligan's suggestion that the situation in 2006/08 could be very different to that in
115
2002/04. Mr. Galligan asked to what extent did he take the objective in the CDP of a
modal split of the re-opening of the Navan to Dublin rail-line into his model forecasts in
the design year. Mr. Richardson referred him to paragraph 3.2 in his Brief of Evidence
and said no explicit mode choice modelling was undertaken but that the UCC research
took account of a number of policies that would take cars off the road so there was some
element in there. In reply to further questions he said no provision was made in the
forecast for re-opening the Navan to Kingscourt line and that, as he had stated previously,
he was not familiar with the Meath CDP and had only read part of the SPGs.
20.6. Cross-examined by Brid Murphy for An Taisce :
Ms Murphy, referring to page 3 of his Brief of Evidence, asked what proportions of
traffic data came from the Council and NRA data bases and Mr. Richardson said most
came from the NRA and, while they had taken some counts, the NRA had permanent
traffic counters and the continuous data from these was the most important element.
Asked if the Dr. O'Cinneide report had taken account of Ireland's greenhouse gas
obligations, Mr. Richardson said there was a reference to sustainable planning policies in
general but no specific mention of greenhouse gases and he himself did not take account
of these.
21. Evidence of Michael Killeen, Senior Executive Engineer, Meath County Council
21.1. Examined by Pat Butler, S.C. for Meath County Council :
Mr Killeen said he worked as a Senior Executive Engineer in the Planning Department of
the Council and had twelve years experience of dealing with Planning issues in Meath
and he also held a Diploma in Physical Planning from Trinity College, Dublin. He said he
was familiar with the Motorway Scheme as proposed and would be addressing the
planning issues as it affected County Meath in his Evidence and would be having regard
to the objectives of the relevant Development Plans for the area in the context of the
proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
He said the Scheme, for the construction of the M3 from Clonee to north of Kells, was
essential to provide a new quality road for transporting people and goods in accordance
with National and Local objectives; removing inadequacies would provide major benefits
for road users and would increase safety, decrease transit times and reduce traffic
congestion. He said that providing a higher capacity facility would provide significant
startegic transportation benefits which would result in improved accessibility of the
whole region, and between national primary and local routes, Dublin Airport, major
centres of industry, commerce and retail development. He then gave a brief description of
the M3 Scheme, saying it had been broken into five Sections and was of motorway
standard to the intersection with the N 52 just north of Kells and a wide single
carriageway from there to the Cavan border. He said there were a number of grade
separated junctions, interchanges, roundabouts, under and over bridges, link roads to the
existing road network and local road realignments with land being acquired for a future
116
toll scheme. He said there was provision for Toll Plazas near the Blackbull junction on
the Clonee to Dunshaughlin section and at Durhamstown on the Navan to Kells Section
and that the Toll Scheme was subject to a separate process. He said the Consultants
would give a more detailed description, which was also in Vol.1 of the EIS. He said the
route of the M3 affected a number of regional and local county roads and the design
sought to minimise severance of local links, with the severed roads being diverted over or
under the M3 and that the links for side road connections would be constructed as single
carriageway roads to the widths appropriate to their classification and these would be
detailed in the appropriate section evidence.
Mr. Killeen said that the NDP 2000 to 2006 set out the context for the development of the
national economy and transport in relation to EU financial assistance and that the Meath
CDP 2001, Kells 2001Development and the 1997 Navan Environs Development Plan, as
varied, were the relevant Development Plans on which the scheme was assessed in terms
of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. He said that as the route
selection process commenced in 1998, the following Development Plans were also
relevant :- 1994 Meath CDP; 1995 Kells Dev. Plan as varied; 1996 Dunshaughlin Dev.
Plan as varied; 1997 Dunboyne Dev. Plan as varied and 1997 Navan Environs Dev. Plan.
He said that the proposed M3 Clonee to North of Kells was included in the DTO "A
Platform for Change" Strategy 2000-2016 at page 24 in the Summary and at page 79 in
the Main report and the proposed M3 was also included in the SPGs for the Greater
Dublin Area 1999 at Table 9.5 as the N3 Dual carriageway to Navan which was
highlighted as "essential to the strategy" in the Guidelines.
Referring to the NDP, Mr. Killeen quoted extracts from Sections 2.9 and 2.11 to support
his comment that if congestion was not addressed promptly in a systematic fashion the
competitivenes of the economy would be impaired with adverse consequences for growth
and employment. He quoted from Section 4.18 in the NDP on the Greater Dublin Area
which referred to traffic growth, projected peak hour trips and traffic congestion and the
development strategy for National Primary Roads at Section 4.12 where it was stated that
strategy would include further major improvements on national primary roads including
the N3 -- Dublin / Belturbet / Enniskillen / Derry. Mr. Killeen described the
Government's reasons for setting up the DTO in 1991 and their subsequent
recommendation that the strategy in "A Platform for Change" be used to provide the
policy framework for future development of transport systems in the Dublin Region and
said a number of national road projects were included in the DTO strategy. He said there
were three main projects, first the completion of the M50 orbital motorway around
Dublin by the Dublin Port Tunnel and the Eastern By-pass, second the upgrading of the
arterial national roads outside the orbital motorway and third the construction of a new
road linking the development centres of Drogheda, Navan, Naas and Newbridge. Mr.
Killeen said the N3 Clonee to North of Kells was stated to be a strategic route of national
significance on pages 15 and 24 of the Summary Report of "A Platform for Change"
which emphasised that the re-location of road space on the existing road network to
pedestrians, cyclists and public transport would accompany the construction of new
roads.
117
He said that the SPGs for the Greater Dublin Area pointed out that "Further
improvements to the road system will be necessary both to facilitate travel within the
Metropolitan area and traffic seeking access to the Port, Airport and through the area as
part of national journeys" and said the N3 Clonee to Dunshaughlin Dual carriageway was
included in Table 9.5 on page 104 of the Guidelines as one of the schemes on major
radial routes within the Area.
Mr. Killeen then referred to the Meath Development Plans and said the 1994 CDP
contained a policy objective regarding a Roads Program in Section 3.7.2 which stated
"National Primary and Secondary Routes will be improved, and Motorways provided in
locations to be agreed with the Department of the environment in line with national road
policy". He said that specific development objectives were provided for in Section 4.1 for
National Primary Roads Major Works T2 and T3 the Dunshaughlin By-pass and the
Clonee By-pass Extension with a by-pass for Kells also included as funds became
available. He said that the 1998 National Roads Needs Study and the NDP 2000-2006
were the relevant national roads policy documents as pertained to the 1994 CDP policy
objectives with the 1998 Needs Study identifying the N3 for realignment to dual
carriageway standard from Clonee to Kells.
He said that the 1997 Dunboyne Development Plan contained a specific development
policy at Section 3.6, Roads, to "reserve a route as indicated on Map 2 for Dunboyne
Relief road and to prohibit development which would encroach on this reservation" and
the Plan contained a specific objective in Section 4 - Objectives 4.1as "R1 to provide for
a bypass and relief road respectively to the west and north of the town with associated
access roads"
He said the 1997 Navan Environs Development Plan contained a specific development
policy in Section 3 at 3.5, Roads, -- "it is the policy of this Plan to improve the urban
network and to establish a system designed to serve the projected land use pattern. This
can be achieved by the creation of a road hierarchy with each level being specifically
designed to fulfill its function. Such an urban hierarchy shall consist of primary, district
and local distributor roads as well as access roads." He said the Plan also contained a
specific objective in Section 4- Objectives 4.4 Roads, of "T3 Reserve a route to the south
and west of the town from the Dublin to Kells Road for the provision of a National
Primary Route Bypass" Mr.Killeen said that the 1995 Kells Development Plan, which
was varied in 1996, contained a specific development policy in Section 3 at 3.13 of "it is
the policy of the Council to improve access to the town and relieve congestion in the
central area. Possible routes providing for the necessary by-passes have been selected"
and the Plan also contained a specific objective in Section 4 - Objectives 4.2 Roads, of
"T3 -- reserve routes, from Mullingar Road to the Navan Road for by-passing the town
and for the provision of an Urban Primary Distributor from the Mullingar Road to the
Navan Road". he said that all of those Plans were varied to take account of the Emerging
Preferred Route (EMR) of the N3 Clonee to Kells realignment.
118
Mr. Killeen said that the route selection process was completed when the 2001 CDP was
adopted in March 2001 and that Plan contained specific development strategies and
objectives relating to transportation in Section 3.5.2 in Vol.1with objective 3.5.2 (ii) for
" Motorways/ Dual carriageways - the provision of a new motorway on the N3 to Kells
including bypasses of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells " and for " National Routes -
upgrading the Cross Border N2 and N3 roads from the dual carriageway referred to above
to the Monaghan and Cavan borders respectively." He said that the 2001 CDP in Section
2.7 and 2.7.1 contained specific development objectives for the provision of the various
sections of the scheme covering Clonee By-pass Extension; Dunshaughlin By-pass; N3
Realignment Dunshaughlin to Navan; Navan By-pass; Navan to Kells realignment; Kells
By-pass as well as N52 By-pass and Kells to North of Carnaross. He said that in Section
3.5.2 it was highlighted that the development of transportation networks in the County
would require an approach fundamentally based on the principles of sustainable
development and that there was also a need to ensure a coincidence between the policies
of the Development Plan and the strategies of the DTO and of the SPGs for the Greater
Dublin Area. He said that further Variations were made to the 2001 Meath CDP and the
1997 Navan Environs Plan in February 2002 to reflect modifications to the EMR from
what had been provided for in the March 2001 Meath CDP and in the 1997 Navan
Environs Plan as varied in 2000.
Mr. Killeen then referred to the objection made on behalf of Peter and Edward Henshaw,
Dunboyne ( Plot 326 ) where this related to a planning issue which was outlined at point
4 in the submission by Killiney Design Associates on their behalf. This stated that the
route did not conform to the emerging preferred line as detailed in the Development Plan
published in 2000 which, they alleged, had not been amended as far as they were aware.
He said that the EPR as adopted in the 2001 Meath CDP and 1997 Navan Environs varied
Plan was shown on a number of maps in these Plans and he referred to Urban Detail Map
13 for Dunboyne in them. He said the line of the EPR in all of the maps was indicative/
illustrative only and was subject to final and detailed design and it was deemed necessary
to vary the 2001 Meath and the 1997 Navan Plans to take account of significant and
material alterations in the vicinity of Dunshaughlin and Navan. He said it was accepted
the line of the Dunboyne relief road had been altered from that shown on Urban Detail
Map 13 as it affected the Henshaw property but this alteration was minimal and was not a
material variation. He said that for that reason it was deemed un-necessary to include this
minor alteration in the variation to the 2001 Meath CDP made in February 2002.
Mr. Killeen referred to the 2001 Kells Development Plan and said that Section 3-
Development Strategy and Section 3.7 - Roads outlined the long term and sustainable
strategy for Kells by stating that the provision of a dual carriageway from Navan to Kells
and both the N3 and N52 bypass would greatly benefit the local community. He said that
the EPR for both the N3 and N52 By-passes was identified in Section 3.7 which also
stated that given the environmental quality of the town centre, its narrow substandard
road network and the fact that all traffic passed through it, the planned N3 and N52 bypasses
would be of substantial benefit to the development of the town.
119
Mr. Killeen then referred to the Rural Detail Maps in the 2001 Meath CDP which
highlighted amenity, settlement pattern and infrastructural detail, protected structures,
listed views and prospects, proposed National HeritageAreas (pNHAs), Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Sustainable Recreational Use of
Natural Assets (SRUNAs), Areas of Scientific Interest (ASIs) and Tree Preservation
Orders (TPOs). He said one of these Maps, the " Areas of Visual Quality Map", detailed
the landscape classification for the County and Eleven areas of Visual Quality (VQs)
were identified in Vol. 1 of the 2001 Meath CDP. He said the EPR, which was shown on
the varied Rural Detail Infrastructure Maps for the Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells
Electoral Areas, traversed open countryside that was primarily agricultural with no
specific zoning applying to the lands along the route. He said that the EMR traversed
areas designated VQ 3- River Valleys; VQ 9 - Tara and Dunsany District and VQ 11-
Rural and Agricultural on the Rural Detail Map showing VQs with the route primarily
traversing landscape VQ 11 and avoiding the VQ 3 areas on the Navan to Kells section.
Mr. Killeen said it was his opinion that the proposed route was the optimum in terms of
limiting the necessity to traverse, and thus to avoid where feasible, visually sensitive
landscape and in particular VQ's 3 and 9 and the Boyne Valley area of high natural
beauty and amenity. He referred to the Rural Detail Map showing the VQs with the entire
M3 superimposed on it and said that Map showed there was minimal traversing of areas
VQ 3 and 9 in the context of the constraints imposed by the incorporation of the Navan
By-pass in the Scheme. Mr. Killeen said that Area VQ 3 was extremely sensitive to all
categories of development as these would detract from the character, appearance and
interpretative experience of the region while VQ 9 was very sensitive to all categories of
new development, particularly new housing or large agricultural structures. He said that
the location of the EPR in the low lying areas as it traversed VQ's 3 and 9 was, in his
opinion, the optimum location.
He said there were a number of listed views and prospects detailed in Vol. 3 of the 2001
Meath CDP when traversing VQ 9 and these were VP 1 - Hill of Tara, Castletown area;
VP 27 - Hill of Skreen and VP 28 (c) - Ardsallagh, Bellinter and Dowdstown. In Mr.
Killeen's opinion the EPR in traversing VQ 9 would have a negative impact on the high
quality landscape and that this impact would be severe during the construction and early
operation periods until the landscaping and screening mitigation measures matured. He
said that however, in his opinion, that severe impact would be short term in terms of the
life of the scheme and that the mitigation measures proposed in the EIS would ensure the
effective integration of the M3 into the local landscape. He said that VQ 11 areas had a
relatively higher ability to absorb development in terms of their visual characteristics and
that in his opinion the mitigation measures in the EIS were satisfactory to ameliorate any
significant impacts on the VQ landscape.
Mr. Killeen said that the EPR avoided areas identified in the 2001 Meath CDP as
pNHAs; SACs; SPAs; SRUNAs and ASIs. He said the impacts on protected structures
would be dealt with by the Consultants dealing with Cultural Heritage and those on
Recorded Monuments would be dealt with by the Consultants dealing with Archaelogy
and Cultural Heritage. He said the EPR traversed an area subject to TPO 2 in the 1994
120
Meath CDP and identified in the 2001 Meath CDP amenity Map for Navan Electoral
Area. This TPO was in Dowdstown and was south and east of Bellinter Bridge. Mr.
Killeen said the proposed motorway would only require the felling of a small percentage
of the trees and that given the constraints involved in selecting a route in that general
area, where there were visual constraints to the crossing of the Boyne River, in his
opinion the felling of these trees was un-avoidable. He said that the appropriate
Consultant would expand further on this un-avoidable felling in the Preservation area and
that in accordance with stated policy in Section 3.6.5 (i) of the 2001 Meath CDP planting
of native species would be undertaken as part of the Motorway Scheme.
Mr. Killeen concluded his direct evidence by stating that he certified the proposed
acquisition by Meath County Council of the property coloured blue and grey and detailed
on Maps entitled "M3 Clonee to North of Kells Motorway Scheme" was in accordance
with the Planning and Development Objectives for the area as set out in the Meath CDP
2001, as varied and the 1997 Navan Environs Development Plan, as varied. He said that,
in his opinion, the proposed Scheme conformed to a broad range of National and Local
transportation planning policies, it accorded with the specific development objectives of
the 2001 Meath CDP and the 1997 Navan Plans as varied and was consistent with the
proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
21.2. Micheal Killeen cross-examined by Frank Burke, Consulting Engineer
on behalf of several Objectors :
Mr. Burke referred to his evidence about sustainable development and the 20 year design
life for the M3 and asked if he could make a guess at what reduction could be expected in
the use of cars in the context of the SPGs and DTO policy. Mr. Killeen replied that in
Section 6 of the SPGs it said "the private car cannot be sustained in urban areas" but in
that Section there was also a reference to the need for balance between public and private
transport and he quoted an extract which said " notwithstanding the need to facilitate
public transport, it has to be recognised that the private car will continue to play an
important role in the future and especially so in the hinterland area where the pattern and
density of settlement and development limits the potential for public transport. It is also
important to recognise the role of the road system for the transportation of goods." He
said it was an objective of the "Platform for Change" to provide a transportation link
from Dublin to Navan which included both the N3/M3 and the rail link with a timeframe
of 2006 for the M3 and 2010 for the rail link. Mr. Burke said that the projected traffic
figures given by M/s Guthrie and Richardson were based on the Roads Study and Dr.
O'Cinneide's report but neither of these reflected sustainable transport policies and he
questioned a traffic projection for a design year some 14 years after the rail link came in
that did not reflect a policy of taking the car out of the scene. Mr. Killeen replied that he
understood Dr. Cinneide's first report in September 1999 did take the SPGs of April 1999
into account and his projections did allow for a modal split.
Mr. Burke suggested that if Dr. O'Cinneide's figures were read carefully one found most
of his concern being for changes to economic growth and that he allowed for the area of
"green" commuting by a lower traffic growth and asked if a growth rate of 3.5% out to25
121
years was compatible with the present DTO/SPG policies. Mr. Killeen replied that he
could not comment in detail on Dr. Cinneide's findings and said both rail and road
transport were being referred to. He pointed to the demand management measures in the
SPGs and DTO policies that included parking restrictions and mobility plans and said
that providing infrastructure alone would not satisfy these requirements. Mr. Burke said
he agreed that mobility management must be addressed and that this was not addressed in
the Model used by the Consultants in their evidence and referred to the absence of the rail
links and the orbital route in that model. Mr. Killeen said it was all part of an overall
strategy with the N3/M3 identified as being essential to the Strategy in Table 9.5 and that
was taken into account in Dr. O'Cinneide's traffic assessment as well. He said the rail link
was another element, as was traffic demand management, with the M3 being just one
element of the overall strategy. Mr. Burke said while he agreed with his point, he still felt
this overall strategy should have been built into the Model and when Mr. Killeen said that
was the case in Dr. O'Cinneide's assessment, Mr. Burke said he did not get that
impression from having listened to M/s Guthrie and Richardson 's evidence.
Mr. Burke asked if he would agree that in mitigation measures for individual Clients, any
entrances being provided should at least comply with the standards the Council would
normally require in a planning application situation and Mr. Killeen agreed they should.
Mr. Burke then said he had one further issue which he might or might not raise at a later
stage.
21.3. Cross-examined by Evan Newall, Readsland, Dunshaughlin :
Mr. Newall said there had been many references to the NRA and asked if he was subcontracted
by the NRA in any form and when Mr. Killeen said he would have had an
advisory role from the planning perspective but he was employed by Meath County
Council, not the NRA, Mr. Newall expressed a wish to meet an NRA person for the first
time and asked if someone from the NRA would be giving evidence. Mr. Butler
intervened to say it was a Meath County Council scheme and was being presented as a
Council scheme and it was not intended to call an NRA witness. Mr. Newall, having
queried why the NRA were referred to if it was a Council scheme, again asked Mr.
Killeen what his role was and had he designed the scheme. Mr. Killeen replied that he
advised on planning issues relating to the design of the route and outlined some of the
areas he had dealt with in his Brief of evidence. Mr. Newall said he was trying to clarify
the role of the Council, the Consultants and the NRA and suggested, as he understood it,
that Mr. Killeen's role was that of a watchdog to see that certain issues were complied
with. Mr. Killeen agreed this could be a way of describing it but said he also had an input
to the design process as it affected the proper planning and development of the County
and with regard to various plans like the SPGs, DTO and NDP.
Mr. Newall then asked a series of questions relating to Mr. Killeen's role, and the role of
other members of the design team as well as the relationship of the NRA to the Council
which, he said, were to establish who had responsibility for taking decisions on factors
that significantly affected him, his brothers and the local Community in Dunshaughlin
regarding the link road from the Interchange to Dunshaughlin. Mr. Killeen advised him
122
that he would be answering planning matters only and if there were specific questions he
might have to refer these to the Consultants dealing with the Dunshaughlin Section. Mr.
Newall then referred to a number of planning proposals for housing pending in the
Dunshaughlin area and wanted to know how their traffic impacts would have been
incorporated into the design. Mr. Killeen explained that the land use policies for present
and future plannings were contained in the zoning provisions of the Dunshaughlin
Development and the traffic from these would have been factored in to the design. Mr.
Newall then referred to a specific application which had attempted to join on to the
proposed Link road and this was refused by the designers or the NRA and he suggested
that if the GAA expanded that traffic should also come out to that Link. He said he had
suggested a roundabout should be put in to link these two schemes onto the Link road but
was told that would not happen and yet they were being told that extra traffic onto the
existing road was not satisfactory either. Mr. Killeen said he was raising a specific
casewhich, as there could be a decision pending he did not wish to discuss but the land
use policies were all in the Development Plan and had been communicated to the
Consultants.
Mr. Newall said his concern was to establish what action the Consultants took when
something was "communicated" to them, Mr. Killeen said they were taken into the traffic
projections and Mr. Newall said there was a planning observation in the Dunshaughlin
Civic Offices for the scheme he was talking about of an unsatisfactory flow onto the
existing road and no allowance was being made to take it onto the Link road. Following
further exchanges about the way in which planning applications were dealt with, Mr.
Newall said that he was talking about the impact of the Link road and how it would be
suitable in the future to deal with their own needs, with their 200 acre farm being divided
by it, and for local community needs. He said it was a "standardised" link road that was
being imposed, there was no addition or variation being made to make it more amenable
to the local Community and the only response he could get from the Design team was
"your request has been listened to but it is rejected". He said that it seemed Mr. Killeen
only recommended but he wanted to find a witness who could answer the specific
questions.
The Inspector suggested that Mr. Newall should pursue his request for a roundabout and
the other issues on the link road when the evidence on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin
Section was being taken as Mr. Killeen was not going to be able to give him the precise
detail he was looking for. Mr. Newall replied he was still concerned that when those
witnesses took the stand there would still be the difficulty of each only dealing with their
own part and they were dealing with people with limited responsibility. He said he would
like to question the general policy of the NRA but there did not seem to be anyone on the
witnesslist who had the authority to do that and he thought it was wrong that the NRA did
not put a senior executive in the witness stand to be questioned on their policies.
123
21.4. Cross-examined by Michael O'Donnell B.L. on behalf of Dalgan Park
and Others :
Mr. O'Donnell asked why he dealt with only one of his Clients, Mr. Henshaw, in his
evidence and when Mr. Killeen replied that he thought it was pertinent in the context of
the CDP, he asked why not the other objectors who had also raised development plan
objections and Mr. Killeen replied that all of those had been addressed and would be
replied to. When Mr. O'Donnell suggested that was additional evidence which had not
been circulated, Mr. Killeen said they related to specific plots and his evidence was an
overview and he thought it pertinent to address Mr. Henshaw's objection as a part of this.
When Mr. O'Donnell asked if he would be dealing with the other objections in written
form, Mr. Butler intervened to say that when they came to the specific Sections each of
the specialists would also deal with the specific objections and would have a written
response to each objection. He said Mr. Killeen would not be presenting another Brief of
Evidence but would deal with specific objections. Mr. O'Donnell said this was not what
he understood Mr. Killeen to say and a number of exchanges then took place between the
Inspector and Mr. O'Donnell regarding the intent of Mr. Killeen's reply to his question.
Mr. O'Donnell eventually accepted that Mr. Killeen would deal with specific objections
as raised and asked him if he would agree the EIS was separate and distinct from the
project itself. When Mr. Killeen replied that an EIS had been prepared as part of the
Scheme, Mr. O'Donnell said that was not what he had asked and the same question and
answer followed on several occasions until Mr. Butler intervened, exchanges between
Counsel followed and the Inspector suggested he move on. Mr. O' Donnell then asked if
Mr. Killeen saw himself as a member of the EIS team or a representative of Meath
County Council looking independantly at the scheme. Mr. Killeen said he had an input
into the planning process but Mr. O'Donnell again said that was not his question and
repeated it. Mr. Killeen replied he was part of the team since he was giving evidence but
this did not satisfy Mr. O'Donnell who persisted in seeking a yes or no answer until Mr.
Killeen replied that he gave advice as to what should be in the EIS but that he did not
write it. He confirmed to a further query that no member of the Council's Planning
Department prepared any part of the EIS. To further queries he replied that he had
assessed the scheme as proposed in the EIS and CPO in terms of the CDP and various
Plans and had been consulted over the four years the Scheme was in preparation but did
not prepare any notes on advices given to the Consultants. Asked about agendas for
meetings, the Consultants present, details of advice circulated, he replied that he had not
taken any notes on these matters and that he could remember meeting Alan Guthrie,
Susan Joyce and Michael Evans.
Mr. O'Donnell then asked when was his Brief prepared and when told it was done a
week before the Hearing, asked what amendments he made from what had transpired at
the Hearing and Mr. Kileen replied none. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he considered his Brief
was a justification for the Scheme or an independent objective analysis of the EIS and the
Scheme, and when Mr. O'Donnell replied it was an analysis of the Scheme as it pertained
to the CDP etc. Mr. O'Donnell again said that was not his question and a further series of
questions and answers followed which related to whether there were any negative
124
comments in Mr. Killeen's Brief. When Mr. Killeen referred to the impact on the
sensitive landscape and the TPO area traversed, Mr. O'Donnell asked what was his advice
to the Consultants on the TPO 2 issue, Mr. Killeen replied to try to avoid it. Asked when
this advice was given, Mr. Killeen said he could not recall and when pressed, said he
would need to see the text in the 1994 Plan, which he did not have to hand. Mr.
O'Donnell suggested that for his evidence to be acceptable to the Hearing he should have
referred to every document and indicated the positives and negatives. Mr. Killeen
disagreed since he was giving a broad overview and the appropriate consultants would, as
he had said in his evidence, deal with these in more detail.
Mr. O'Donnell referred to the various Plans that he had mentioned at the start of his
evidence and asked if he had only selected the parts in the NDP that supported the road
and said the NDP stated roads being the dominant mode of transport was unacceptable
and undesirable and why did he not put that in his evidence. Mr. Killeen replied they
were dealing with a specific element of an overall strategy for the Greater Dublin Area
and the M3 was stated to be essential to the strategy of the SPGs. Mr. O'Donnell then
referred to his quotation about the effects of congestion on competitiveness and asked
why he did not refer to the NDP specifically saying that there must be a move away from
roads as the predominant mode. Mr. Killeen accepted this was in the NDP but said the
SPGs also highlighted the M3 as essential to the strategy. Mr. O' Donnell suggested he
had ignored the diversion to rail and other public transport in his evidence, Mr. Killeen
pointed to his reference to the development of transportation networks based on
sustainable development principles and to the relocation of road space as examples. Mr.
O'Donnell suggested he should have addressed how the alternative forms of transport
should be integrated one with the other as the Planning Officer for Meath and Mr. Killeen
replied by referring to the relocation of road space on the existing N3 becoming available
for sustainable modes of transport and also to the review of the Navan Plan where they
would be looking at a modal split there.
Mr. O'Donnell suggested the proposal limited the users to those travelling by car and
paying tolls and asked how this would be a benefit to cyclists or public transport but Mr.
Killeen said that was the motorway he was referring to, whereas the relocated space was
on the existing N3 after the M3 was constructed. Mr. O'Donnell asked how the road was
to be integrated from a planning perspective with a rail link from Dublin to Navan and
was that issue considered. Mr. Killeen said it was considered but he had not addressed
this as the scheme made provision for the reservation for this rail link. Asked if it allowed
for the expansion of the rail line, Mr. Killeen said he could not say but the reservation
was there and the proposed road respected that and it was a matter for the Iarnrod Eireann
feasibility study to look at that issue. Mr. O'Donnell asked how he as the Planning Officer
could come to the Hearing without knowing if the road plan did not compromise the rail
link. Mr. Killeen said there was a Development objective in the Meath CDP and from his
examination of the EIS and maps he was satisfied the CDP objective had not been
compromised. Asked what width would be required for the rail link, Mr. Killeen said that
was a matter for the Iarnrod Eireann feasibility study. A series of queries and answers
followed on that feasibility study and whether or not it would have been desirable or
essential for the results of this to be available for the EIS to avoid possible compromising
125
of the rail by the road.When Mr. Killeen eventually agreed it would be desirable but not
mandatory, Mr. O'Donnell asked the Inspector to note that he should not have to spend so
long in getting an answer to his questions, and the Inspector replied he was making those
notes.
Mr. O'Donnell asked which of the CDPs was the relevant Plan for the Hearing and when
Mr. Killeen said the 2001Meath CDP, the 1997 Navan Environs both as varied and the
Kells Plan were the relevant Plans as stated in his evidence. Mr. O'Donnell asked if the
1994 CDP had relevance, and Mr. Killeen replied he had put that in his evidence because
the route selection process had started in 1998 when the 1994 Plan was in place. Mr.
O'Donnell then asked if he had regard to the 1994 Plan when preparing his evidence and
when Mr. Killeen replied "no", asked if the Inspector should have regard to the 1994
CDP and Mr. Killeen said only insofar as that was the relevant Plan when the route
selection process started. Mr. O'Donnell asked if his position was that the 1994 CDP had
no relevance to the Hearing but Mr. Killeen replied that the statutory Plan at present was
the 2001 CDP which showed the EMR and the Navan Environs Plan. When Mr.
O'Donnell again asked if the 1994 CDP was relevant or irrelevant to the Hearing, Mr.
Killeen said it was not relevant but he was trying to put it in context of what he had stated
in his Brief of evidence. A series of questions followed from Mr. O'Donnell relating to
the relevance of the other Plans Mr. Killeen had referred to, with Mr. Killeen saying the
earlier Plans were the operative ones when the selection process started.
Mr.O'Donnell asked how he decided between competing objectives in Development
Plans where there were inconsistencies between them. Mr. Killeen replied that one
looked at the competing objectives in the context of examining any individual planning
application and decided how best the development fitted in with the various objectives in
the Plan. Asked if an objective to provide a road would take priority over other
objectives, Mr. Killeen said not necessarily and Mr. O'Donnell suggested that if the
Hearing were to be persuaded of an alternative route being likely to have less effect, in
terms of development objectives, it would be required not to confirm the Scheme. Mr.
Killeen agreed that would be so if such a case could be put forward, but said he did not
believe that was the case. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he would agree the Development
objective should clearly indicate the nature of the Local Authority proposed and when
Mr. Killeen accepted this, asked if it was because of ambiguity in the objective that the
Plans were varied, but Mr. Killeen said that variations were required because of
modifications along the route. Asked if the 1994 CDP had a description of the proposed
development, Mr. Killeen said it did not as he had stated in his Evidence. Mr. O'Donnell
suggested that the description in the 1994 CDP of improvements to national routes and
motorways at locations to be agreed was not acceptable as an objective to inform the
public about the proposed Scheme but Mr. Killeen said there was a specific objective in
the 1994 CDP for a motorway in line with national road policy.
Mr. O'Donnell said there was no reference in the current Development Plan to the fact a
private developer would be building a tolled motorway from Kells to Clonee. Mr. Killeen
agreed this was so but said that in his Evidence he had referred to the tolling scheme
being subject to a separate process. When Mr. O'Donnell said the CDP indicated the
126
development of the scheme, Mr. Killeen said it allowed for a motorway specifically and
the definition of a motorway in the amended 1993 Roads Act provided for toll plazas.
Mr. O'Donnell asked if it was the Council's proposal to provide a tolled motorway from
Kells to Clonee; Mr. Killeen said there was a tolled and untolled scenario in the EIS; Mr.
O'Donnell asked what did the Council wish to do, tolled or untolled and Mr. Killeen
replied they were requiring land for a tolled system. Mr. O'Donnell asked if he would
accept that a tolled motorway was entirely different to a dual carriageway in terms of its
planning consequences. Mr. Killeen said a dual carriageway could be tolled. Mr.
O'Donnell then suggested planning permission was needed for this proposal since it was a
private builder that would build and operate the M3 and this made it a private
development and he asked where in the Regulations was the exemption for a road of that
scale. Mr. Killeen replied that the Motorway Order was the planning process for the
scheme just as the tolling scheme would be the process for the tolling. Asked if he did not
consider it to be exempted development, Mr. Killeen said it was not exempted
development.
Mr. O'Donnell then asked if the issue of sustainability was a critical part of the Meath
CDP and when told that it was, asked if he accepted the scheme would promote the
increased usage of private cars and private transport and Mr. Killeen said it was to cater
for traffic growth which would include cars. When it was suggested this was
unsustainable according to the SPGs, Mr. Killeen pointed to Section 6 of the SPGs saying
there has to be a balance between public and private transport. Mr. O'Donnell asked if it
was in that context no feasibility study into the Dublin to Navan rail link had been
finalised but Mr. Killeen said that was not available and referred to the references in the
SPGs to the reinstatement of the former rail link "if feasible". Asked if his references to
rail were putting on a gloss to justify the fact this was an addition to his evidence, Mr.
Killeen said there was an objective in the Meath CDP to maintain the former rail route
fron Navan to Dublin and this was compatible with what was in the SPGs.
21.5. Questioned by David Robinson, Rathbeggan Lakes (Plot 255) :
Mr. Robinson asked what constituted "avoids" since his property was designated a
SRUNA and if "avoids" was nearly misses, narrowly avoids or almost hits as the edge of
the CPO was only 47 metres from their SRUNA. Mr. Killeen said the route did not
actually go through the SRUNA.
21.6. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh, Newtown Cottage, Dunboyne (Plot 331) :
Mr. Walsh asked why was his property in the CPO divided up into five little parcels
rather than marking off an L shape of his land and Mr. Killeen said he did not know the
specifics of the acquisition. Mr. Walsh then asked if the Council were going to take this
land why could they not mark it out precisecly and when Mr. Killeen said it should be
precisely marked on the CPO maps, Mr. Walsh said he was referring to it being marked
on his land. He said that when the Council sent out someone to mark out the land
required, he had told Mr. Walsh that all he could do was to mark it approximately as he
did not have the detailed knowledge to mark it precisely. He asked how could they make
127
a valid objection when the line was only spray painted and they were told it could be a
metre either way and he could not understand why the Council could not come and mark
it precisely so they could visualise what was being taken from their garden. Mr. Killeen
said he noted this point.
Mr. Walsh asked how the impact on one family was taken into consideration when a
roundabout, that was one and a half times the size of their property, was being placed on
part of their property. Mr. Killeen agreed there was an impact and said this was mitigated
by landscaping and boundary treatment. Mr. Walsh said they mitigated taking part of
their garden, placing a 50 metre roundabout on top of the end of it, placing their entrance
close to the flares onto the roundabout and placing a farm entrance opposite their
entrance. He then suggested the SPGs said there should not be over promotion of cars and
that should be implemented as part of their plan for the road. When Mr. Killeen agreed he
asked why was it necessary to run a 38 metre swathe from the Maynooth road across the
Summerhill road, where he lived, putting a 50 metre roundabout there and on up to the
N3 at Pace when both the Maynooth and Summerhill roads were regional roads and was
that not promoting more traffic. Mr. Killeen said the By-pass of Dunboyne was a
strategic road and the land take allowed for a future increase in traffic. Mr. Walsh asked
if they should not be reducing traffic rather than planning for an increase and Mr. Killeen
said this was all part of an overall strategy for road, rail and traffic demand management.
When Mr. Walsh queried the need for a 37 metre swathe over a two mile stretch for cars
where they had not been given any figures, Mr. Killeen suggested the Consultant would
give him the traffic flows but said it was prudent forward planning to increase the land
take to cater for the link between North Kildare, Dunboyne and the M3.
Mr. Walsh asked if he had the pedestrian and cycling traffic flows for the R156 where
this roundabout was to be placed but Mr. Kileen said this was a matter for the Consultant
to answer. Mr. Walsh then asked how were people to negotiate the roundabout when
going to the football pitches that would be separated from Dunboyne by this roundabout.
Mr. Killeen replied that specific measures such as medians or deflection islands would be
built into the design but Mr. Walsh said they would have to hop across deflection islands
for more than half the length of a football pitch and Mr. Killeen accepted he was not
familiar with the details. A debate then followed about the size of the roundabout, the
location of crossing points and the road width and Mr. Walsh suggested the road could be
built to a normal 7.5 metres with smaller verges, the roundabout could be reduced to 32
metres and while this might slow down traffic, with the high accident rate in
Louth/Meath this would be safer and less of his garden would be taken. Mr. Killeen said
he would not be fully aware of the impacts from reducing the roundabout or that on his
property.
21.6. Cross-examined by Declan McGrath B.L. on behalf of Gerrardstown Stud,
Dunshaughlin (Plot 1056) :
Mr. McGrath asked if he had conceded to Mr. O'Donnell in cross-examination that there
was no mention of tolling in the Meath CDP as varied and when Mr. Killeen agreed with
this, referred to his comments of the definitions in the Roads Act 1993 of a motorway
128
including toll plazas and asked if he would regard himself as an experienced planner.
When Mr. Killeen said that he would, Mr. McGrath asked who would normally read a
Development Plan, Mr. Killeen replied the public as it was a framework how the County
would develop, Mr. McGrath asked if it was his experience that the average member of
the public was familiar with the definitions in the Local Government Planning and
DevelopmentAct 1963 and Mr. Killeen said they might and might not and he had not
come across that. Mr.McGrath then suggested the average member of the public would
not be familiar with the definitions in the 1993 Roads Act and Mr. Killeen agreed
"possibly not ". Mr.McGrath then asked how someone looking at the motorway provision
in the Meath CDP could know this meant a tolled motorway. Mr. Killeen said that might
be the case but there were toll plazas on Continental motorways which people on
holidays were familiar with. Mr. McGrath said there were untolled motorways in Ireland
and put it to him that people reading the Meath CDP would not realise a tolled motorway
was meant when a motorway was referred to. When Mr. Killeen accepted that might be
the case, Mr. McGrath asked how he could say they had actually put the specific
objective in the Development Plan and when Mr. Killeen replied by referring to the
definition in the Roads Act, Mr. McGrath commented that was not the way an ordinary
member of the public would see it.
21.8. Cross-examined by Eamon Galligan, S.C. on behalf of Ms Maher,
Ardbraccan House, Navan :
Mr. Galligan asked if he could say where in the advertisement published on 19 December
2001 for the Variation to the CDP was the reason for the variation indicated. Mr. Killeen
said if he went to the section which read "The Proposed Variation relates to" and in Block
Capitals was stated "The inclusion of the Preferred Route for the M3 Clonee to North of
Kells Motorway Scheme in the Development Plans" and he said that was the reason for
the variation. Mr. Galligan asked where was the description of the proposed variation and
Mr. Killeen replied that the description was in what he had read out. Mr. Galligan said
the Statute distinguished between the reason and the description and when Mr. Killeen
agreed, asked where was that distinction made in the newspaper notice. Mr. Killeen said
there was a proposal to vary the Plan contained in the first section and then the reason.
Asked where was the description, Mr. Killeen said the inclusion of the preferred route but
Mr. Galligan said there was no distinction between them and Mr. Killeen replied they
were mutually dependant. Mr. Galligan asked if he was changing his evidence since he
had said here was a distinction between thedescription and the reason. Mr. Butler
intervened to say Mr. Killeen had given his answer and he should not be asked to answer
legal questions. Mr. Galligan said he was not asking him to answer any legal questions
and the Inspector asked that a copy of the newspaper notice be given to him to follow this
argument. ( Copy handed in and is listed at Day 4 in Appendix 4 of this report). Mr.
Galligan drew the Inspector's attention to the part in Block Capitals saying that he was
indicating that was both the reason and description and the Inspector said that was the
impression he had taken from the answer. Mr. Galligan then put it to Mr. Killeen there
was no reason for the variation given in the notice but Mr. Killeen said he had already
replied and that was his opinion.
129
Mr. Galligan suggested the text of the variation included various grade separated
junctions as being significant structures and when Mr. Killeen said they were included as
they were part of the Scheme, asked why the Toll Plazas, which he said were significant
structures, were not also included in the text. Mr. Killeen replied he saw no need for
including the toll plazas as every over and under bridge would have to be included if that
was the case.Mr. Galligan suggested the public were not being fully informed when the
toll plazas were not included and that the indicative locations for them were known in
February 2002 when the Plan was adopted. Mr. Killeen said there was no more reason
than that for not including all of the under and over bridges and when Mr. Galligan
suggested it was to avoid giving the game away about there being a toll scheme, Mr.
Killeen said the tolling and PPP issue was in the public arena long before that.
Mr. Galligan asked if the NRA had given any direction under section 20 of the roads act
1993 to make a Motorway Scheme and Mr. Killeen said he was not aware of one being
made. Asked if he remembered the notification to the Steering Committee by the NRA in
June 2000 that there should be Motorway Scheme, Mr. Killeen said he could not recall
that and may not have been present at the Hearing then, nor was he a member of the
Steering Committee. Asked if the NRA made any recommendations to the Council about
the content in the CDP on roads, Mr. Killeen said he could not recall any and when Mr.
Galligan referred to the need for such recommendations to be in writing under Section 22
of the 1993 Roads Act, Mr. Killeen said no such recommendations came to the Planning
Department. Asked if the NRA was consulted about the Variation, Mr. Killeen said it
would have been circulated to them as a prescribed body and that it went to the DTO as
well. Asked who designed the brief for the Project Manager, he replied that he did not
know but that the brief would have been in relation to the design of the scheme. Mr.
Galligan asked if it was of concern to him that Mr. Guthrie did not have regard to the
SPGs and had not read them. Mr. Killeen said it was not since Mr. Guthrie's brief was to
design the M3 and as one would take into account the Development Plan, the SPGs were
mentioned there and were also in Dr. O'Cinneide's report. A debate then followed about
whether or how Mr. Guthrie could have had regard to the SPGs when he did not read
them or know what Counties were covered by them with Mr. Killeen saying they had
regard to the SPGs and referred to the M3 being essential to their strategy from Table 5
and the Platform for Change.
Mr. Galligan suggested Mr. Killeen had been selective in the areas he highlighted from
the SPGs in not making any reference to rail and Mr. Killeen accepted he had not referred
to rail as such but said he had referred to public transport. Asked if he had been part of
the EIS team, Mr. Killeen said he was not and asked about the consideration of
alternative routes, said that was for the Consultants but that the Planning Department
were consulted about this. Asked about the provision for rail as an alternative he replied
that rail and the M3 were part of the overall strategy and this would have been made
known to the Consultants but he agreed that a combined rail and road strategy would not
have been suggested. Mr. Galligan asked if the consequences of reopening the Navan to
Kingscourt line was suggested to the consultants and what would be the modal split in
that context. Mr. Killeen said the reservation for that line was an objective in their CDP
130
and as such would have been passed on to them, but that he would have to refer him to
theTraffic Consultant for the modal split data.
Mr. Galligan asked how an economic asessment was made without the tolling scheme
being considered as part of this and when Mr. Killeen said the tolling was a separate
matter with no decision on it being made yet, Mr. Galligan suggested An Bord was being
asked to proceed in the absence of that knowledge. Mr. Galligan said the reference in
Table 9.5 in the SPGs was for a dual carriageway on the N3 not a motorway and
suggested he was misleading An Bord. Mr. Killeen replied the SPGs identified a dual
carriageway which was clear from his evidence but the cross-sections were the same. Mr.
Galligan suggested he should have said there was no reference to a motoway on the N3 in
the SPGs and after some argument as to what was intended, Mr. Killeen said he erred if
that was what he was looking for him to say. Mr. Galligan then referred to the Platform
for Change and said it did not refer to a motorway either for the N3. Mr. Killeen said
there was a reference to the N3 and would not agree he had given selected highlights.
When Mr. Galligan asked if it was not critical to An Bord's understanding of the
motorway scheme to know whether or not the scheme was proposed as a motorway in the
DTO document, Mr. Killeen replied he had not said the Scheme was proposed as a
motorway in the Platform for Change and that he had actually quoted from that
document. When Mr. Galligan again referred to the motorway not being in the DTO
document, the Inspector said he had made that point on several occasions, the witness had
replied and he should move on. Mr. Galligan then concluded by asking for a copy of the
report he prepared for the Elected Members which Mr. Killeen said he would get for him.
21.9. Cross-examined by Peter Sweetman on behalf of An Taisce :
Mr. Sweetman asked if he had advised the developer on the scoping of the EIS and Mr.
Killeen replied there had been no written request for a formal scoping document and the
scoping would have been covered in the various meetings between the design team and
the Planning Department. Mr. Sweetman asked if he had kept minutes of these meetings
as he represented the Council and not the developer and could he be given these minutes
later on. Mr. Killeen replied he kept no minutes or notes personally. Mr. Sweetman then
asked what were the qualifications for an Assistant Planner and on being told these, asked
if Mr. Killeen had that planning degree and when told he had not but had a planning
qualification, Mr. Sweetman said he was not qualified for a position as assistant planner
with Meath County Council. The Inspector said that point was not an issue. Mr.
Sweetman asked what was the legal description of a CDP and when Mr. Killeen referred
to it being a framework document for the development of a county, Mr. Sweetman asked
if he was aware of what Mr. Justice McCarthy said in the Supreme Court as in McGarry
& Others -v- Sligo County Council. Mr. Killeen said he was not.
Mr. Sweetman asked what an EIA and an EIS were and on being told asked what was
contained in a planning application for a cottage under the 2000 Planning Act, Mr.
Killeen listed what was required, Mr. Sweetman asked if the information in the M3 EIS
was sufficient for a planning application for a cottage, Mr. Killeen replied the EIS was
not for a cottage, Mr. Sweetman asked if a percolation test would be necessary for a
131
cottage in North Meath and Mr. Killeen said not in all cases, as it depended on the soil in
the area. Mr. Sweetman then referred to the Northern Toll booth in Grange and asked for
a yes or no answer on whether a percolation test was required in the specific area of the
northern toll booth. When Mr. Killeen replied "no" and that they had granted planning
permission for some houses without having sought a test, Mr. Sweetman said this was on
a clay soil where there was no percolation and that he was being incompetent in saying
that. The Inspector intervened to say that Mr. Killeen wanted to say something and Mr.
Killeen said he was trying to get across that they had granted permission in cases where
adverse soil conditions existed without nesessarily having obtained a percolation test
first. He said they attached a condition in such cases that could require a secondary
treatment system based on the results of percolation tests.
Mr. Sweetman asked where this information was in the EIS and when Mr. Killeen replied
that, based on his questions to Mr. Guthrie previously, there was no information relating
to percolation tests in the EIS, Mr. Sweetman said that it was a requirement for all likely
significant effects to be in the EIS. Asked what was his definition of "Material" in the
context of the overall Development Plan, Mr. Killeen replied that each application has to
be judged on its own merits and that as to whether it materially contravenes a
Development Plan was something you assessed when all of the facts were before you.
21. 10. Cross-examined by Brendan Magee of Meath Road Action Group (MRAG) :
Mr.Magee referred to his comment that a decrease in travel time would follow from
building the M3 and asked how could that be with the congestion at the Blanchardstown
Roundabout being the major cause of delays. When Mr. Killeen replied that there were
proposals in the SPGs and by the DTO to upgrade that Interchange, Mr. Magee said it
would still be a major junction which would stop the traffic dead at Blanchardstown. He
then referred to the new road linking Drogheda, Navan, Naas and Newbridge and asked
what was the current postion and were the public aware of it. Mr. Killeen replied it was a
proposal in the Platform for Change but the alignment for the road had yet to be
determined and its timeframe was from 2003 to 2010, adding that the public would only
know it was in the DTO document. Asked if provision was being made for a junction
with this road in the M3, Mr. Killeen said not that he was aware of and if it were that
might prejudice the route selection for that road in the future. Asked if it had been
discussed with the Design Team, Mr. Killeen said they would have been made aware of
the DTO/SPG proposals and, replying to a further query he repeated his understanding
that no junction was being built on the M3 to facilitate this other new road and also
confirmed that no alignment had been established.
Mr. Magee referring to his statement that "mitigation measures would ensure effective
integration of the M3 into the local landscape" and asked how could a motorway be
integrated into the Boyne Valley. Mr. Killeen replied that in his opinion it could because
of the low lying route through the lower regions of the valley and with appropriate
landscaping. Asked about the Landscaping he said the Landscape Consultant would deal
with this aspect. Asked about the lack of any reference to the railway in his evidence and
if the M3 would be attractive to a PPP company if the railway was in place, Mr. Killeen
132
replied that the M3, the Rail line and Traffic demand management were all part of an
overall strategy. Mr. Magee suggested traffic would be reduced if the railway was there
and Mr. Killeen agreed but said Dr. O'Cinneide had allowed for this in his predictions.
Mr. Magee asked if the reverse would occur and would the toll road affect the railway
and when Mr. Killeen said no toll had been decided, suggested the rail line might not
come for some time to allow this private company to make its profit. Mr. Killeen replied
that the rail link was in the SPGs subject to the feasibility being assessed. Mr. Magee
suggested nothing was being done about the railway line but the motorway was being
pushed through and a debate followed about the timeframe and the need for balance as
between public and private transport, with Mr. Magee suggesting "balance" only applied
when both were in progress in the same timeframe. Mr. Magee concluded by referring to
the various development plans he had quoted from and suggested that the plans for the
road had been put into the Development Plans rather than being instigated by the CDPs.
Mr. Killeen did not accept that and said the roads came from a review process and
followed public consultation and consultation with the prescribed bodies such as the DTO
and others.
21.11. Cross-examined by Mary Begley, Collierstown, Tara :
Ms Begley asked if he had produced the Meath CDP and when told he had some input to
it, asked him to read the section on Area VQ 9, Tara and Dunsany at page 58 and the
section on "sensitivities". She then referred to a several items in what had been read out
such as "premier visual quality" -- "green belt" -- "archaeological" -- " pastoral
grasslands" and "The Hills of Tara and Skreen are particularly sensitive to intrusive
development" and asked how he could justify putting a motorway through such an area
where people could not get planning for a house or a shed. Mr. Killeen referred her to his
Brief of Evidence where he had identified the visual quality areas, including VQ 9 and
said he had taken account of all those points. He said the sensitivities did not necessarily
say that all housing developments were excluded once they could be integrated into the
landscape and that he could give examples of where they had permitted houses in the
Boyne Valley, where agricultural structures were permitted in high quality landscapes
and he said there were examples in the VQ 9 area as well. He said that, as he had said in
evidence, in the early years until the planting matured the impact would be negative and
severe but in the long term the motorway could be effectively integrated into the
landscape as was the case for a house. Ms Begley said she took this to mean that if a
house was tastefully done there was some chance of permission for it but a motorway
was not a particularly nice thing and the landscaping would not be natural as it would
follow a line rather than the twists and turns of the hedges so ones eye would be drawn to
it when you looked down from Tara or Skryne. Mr. Killeen replied that the existing N3
passed between these Hills but Ms Begley said that road was there for thousands of
years. When Mr. Killeen said that the route had been chosen in the low-lying part of the
valley to allow for its integration, Ms Begley suggested that if it were put on the west of
Tara it would be away from everything and all of the other sections were west of the N3
but they came east in their section. Mr. Killeen replied this had been examined in the
route selection process.
133
Ms Begley then referred to the EIS volumes and specifically to 4B where there was no
mention to the Collierstown Road, which was her road, with details of the "Side Road"
crossings. Mr. Killeen said he understood the details in all of the volumes were the same
format but Ms Begley replied that while there were details of typical cross-sections of
side road crossings with the bridge details in the other volumes she could not find any
details of the Collierstown Bridge in the volume she had purchased, which was quite
expensive, and this was the area that affected her. Mr. Killeen suggested she take this up
with the Alan Guthrie as the Consultant for that Section.
21.12. Cross-examined by Sandra Ryan on behalf of Philip & Margaret Ryan,
Lismullin, Navan -- Plot 1083 :
Ms Ryan said she represented the Ryan farm at Lismullin and asked if they could have
information from the Council on the Collierstown, Baronstown and Lismullin Bridges all
of which were absent from Volume 4B, Mr. Killeen replying that this would be arranged.
Ms Ryan then asked if in 20 or 30 years time when the planting had matured what would
you see of the motorway then from the Hill of Tara. Mr. Killeen said the screen planting
would be seen but not the motorway itself except for the bridges and, when asked, he
could not state the actual number of bridges to be built between Dunshaughlin and
Navan. Asked were Bridge Orders being applied for, Mr. Killeen said all of the bridges
were part of the overall Scheme and when asked if the number of bridges in the Tara/
Skryne area was minimised to minimise the impact, he agreed and also agreed that all
that were being built were necessary. When Ms Ryan asked what options other than
bridges had been considered as she thought a particular bridge was un-necessary, Mr.
Killeen suggested she should take this up with the Consultants for that Section.
21.13. Cross-examined by Fr. Pat Raleigh, SSC, Dalgan Park :
Fr. Raleigh said he found it un-satisfactory that when a question was asked he said he had
to consult the relevant person as there did not seem to be any overall unified planning
between the various people on the proposal when he was saying "I cannot answer that".
He said he was not happy with the reply given to Brendan Magee about the motorway
increasing safety and reducing congestion. Mr. Killeen replied that it was his opinion the
proposed motorway would reduce transit times and traffic congestion and increase safety
for road users. Fr. Raleigh asked if that was the Planning Authorities evidence and was
told it was. When Fr. Raleigh said the congestion would be greater at Blanchardstown
from the M3, Mr. Killeen agreed that could happen unless the upgrading of the M50
junction and the M50 were put in place but Fr. Raleigh felt his answers were un
satisfactory. Asked how he could say he had no objection to a motorway going through
one of the most picturesque scenes in Ireland at theTara Valley, Mr. Killeen replied that
he had outlined his reasons for saying this in his evidence. Asked if this was his personal
opinion or was it also that of the Council, Mr. Killeen said it was the Council's opinion
and when asked the basis for this, replied that the objectives and policies in the
Development Plan supported this opinion.
134
Fr. Raleigh then asked was this only a plan of the Council in collusion with the NRA and
how had the people been consulted about their opinions. Mr. Killeen said there had been
consultation through the Development Review process and the EPR was indicated on the
Rural Detail Maps as published and adopted by the Council in March 2001 with all of
this going through a public consultation process. Fr. Raleigh said he would come back to
this because he thought the word "consultation" was a word that could be bandied about.
He said he was the Justice and Peace Co-ordinator for the Columban Missionaries in
Dalgan Park and that, some years ago, when they were opening a Mission Awareness
Centre in Dalgan Park and wanted to put up signs for the Centre they found the
bureacracy element of the Council very, very difficult. He said they were told by a
Planning Department official, who was no longer there, that the signs would be an
intrusion on the beauty of the countryside and he asked what would a motorway do to the
beauty and the landscape with its archaeological and historical dimensions. Fr. Raleigh
concluded by saying he found it strange that not one of the Councillors, who were elected
by the community, had not the "what not" to be present as the people from the Council
were all faceless people to him since he did not know their names.
21.14. Cross-examined by Thomas Hamill on behalf of Bellinter Residents
Association :
Mr. Hamill asked if he could be told the length of gradient at the Cannistown rail
crossing given the bridge would be 7 metres above the motorway but Mr. Killeen said he
did not know and as the design had not yet been undertaken he could not comment. Mr.
Hamill suggested he should be able to give his opinion as an engineer but Mr. Killeen
declined as it was not his area. Mr. Hamill suggested it was not proper that they were not
being given details of what would be an important part of the scheme and when Mr.
Killeen said that the objective in the Development Plan was to reserve the route and the
motorway took account of this. Mr. Hamill suggested the gradient would be for at least 1
km. on either side of the bridge crossing and when Mr. Killeen said he could not
comment and Mr. Hamill protested at his refusal, the Inspector suggested a "guestimate "
might be made and Mr. Killeen agreed it could be 1 km. Mr. Hamill suggested this would
encroach on and overlook a lot of properties on each side and when Mr. Killeen replied
that another statutory procedure would deal with a Railway Order, Mr. Hamill said it
seemed as if it was being swept under the carpet. Mr. Killeen disagreed saying that it was
in the public arena that there was an objective for the rail link in the CDP.
21.15. Cross-examination by Claire Oakes, Bellinter Resident :
Ms Oakes asked what input he had into the route selection process and if he had made
any recommendations, as a planner, about which route should be chosen and Mr. Killeen
replied that he had advised the Consultants about the contents of the Development Plan
and, while he did not make any recommendations, the constraints of the CDP would have
been included in the Constraints Study. Asked if he had an opinion on one route against
another in the context of the sensitive landscape in the VQ 9 area, Mr. Killeen said it was
his opinion that the route selected was the optimum in terms of limiting the impact on the
visually sensitive landscape and in the archaeologically sensitive area. Ms Oakes
135
suggested that the opinions of those living in this sensitive area would be better informed
than his opinion but Mr. Killeen said his opinion was based on the policies and objectives
relating to the proper planning development of the area in the CDP.
Ms Oakes then referred to Section 4.8 of his Brief of Evidence where he had said the
preferred route avoided the SRUNA areas and drew his attention to what was stated in
the EIS at Section 5.3.6 on page 79 in Vol.4A which said there are 4 SRUNAs within the
route corridor and said this conficted with what he had stated. Mr. Killeen replied that he
had based his statement on what was in the Rural detail Map for the Navan area wherethe
SRUNAs were cross-hatched in Red and the route avioded them by not passing through
them. Ms Oakes suggested there had to be an impact when the EIS portrayed their
location but Mr. Killeen said they were adjacent to the route which did not cut through
them and that was what he said in his evidence. When Mr. Killeen referred again to the
Rural Detail Map, Ms Oakes asked to see the map on the screen and Mr. Killeen said
they would try to provide this at a later stage. The Inspector intervened and suggested this
should be put in place by the Council when that Section was being discussed, saying he
accepted a map of that sort could not be put into the screen format at short notice which
was why he was making this "advance" suggestion
21.16. Re-examined by Pat Butler S.C. for the Council :
Mr. Butler referred to the query to him previously if a direction from the NRA had been
received and asked if he could now respond to this. Mr. Killeen said there had been a
letter from the NRA to Mr. Oliver Perkins, the County Engineer dated 21 February
2001and he read the first paragraph which said that "The NRA had decided in June 2000
that the N3 Clonee to Kells Scheme should be one of eight PPP schemes announced and
notified to Local Authorities to be progressed, with eleven PPP schemes identified to date
to meet the requirement in the NDP to draw in private finance to deliver national road
improvements. As with many schemes the N3 was being progressed as a single contract
of significant length to expedite the completion of full new road corridors and the N3
scheme would be designated a motorway in common with the designation of the bulk of
the PPP schemes to emphasise the service quality road users would gain from the
payment of a modest toll". Mr. Killeen then handed a copy of this letter to the Inspector
( Listed at Day 5 in Appendix 4 of this Report) and Mr. Butler said copies were being
made available for those at the Hearing who wanted one.
Mr. Butler then asked what was his experience regarding the legalisation and the
planning regime for borrow pits on other road schemes in the context of the issue raised
about possible sources for importing fill. Mr. Killeen replied that his most recent
experience was with the M1 Motorway from Gormanstown to Drogheda being
constructred at present where the Contractor had proposed borrow pits adjacent to the
route. He said the Planning Authority took the view that planning permission was
required for these and two applications were made, one by the Contractor and the other
by a private individual. He said that a number of borrow pits had been identified but only
two had progressed to a full planning application and he understood both were being
used.
136
Mr. Butler then referred to Mr. Galligan's cross-examination about the Notice published
for the Variation of the CDP and asked if Section 13 of the 2000 Act required a
description or a distinquishing of the reason from the description and Mr. Killeen said
there were no such requirements and he read out Section 13(3) in full in support of his
assertion. Asked if he was happy the Notice set out the reason he replied that he was. He
also confirmed that the County Manager had made a report on the submissions recevied
in compliance with Section 13(4).
Mr. Butler referred to his reference to the proposal for improvements to the N3 in the
context of various documents such as the NDP, SPGs and the DTO Platform for Change
and asked him to explain the context for mentioning them. Mr. Killeen said the
documents were mentioned to show where it was an objective in the NDP to improve the
N3 corridor; that the SPGs in Table 9.5 identified the N3 dual carriageway as being
essential to the overall strategy and that the Platform for Change identified the Clonee to
North of Kells scheme and that the NRA letter confirmed the development of the Scheme
as a Motorway as being in accordance with the NDP. Asked to explain the context of his
reference to the 1994 Development Plan, Mr. Killeen replied he was trying to show to the
Hearing that there were a number of Plans relevant at the time the Route Selection
Process commenced, all of which were subsequently varied to take account of the design
of the scheme as it came from that Route Selection Process. Asked if the Navan By-pass
shown as going west of Navan on the CDP prior to the Variations, Mr. Killeen said that
route was identified on the Rural Detail "Infrastructure Maps" for the Navan area in the
2000 Development Plan.
Mr. Butler then asked him to elaborate on the treatment of the Tree Preservation Order
for the trees in Dowdstown in the 1994 CDP as opposed to the 2001 CDP as raised by
Mr. O'Donnell in his cross-examination. Mr. Killeen said that the text in the 1994 CDP
was on page 27 in Section 3.5.10 under "trees and woodlands" read " where felling of
trees is unavoidable new planting will be required and native species such as oak, ash,
beech and sally may be specified where appropriate. He said that virtually the same text
appeared in section 3.6.5.1 of the 2001 CDP which read "where fellling of trees is
unavoidable new planting may be required and native species tree planting encouraged".
He said this showed that the Plans did not prevent development from taking place where
a TPO was in place and there was provision for replacement planting where development
was unavoidable.
Mr. Butler then handed in to the Inspector the extracts from the NDP and the Roads
Needs Study that he had asked for on Day 2 ( Listed at Day 5 in Appendix 4 of this
Report).
21.17. Questioned by Inspector :
The Inspector asked that copies of the following documents be made available to the
Hearing :-
137
The extracts quoted on TPOs from the 1994 and 2001 CDPs
Section 13 of the 2000 Planning and Development Act
A copy of the Strategic Policy Guidelines (SPGs)
Extracts from both the 1994 and 2001CDPs including Variations and the Navan
Environs which referred in the text to the reservations for the N3 or M3 and to
Objectives for preserving rail lines in these Development Plans.
The Inspector asked that he put together a single Map of County Meath on which the
various route reservations shown on the 1994 Plan and the EPR as it was shown in the
2001 Varied Plan and also what was shown in the other plans he had referred to, ie. the
Navan, Kells, Dunshaughlin and Dunboyne Plans of 1995, 1996 & 1997. He also asked
for a separate Map which showed the VQ 3 and VQ 9 areas, the VP 1, VP27 and VP28(c)
areas and the TPO2 area. The Inspector also asked that a note be put together on the
points he had made about the borrow pits for the M1 together with the relevant planning
permissions that were granted by the Council for these. Finally the Inspector referred to
the letter of 28 February 2001 from the NRA to the County Engineer, which he said
might have been made available at an earlier stage in the Hearing, and asked for a copy of
the letter of June or July 2000 from the NRA which, as could be inferred from the
wording, was issued to Meath and other Local Authorities at that time.
These documents were subsequently handed in by M/s Butler & Keane for the Council
on Day 10 and are listed there in Appendix 4 of this Report.
Request by Bellinter Residents Association for Documents
Mr. Butler referred to Alan Park's complaint about documentation ( See page 104 in
Scetion 19.6 of this Report) and told the Inspector that, having taken instructions on the
issue, they had two large boxes with copies of documents which had previously been
given to the BRA which he understood Mr. Park wanted given to the Inspector so it could
be seen that they were insufficient for their needs. The Inspector said that was not what
he understood the issue to be as he thought it was the assessment of their submission that
the BRA were seeking and he suggested Mr. Park might clarify what was at issue.
Mr. Park said they were looking for the Corridor Selection Report of which Mr. Guthrie
had kindly lent them a copy, as they were not aware of its existence until referred to in
Mr. Guthrie's evidence. He said the other items they had asked for in January 2002 was
that the number of submissions made to the EPR and access to examine these; the
consideration given to the submissions made; the number of meetings held about these
submissions and minutes of those meeting and documents supporting any actions taken
on the submissions and meetings. He said they were only interested in the Dunshaughlin
North to Navan South section. Mr. Butler said he would take further instructions and
come back next morning.
138
When Mr. Butler came back to the Hearing on this issue, Mr. Park was not present but
two other BRA members, Brendan Magee and Thomas Hamill, were and said they could
deal with the issues.
Mr. Butler said there had been some confusion about the first issue and it had taken some
time to establish what the request was but it dealt with alternate routes. He said that on 8
June 2000 a submission was received from BRA to the Council of an alternate route that
could be called a middle way between the N2 and and the proposed M3 or old N3 and
this was sent to the Consultants to assess. He said that on 29 January 2002 the BRA
sought a copy of this assessment by Halcrow Barry and that was sent to them on 4 June
2002 with a response from BRA being received on 16 June 2002 saying the report was an
interesting document and they would deal with it at the Hearing.
He said the second issue was a request for all details relating to the route selection and
the EPR and details of the submissions made about the EPR and the minutes of meetings
relating to responses to submissions. Mr. Butler said the Council replied saying they had
decided the submissions from other persons were confidential in relation to their
properties and would not be given to the BRA. Mr. Butler said that if the Inspector
regarded it to be in the public interest that the documents be made available, they would
do so.
He said the third issue relates to the general objection made by the BRA which was first
submitted to the Council in May 2000 with a second, similar, objection when the EIS was
published. The BRA sought an assessment of that submission which was what was
referred to by Alan Guthrie in his cross-examination of there being no written assessment
made as a response to that submission (objection) but that it was taken into account by
the Consultants in coming to their final design. He said there was one final issue which
was a request by the BRA for all details of correspondence relating to consultants named
in the EIS for the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section. Mr. Butler said there were consultants
on the BRA list who were dealing with other Sections and the Council could not decide
what exactly was required so they gave every piece of correspondence between the
Council, their Consultants and each of the Sub-Consultants. He said those were the boxes
shown previously and the Council had nothing further left to supply.
Mr. Hamill said he could dispute almost every word Mr. Butler had said as they only got
a nominal supply of documents and most of the correspondence was of no relevance to
the route selection and they still required details of the consideration given to the
submissions, details of meetings held and documents supporting any action taken from
those submissions and meetings.
Mr. Magee said he represented the MRAG but was also a member of the BRA and they
only got the Corridor Selection Report on the previous day which they believed was a
vital document and it only came to light after two years.
Mr. Butler said he had seen the detailed record of the requests from the residents and the
Corridor Report was never requested. He said there had been a great difficulty in trying
139
to ascertain what exactly the residents required. He said Alan Guthrie had offerred to
meet the residents to see what exactly they wanted and this offer was still there.
Mr. Magee said they believed every attempt had been made to prevent them getting
information and the Corridor Report should have been given to them at the beginning. He
said that when they asked for information about the routes they were given a 50 page
document entitled "Summary of Environmental Impacts" and "Extracts from Route
Selection Report" and they did not get the Route Selection Report until several months
later. He said they told the Council they wanted the full information not selected extracts.
The Inspector said that it seemed as if some of the information sought by the BRA was in
the details being made available by the Council but that the BRA still had some
difficulties. He said that he considered details of the number of submissions received, at
the very least, would be in the public interest but had an open mind at that stage about the
other parts of them. The Inspector suggested a meeting between Mr. Guthrie and people
from both BRA and MRAG to clarify what was being sought was something that should
be pursued to try to resolve the issue.
Mr. Magee said they had already met Mr. Guthrie and when Mr. Butler asked if he was
now saying he did not want to meet Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Magee replied he would have to
talk to his people about that.
The Inspector then repeated his suggestion for an "without prejudice" discussion between
Mr. Guthrie, the BRA and the MRAG but said he was not directing them on this.
Referring to the boxes of files that the BRA requested he go through, the Inspector said
that he was not going to go through these and make an adjudication on what was or was
not relevant. He said that if Meath were saying that all of the information was in these
two boxes it was a matter for those who wanted to go through them and extract whatever
they required
Mr. Magee said they had been through these boxes and there was no information of
relevance in them. He said they had been seeking information for over two years and the
Corridor Selection Report which would be the first document to be prepared was only
now coming to light. He was supported on this issue by Eamon Halligan of Raynestown
Residents Association who said they had sought this information under the Freedom of
Information Act but had been given to understand it did not exist. Mr. Peadar Creagh of
MRAG asked Mr. Butler to comment why this Corridor Report had been buried until
now despite the requests from many associations for details on the corridor selection.
The Inspector said the issue had been well ventilated, while there might be a dispute
about what Meath had provided, some of the difficulties being raised by the Residents
had also been raised in the cross-examination and there would be further opportunities to
cross-examine Mr. Guthrie again when he returned for the Dunshaughlin to Navan
Section. When M/s Magee and Halligan sought to pursue the issue, the Inspector said he
was noting their concerns but said these could be raised in the later cross-examination.
140
Later on in the Hearing Ms Oakes, also of the BRA, said she had been asked by Alan
Park to raise the issue of the information they were looking for again as what Mr. Butler
had been referring to only related to the first item on their list. Mr. Park understoood that
the information would be extracted from the boxes by the Council and then given to them
and they did not think it was reasonable that they would have to do this as they had no
insight to the Council's filing system. If that was not going to be done they would have to
be able to remove the boxes elsewhere to have the time to go through them but they
would need some details of the filing system used so they could find what they were
looking for.
The Inspector asked her to spell out again exactly what they wanted and Ms Oakes said
first the number of submissions made and access to examine them; second details of the
consideration given to the submissions made; third the number of meetings held
regarding those submissions and fourth the minutes of these meetings. The Inspector
stated that he had already ruled the number of submissions made should be made
available and that he saw no reason why access to examine them could not be provided.
He said that a summary of the consideration should be made available or prepared if not
already available and that if there had been meetings about these submissions, then
whatever minutes there were should be made available. He said he was not certain from
Mr. Guthrie's earlier comments if there was any documentation supporting actions taken
but if there was, it should be made available. He said that if all of this did not give them
what they were seeking, then BRA may have to go through the boxes themselves and
asked Mr. Butler to respond.
Mr. Butler said that in a letter of 4 June to Mr. Park the number of submissions was given
as 203, so they had that already. He said they had dealt with the access issue and if there
was a formal "considerations" document, they would produce that. He said their letter of
4 June also dealt with the number of meetings and he read an extract and said that insofar
as there were minutes, those would be made available. Mr. Butler said he wanted to
clarify the matter of the boxes and said that additional information had been sought by
BRA after the EIS was published relating to the list of consultants and they sought all
communication between the Council and the consultants. He said the Council gave them
everything they had in those boxes and gave them copies of those documents and the
reference to boxes came from this and it was not in the context of the five specific items.
Ms Oakes said the specific information was requested by letter of 29 January 2002 and
the other issues brought up by Mr. Butler would be dealt with in their submission to the
Hearing. She also said it was minutes of meetings about the submissions they wanted, not
meetings with other bodies. The Inspector said he was suggesting that Meath put together
a summary report on the decisions taken about the general siubmissions and when Ms
Oakes asked when this would be available and Mr. Butler said he would make a progress
report the following morning, the Inspector suggested the Council might aim for the close
of the following Day
141
23. Evidence of Suzanne Dempsey, Project Manager of MC O'Sullivan & Co.,
Consulting Engineers. :
23.1. Examined by Pat Butler S.C. on behalf of the Council :
Before Ms Dempsey gave her direct evidence Mr. Butler handed in the Tables requested
by the Inspector showing the Traffic Volumes on the M3/N3/N52 compared to those in
the Needs Study ( As listed at Day 5 in Appendix 4 of this Report). He said the Ms
Dempsey had an addendum to her Brief of Evidence handed in previously as well as a
corrected version to the Errata sheets which were attached to her Brief.
Ms Dempsey said she was an Associate of MC O'Sullivans, Consulting Engineers, with
responsibility for a wide range of environmental projects including EISs and had
significant experience in the area of environmental management. She was the Project
Manager for the EIS on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section of the M3 and also coordinated
the preparation of the EIS for the entire Scheme.
She said that her role as EIS Project Manager for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section
covered the Scoping by identifying the issues likely to be of importance and eliminating
those that were not, ensuring all relevant issues were appropriately addressed and this
included consultation with statutory bodies like Duchas, ERFB etc. It included the
appointment of experts to study the relevant issues, to identify impacts and to determine
any mitigation measures required and then liasing with the road design team and experts
to ensure a dynamic process of environmental protection was followed, and ensuring that
mitigation measures identified by the experts were integrated into the design. She said the
experts reports were integrated and compiled into an EIS document and that the EIS
Project Managers for the other four Sections had a similar role.
Ms Dempsey said that her role as the EIS Scheme Co-ordinator was to ensure consistency
in the approach over the five sections of the Scheme EIS in the Scoping; the
Methodologies and Standards used; the Identification/Quantification of Impacts; the
Mitigation Measures and the Presentation of Data. She said that EIA was a process for
anticipating the effects on the environment caused by a Development and the EIS was the
document produced as a result of that process and for the M3 EIS they had examined the
potential significant impacts of a tolled Motorway Scheme from Clonee to the North of
Kells. She said they had also considered the impacts of an untolled Scheme on the same
route since the tolling proposal was subject to a separate Inquiry.
Ms Dempsey said the the primary objective of the EIS was to present the data required to
identify and assess the main effects which the proposed road was likely to have on the
environment. She said the EIS contained descriptions of (1) the proposed road
development including its physical characteristics, expected residues and emissions; (2)
the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed
development; (3) the likely significant effects of the proposed development on those
aspects and (4) the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and where possible remedy
significant environmental effects. She said it also contained the data required to identify
142
and assess the main effects the proposed road was likely to have on the environment and
an outline of the main alternatives studied by the Council with an indication of the main
reasons for its choice, taking account of environmental factors, as well as a non-technical
summary.She said the existing environment and the development's impacts were
explained by reference to the possible impact on a series of enviromnmental topics that
included the human environment including socio-economics, air, noise and landscape; the
natural environment including flora and fauna, water, soil and climatic factors; material
assets including agricultural and non-agricultural properties; cultural heritage including
both architectural and archaeological and the inter-relationship between all of these
factors.
Ms Dempsey said the EIS was prepared in accordance with the Roads Act 1993 and the
relevant European and National EIA directives and regulations and they had followed the
EPA's Guidance and Advice Notes on EISs and the NRA 's National Project Management
Guidelines (Phase 4, Part 2) and had made reference to the Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges (DMRB), UK version, Vol.11 where appropriate. She outlined the EIS team as
shown in figure 1 in her Brief of Evidence ( previously described by Alan Guthrie) and
said that the EIS consisted of 7 volumes, Part 1 being the Non-Technical Summary, Part
2 containing a General Description of the Scheme with details of Traffic Flowsand
Alternative Routes considered while Parts 3 to 7 described for each of the Five Sections
the potentially significant impacts of the Scheme on the receiving environmernt with the
mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate identified impacts. She said that
each of volumes 3 to 7 were sub-divided into "A" for the EIS, "B" for the Geometric
Drawings and "C" for the Technical Appendices and that the Scheme was considered in 5
integrated sections, Section 1 being at the southern (Clonee) end with Section 5 (North of
Kells) being at the northern end. Ms Dempsey said this division reflected the historical
development of the Scheme and also made the EIS more accessible to the public who
need only examine the volumes applicable to their own area.
Ms Dempsey then described how the Scope of the EIS covered all of the potential
impacts considered; how mitigation measures to minimise possible adverse effects were
identified and how the interactions between various aspects were considered. She referred
to the identification and quantification of the likely significant impacts and said that, to
ensure conformity throughout the five sections, general criteria to define the scale or
magnitude of the impact had been adopted for the EIS with these criteria being detailed in
the relevant chapters in each volume and that these were consistent throughout the EIS,
having been followed by the Team in quantifying the impacts as far as was practicable.
Ms Dempsey said that in her opinion the EIS had been prepared in accordance with the
relevant legislation and it followed best practice in Ireland and identified both the likely
positive and negative impacts on the environment, including that of communities and
individuals living and working in the vicinity of the proposed Scheme.
Asked by Mr. Butler to explain the addendums attached to her Brief, Ms Dempsey said
that in compiling the final EIS document a number of errors had occurred but the data
used had been verified as being correct and she was satisfied the compilation errors did
not affect the outcome of the assessment or the mitigation measures that had been
143
identified. The "corrections" to these compilation errors were shown as "Clarifications to
the EIS" in the Appendix to her Brief of Evidence which set out the details of the errors
and the correction to be made as a replacement for the wording in the relevant EIS
volume. She said that unfortunately a few further "errors" had occurred in that Appendix
and she had now prepared "Replacement Clarification Sheets" which were attached to
her Supplementary Brief. The "Replacements Sheets " showed all of the corrected
Clarifications for the EIS and the most recent corrections were now shown in bold type.
Note -- Ms. Dempseys original Brief of Evidence is listed at Day 2 in Appendix 4 of this
Report and the further errors she referred to are also marked in the Clarification Sheets
attached to it . Ms Dempseys "Replacement Sheets"( Handed in on Day 5) are inserted in
the original Brief handed in with the revisions marked on it, as well as being in Bold
type.
Ms Dempsey then described the various errors and what should have been stated in the
EIS instead, many of them being from misplacements in the type processing.
Volume 2
Page 3, para.1 -- the reference to physical investigation used due to proximity to Tara
should only have referred to the Dunshaughlin to Navan section only.
Page 8, Table 1.2 -- the reference to PJ Newall should be replaced by MC O'Sullivan for
Vol. 5 and by Arups in Volumes 6 & 7
Page 23, Section 3.6 -- the amount of fill had now been re-calculated to 5.3M cu. mtrs.
Pages 91 & 94 -- the traffic figures for turning movements shown in Tables 3.7 & 3.8
had given the figures for 2002 and not for 2024 as stated in 3.7 and vice versa in 3.8. The
corrected Tables 3.7 & 3.8 now agree with traffic flows in Figures 3.1 & 3.6
Volume 3A
Ms Dempsey said all sub-consultants reports were reviewed and revised where necessary
in Dec. 2001 following changes to the route alignment, whereas Vol. 3A refers to August
2001.
Page 5, para 3 -- a deletion to remove a double reference to the depth of cut at the Bridge.
Page 75, Table 3.4 -- replace figures in Table 3.4 by those in Table 17.3 and vice versa
Page 95, para 2 -- replace 6 by 5 so text agrees with Table.
Page 97 - Residual impacts - bullet point 4 -- replace 8 by 7 in first sentence, remove
second & third sentences and replace by" See table 4.7" so text agrees with Tables.
Page 101,Table 4.2 -- replace the numbers in Table 4.2 with those in Table 17.3 page 305
& vice versa, where tolled & untolled figures were juxta-positioned as on page 75 above.
Page 196, Soil, para 2 -- replace 855000 m3 incl. 505000 m3 by 535000 m3 and replace
2995000 m3 by 2800000 m3.
Figure 8.1, Rev.AO1 -- replace by Figure 8.1, Rev AO3 to correct drafting error in well
locations.
Page 217, Table 10.6 -- replace by Table 10.6 Revision A to match data shown in EIS
and on CPO maps due to land loss corrections and shared access. Replace "Major"
Impact for CPO 139/144 to "Severe" in Table 10.6a and change overall impacts in Table
10.6b as Revision B( attached to Supplementary Brief) for CPO 257 to "moderate" and to
"minor" for CPOs 207, 249, 371 & 379 to agree with levels of significance in Table 10.1.
144
Page 238, Table 11.4 -- replace 7.7 with 5.7 and 3.3 with 1.97 in CPO 353 as part of the
property had been sold when the CPO came to be prepared. CPO 470 was what had been
sold so remove "severance" from Nature of Impact and reference to severed land in
mitigation. Replace "major" by "moderate" in Level of Impact.
Page 261, Table 13.1 -- replace "high" probability by "low" in row 7 to be consistent with
page 252, para 3.
Page 301, Untolled Scenario - Noise -- add location 4 to named locations in first sentence
as omitted from text. Replace 6 by 7 in second sentence and removethird and fourth
sentences and replace by "See table 17.5" so text and Table agree.
Volume 3B
Figure 5.2 -- replace Figure 5.2 AO1 by Figure 5.2 AO2 (with Brief) to clarify amount of
land from fence to roadway
Volume 4A
Page 55 -- 4.7 residual impacts -- replace para. 1 by "Location 9, Garretstown Stud. The
proposed M3 will pass approx. 300 metres west of this location in cutting. The road is on
an embankment to the south. The 2004 Do Something noise level will be around 57dB at
the house at this location. This increase will be a minor significant negative impact". This
replaces a text that had a slightly different context.
Figures10.1.1 to 10.1.3 -- Some of the CPO plot numbers were incorrectly labelled as
follows :-
Fig. 10.1.1 -- 1051 should read 122; 1059 not labelled -- betweeen 1060 & 1058.
Fig. 10.1.2 -- 1065 should read 1064; 1073 should read 1052; 1078 should read 1079.
Fig. 10.1.3 -- 1085 should read 1082; 1091 should read 1090; 1093 should read 1096.
Volume 5A
Page 99 -- Woodland -- add "of appendix E, vol.5C" after Section 2.4.2 on sixth line.
Figure 6.1.1 to 6.1.2 -- replace these with Figure 6.1.1and 6.1.2 Rev A O2 so drawing
matches legend as there was some confusion from the previous figures.
Figures 7.1 to 7.1.3 -- replace these with Figures 7.1 to 7.1.3 Rev. AO2 as the legend got
juxta-positioned and was difficult to read.
Page 130, soil, para 2 -- replace second sentence by " The amount of material to be
excavated from the cut in this section is estimated at 0.454 M cu. mtrs. while the amount
of fill required is estimated at 1.15 M cu. mtrs." This came from a refinement of the
design.
Page 145, Table 10.6 -- replace "loss of animal handling facilities " by "Loss of access to
animal handling facilities on severed land" in the severance and Other impacts column
for the following CPO Plots :- 2162, 2145, 2103, 2102, 2183/2185, 2173, 2172, 2114,
2118, 2219, 2202, 2321, 2226, 2151, 2165, 2166/2384, 2180 & 2191.
Page 171, Section 13.6.2, para 6 -- replace the word "topsoil" with "topographical".
Page 201, para 2 -- add "of Appendix C Volume 5C" after Fig. 4.5 in the text as it was
left out.
Volume 5C Appendices
Appendix C, Section 4.7, para 2 -- replace 2 by 3.5, this refers to a noise barrier.
Appendix G, table 10.6, Row 43 -- remove text in brackets as it is not relevant.
Volume 6A
Page 107, Table 5.5 -- Ref. P42 should read "House" not "Bungalow"
Page 147, Section 8.4 -- 1.95 M cu. mtrs. should read 327980 cu. mtrs. Design refinement
145
Page 182, Table 11.3 -- CPO 3022 impact should read moderate not major.
Page 183, Table 11.4 -- CPO 3112 impact should read slight.
Volume 6C Appendices
Appendix D -- Ref. P42 should read "House" not "Bungalow"
Volume 7A
Page 111, Section 8.4 -- 1.95 M cu. mtrs. should read 459750 cu. mtrs.
23.2. Suzanne Dempsey cross-examined by Declan McGrath B.L. on behalf of
Gerrardstown Stud, Dunshaughlin -- Plot 1056 :
Mr. McGrath asked why there were separate sections dealing with a tolled and an
untolled scheme in the EIS and Ms Dempsey replied that as the tolling was subject to a
separate inquiry and the tolled scheme might not go ahead, they were asked to make an
assessment of an untolled scheme as well. Asked what were the differences in terms of
impacts, she replied there was very little difference and they had looked at traffic, socioeconomics,
air quality noise and landscape as being the main areas where there could be a
difference and she quoted from the section in Vol.3A which indicated that impacts for
socio-economics and air were similar and the same for noise except that one additional
barrier would be required. Mr. McGrath referred to the traffic diversion rates for 2004 of
19% between Kells and Navan, 13% between Navan and Dunshaughlin and 14%
between Dunshaughlin and Black Bull and suggested these were significant differences.
Ms Dempsey replied that their assessment showed there was not a significant difference
in the impacts on the environment between both scenarios. In reply to further queries on
this issue she agreed that the main difference was in socio-economic terms where the
untolled version would divert more traffic from town centres giving a more beneficial
impact there and this was stated in the EIS.
Mr. McGrath suggested that if an EIS did not present the data required to identify and
assess the main effects the proposed road was likely to have on the environment then it
would not comply with the statutory requirements and Ms Dempsey accepted this was so
but added that there was the exception where there was a difficulty in a particular area.
Asked if she was confident all of the data required was presented she said she was and
Mr. McGrath asked what constituency was the EIS aimed at, Ms Dempsey replied the
Competent Authority assessing the scheme and the public. Mr. McGrath then referred to
the issue that had arisen about the "Fill Material" ( Section 18 of this Report refers) and
suggested the 4.35 M cu. mtrs was erroneous since her evidence now said it was nearer
5.3 M. cu. mtrs. Ms Dempsey said the EIS had flagged that was an approximate quantity
and could change at detailed design stage and they had since refined the design. Asked
where was the data on which An Bord could assess the effect of this 5.3 M cu. mtrs. on
the environment Ms Dempsey said the EIS stated the impact of the imported fill could
not be assessed until the borrow pits were identified and that would not be until a
contractor had been appointed and picked the sites. She said the licensing procedures for
those pits would determine the impacts and the EIS said that. Mr. McGrath suggested the
Scheme could not go ahead without importing this 5.3 M cu. mtrs.of fill and when Ms
Dempsey accepted this, asked if the 5.3 M would require more than 5 hectares for its
extraction, Ms Dempsey agreed this was likely and he then asked if she still considered
146
there was sufficient data presented in the M3 EIS even though a further EIS would be
required for the 5.3 M cu. mtrs. Extraction as the area was over 5 ha. Ms Dempsey
replied that the impact of importing that amount of fill could not be quantified at this
stage and the EIS said that. Following a debate on the possible methodology of extracting
and delivering the fill, Ms Dempsey accepted that given the current knowledge they
could not state what the likely significant effects of importing that quantity of fill would
have but she maintained, in response to further questions, that in identifying the impacts
at the current state of knowledge and in identifying where that lack of knowledge was,
the EIS complied with the requirements in the Act. Mr. McGrath said he would differ
with her on that and asked if it was sufficient for the public to be able to hear about this
fill material only at the Hearing and Ms Dempsey replied that was all that could be done
at present and was what had been done on other road schemes.
Mr. McGrath said he understood her position in relation to the fill material to be that it
was not possible to quantify the impact at this time since the source of the material was
not known as the contractor had not been appointed and it was the contractor who would
locate the borrow pits and Ms Dempsey agreed with this scenario. Mr. McGrath then
suggested that if a contractor had identified where the material would come from, an EIS
could have identified the significant effects of the importation of the fill. Ms Dempsey
agreed that would be possible but said it was very unlikely that a contractor would be
appointed before the EIS had been approved but Mr. McGrath suggested the fundamental
difficulty was the fact the contractor had not been appointed. Ms Dempsey accepted this,
but repeated her doubt of any appointment of contractors before planning for a
development being approved. Mr. McGrath concluded by saying to the Inspector that he
was not to be taken as indicating the fill issue was the only deficiency in the EIS.
23.3. Cross-examined by Tom Flynn B. L. on behalf of Ms Maher,
Ardbraccan House, Navan :
Mr. Flynn commenced by saying that, like Mr. McGrath, he wished to reserve his
position about the fill issue and asked why the first two pages of her supplementary Brief
were not included in her original Brief as it was very general material. Ms Dempsey
replied that she thought from the confusion which the public seemed to have about who
was responsible for what, it could be helpful if the way the EIS had been developed was
elaborated on with the roles and responsibilities of the team members clarified. Asked
when she became involved in the project she said in February 2000 and asked about the
scoping process she said this started for the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section in February
2000. Mr. Flynn then asked when scoping for the full scheme started and she replied that
the five EIA teams got together when it was decided to present the scheme as one
Scheme and they reviewed the scoping for each section to ensure it was consistent
throughout the five sections and if elements had been identified as a potential impact in
one section, these could also be looked at in the other sections. Asked who was involved
in the scoping, she replied the project managers for each section, the design engineers and
the Client and that the statutory bodies and consultees were written to in the summer of
2000 and asked for comments on issues to be addressed in the EIS.
147
Having referred her role as co-ordinator of the EIS, Mr. Flynn asked if she could clarify
when each of the Sub-consultants became involved in the EIS process. When the
Inspector suggested this might need to be clarified as between their appointment and
when they actually started work, Mr. Flynn said he would accept the appointment dates if
this was faster to produce and Ms Dempsey said this would be arranged for him. (Note --
this information became available on Day 7 but neither Mr. Galligan or Mr. Flynn were
present then and the Inspector suggested it be held by the Council until one or other
returned. As appearances on behalf of Ms Maher changed subsequently, this information
was not submitted to the Hearing) Mr. Flynn then asked who provided advice on land use
and spatial planning and was told that the Planning Department of Meath County Council
was consulted as required. Mr. Flynn then referred to the 26 pages of "clarifications" to
the EIS with her original Brief and said these were further amended by more
"clarifications" in her supplementary Brief and asked if the full list of errors was now
available. Ms Dempsey said yes as far as she knew and Mr. Flynn concluded by asking if
the EIS was complete for the purpose of the Hearing and Ms Dempsey confirmed that it
was but added additional details might still be sought during the Hearing.
23.4. Questioned by Mary Begley, Collierstown, Tara :
Having gone through Ms Dempsey's role in co-ordinating the EIS document and the subdivision
of the volumes in it with her, Ms Begley asked why there were no details of the
side road geometrics in the Dunshaughlin to Navan Volume 4B which she said was
possibly the most sensitive area with the Tara Skryne Valley being there, and if as coordinator
she was satisfied all of the relevant information was being provided. Ms Begley
said that those details were in all of the other Volumes and one would expect from what
had been said in her evidence that there would be the same broad detail in all sections.
Ms Dempsey replied that she could verify the EISs were carried out in accordance with
the scoping they had agreed on at the start, that she was not aware specific drawings were
missing and she would have to check that with Mr. Guthrie. Ms Begley said that her
difficulty was that they had been provided previously with her Brief, then they were
given further clarifications all of which seemed to relate to typing errors but the missing
maps were more significant and yet she could not get an answer about them. Ms
Dempsey replied the maps had not been raised as an omission with her for inclusion in
the errata and she had to go back to Mr. Guthrie about this query. The Inspector noted
that Ms Begley had previously raised this issue and suggested Meath should clarify this
matter next morning.
23.5. Questioned by Fr. Pat Raleigh, SSC, Dalgan Park :
Fr. Raleigh said he found it very annoying to be subjected to a number of pages of just
going through errata and, as he could not afford to buy all of the volumes, he found it a
bit disingenuous when that information was not given in the previous Brief and now
expect the general public to accept that the information was there and to take it as it was
given to them.
148
Fr. Raleigh asked what was her definition of "cultural heritage" and when told it would
be the total environment including landscape, archaeology, built environment, tradition
and history asked if the EIS had taken account of the cultural heritage of the total area.
Ms Dempsey replied that this had been addressed but Fr. Raleigh suggested "addressing
where it had been significantly impacted" was different to taking into account the total
understanding of the cultural diversity of a particular area. Ms Dempsey replied the
legislation did not require a detailed description of every part of the cultural heritage of
the scheme but Fr. Raleigh said he thought the EIS was very lacking in relation to the
whole Tara /Skryne area. Asked if the team had taken the future availability of petrol into
account as referred to by Fr. Sean McDonagh, Ms Dempsey said that was a planning
issue which she was not competent to answer. Asked if the total fauna and flora, water,
soil and climatic factors for the natural environment had been taken into consideration,
Ms Dempsey said they were and Fr. Raleigh concluded by saying that Mr. O'Donnell
would be cross-examining later and would be coming back to those issues.
23.6. Questioned by Thomas Hamill, Bellinter Residents Association :
Mr. Hamill sought clarification about a section in the Errata list where at page 147 for
Section 8.4 ( for Vol. 6A) the Brief of Evidence said "1.95 m cu. mtrs." Should read
"310000 cu. mtrs" and when Ms Dempsey replied that the 310000 was replaced by
327980, Mr. Hamill commented that this sort of thing did not make it any clearer for
people like him who were trying to make sense of the matter when following the
proceedings.
23.7. Cross-examined by Frank Burke, Consulting Engineer, on behalf of Clients :
Mr. Burke said he had been intrigued by what he termed her "evasiveness" in responding
to Mr. McGrath's questions about the appointment of a contractor and asked what was the
value of the contract with the PPP concessionaire. Ms Dempsey replied she did not know
but could find out and when he suggested it was circa € 600M she replied she thought
there was a price in the EIS. Mr. Burke said that in practical terms the contractor would
be one of the major players in the international marketplace as distinct from the Irish
marketplace who would need large quantities of materials. He said there were only three
or four "blacktop" suppliers in Co.Meath and one could count on one finger how many
could supply a contract of that scale. He suggested that from the construction impact it
was clear who they would be dealing with and that talking of contractors dealing with
borrow pits was being evasive, as for "blacktop" there were only two suppliers who could
provide the quantities needed. He suggested a reasonable estimate of where the material
would be coming from could be made and that, from the point of view of addressing the
impact on people affected by the M3, they could have made a reasonable attempt within
the scope of the EIS to address where the sources of material were and how they could be
supplied.
Ms Dempsey asked if that a statement or a question, Mr. Burke replying it was both as he
thought she had answered Mr. McGrath's question by being evasive. Ms Dempsey
responded by saying that if they had assumed particular outlets and sources and had
149
assessed the impact based on those and then if the contractor did not use those sources the
EIS would be flawed. She said they had identified in the EIS that they did not know the
sources, they could not tell how much material the contractor would take from any one
supplier or quarry and she did not think they could go any further at this stage. When Mr.
Burke suggested this was saying to the Hearing that there was roughly 5.3 M cu.mtrs. of
material which was about 500000 full trips and empty trips and there was no assessment
of where they came from or what roads would be affected by this construction traffic, Ms
Dempsey replied she had already answereed that question. Mr. Burke said she had by
putting nothing about it in the EIS and when Ms. Dempsey disagreed with this statement
Mr. Burke suggested there were three major Engineering Consultants as well as the
County Council involved and they knew where the main supplies of road making
material were likely to be located. Ms Dempsey replied that if they had made
assumptions and assessed on those assumptions and those assumptions were then not
correct that would be even more misleading than in saying that they did not know.
Mr. Burke suggested this was considering the impact of one million trips was not
significant but Ms Dempsey denied saying that and Mr. Burke suggested what had been
done was effectively the same thing. Ms Dempsey repeated they had identified the
quantities and estimated the number of trips, but they could not identify the level of
impact since they did not know the routes that would be taken between the sources and
the site and could do no more than that.
Mr. Burke said he was intrigued by her references to scoping as identifying the issues and
emphasising those of importance and eliminating those that were not and asked which
were eliminated as being not important. Ms Dempsey said all characteristics of the
environment and of the road were considered and gave as an example the issue of
flooding as being of importance in the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section due to the Tolka
River flooding, but flooding was not necessarily an issue in the other Sections. She said
this was part of the approach in the EPA EIA Guidelines. Mr. Burke sought a list of all of
the items considered not to be of importance on a section by section basis so that the
objectors could see what the team had considered as being "not important" and the
Inspector suggested this could be dealt with a later cross-examination ( Note -- in the
event this issue was not raised subsequently by Mr. Burke or others).
Mr. Burke then referred to Mr. Guthrie's evidence about traffic flows on the N3 and
suggested he had said traffic volumes only justified a dual carriageway from Pace to
Kells but the scheme was proposed as a Motorway with tolling and asked if this had been
taken up with the individual designers in the context of her overview of scoping of the
EIS. The Inspector referred him to the NRA letter to Meath directing this classification
which had been circulated and Mr. Burke said he had seen that letter and the Tables
circulated ( See pages 106 & 107 and Appendix 4 of this Report) and said this was a
relevant issue in the scoping since the impact might be more than was what was actually
required on residents affected. Ms Dempsey replied that the EIS was an EIS of the
proposed Scheme, a motorway, and that it was a planning issue and not a scoping issue
whether the motorway was appropriate or not. Mr. Burke suggested the mitigation
measures for a dual carriageway were substantially different to those for a motorway but
150
Ms Dempsey said she was not asked to look at the impacts of a dual carriageway. Mr.
Burke suggested the adequacy of the scheme and whether it was over or under designed
should be an important consideration for the EIS but Ms Dempsey replied the adequacy
was for the Engineers to address and that had already been done by M/s Guthrie &
Richardson, and that the EIS was prepared on the basis of it being a motorway. Mr.
Burke asked if she had taken issue with the possible impact on human beings from the
design used and Ms Dempsey said it was not her role to question the Planning Authority
as to whether a motorway scheme was appropriate or not, the brief of the EIS was to
identify the impacts of the proposed scheme and to mitigate the identified impacts of a
motorway scheme.
Mr. Burke then suggested they should have looked at alternatives and when Ms Dempsey
said they had looked at alternative routes, he clarified that he meant the different
categories of roadway such as reduced and standard dual carriageways and motorways
and Ms Dempsey said they had not looked at those. Mr. Burke asked if they had ranked
the relationship between individual elements such as the natural environmnt, material
assets, cultural heritage and so on and Ms Dempsey said each were considered of equal
importance as there was no recognised method of ranking them. Mr. Burke then outlined
two route options, one having an impact on the human environment and the other having
it on the cultural heritage, and asked how the impacts were ranked. Ms Dempsey repeated
they did not rank the impacts and went on to outline that in terms of a particular
alignment they looked at this on a case by case basis and this was detailed in Chapter 1 of
each Volume how the amelioration measures were implemented for different impacts.
Mr. Burke said her first answer essentially was they were all equal but was she now
saying that human beings came first but Ms Dempsey said that as far as possible they did
not rank them but if there was a specific case like demolishing a house, every effort
would be made to avoid this and this was in the EIS so it was not a mystery.
Mr. Burke then asked how the impacts were quantified and Ms Dempsey said they had
detailed this in the EIS and had used where they could, standard criteria as outlined by
the EPA or from other infrastructural projects. She said that in the case of archaeology
Duchas advised that they could not rank a site as being of Regional or Local importance
until it had been excavated, so the impact was ranked as either direct or non-direct or
avoidance. When Mr. Burke suggested the archaeological ranking could have been
qualified by saying "potential", Ms Dempsey said he would have to take this up with the
archaeologist since it was her understanding Duchas would not give an assessment of its
importance until it had been fully excavated.
Mr. Hamill asked if Ms Dempsey could define "direct impact, non-direct impact and
avoidance" in relation to how Duchas saw encroachment on monuments. Ms Dempsey
replied she was not an archaeologist and the Inspector, having ascertained the
Archaeologist was not present, told Mr. Hamill that he could raise this when the
Archaeologist was being cross-examined later on.
151
23. 8. Questioned by Owen McBreen, Newtown, Summerhill Road, Dunboyne :
Mr. McBreen said his house was close to the proposed R125, he was also a member of
the Newtown Residents Association but was asking questions at present on his own
behalf and referred to the Castle River that flowed under the Summerhill Road at
Newtown Bridge and asked what data they had on the flow in the River where the bridge
frequently was unable to take the flow in the river and the adjoining fields flooded. Ms
Dempsey said a flood study was carried out by MC O'Sullivans and their David Wilson
would give the information on that study. Mr. McBreen then said he had been told by the
Council the information would be on the web but it never appeared there. He said the
plan proposed replacing the present arch, which had an area of about 6 sq. metres, by a
culvert that was 4 metres by 1.5 metres and if there was any substantial rainfall, like that
which happened in 1986 when the flooding was extensive, he was afraid the culvert
would not take the flow. He asked what flow was allowed for in their design and Ms
Dempsey said she would have to refer that query to Mr. Wilson.
Mr. McBreen said no-one consulted him about the flooding and he lived beside the river
and said that in the past 16 years there had been several occasions when the river flowed
across the Summerhill Road and down the fields into Dunboyne. He said that if the
Summerhill Road was raised anymore and the flood plain would now be blocked by the
new R125, the houses nearby would be flooded and he did not see this addressed in the
EIS. He suggested there were many houses west of the new R125 that would now be
flooded as the water would have nowhere to go and the road would block it. Ms Dempsey
again said Mr. Wilson would deal with this and when Mr. McBreen asked when this
would be the Inspector said the evidence on the Clonee to Dunshaughlin Section would
be commencing shortly and this issue would be coming up in that evidence. He suggested
that if a Flood Study had been undertaken copies should be made available in advance of
Mr. Wilson's evidence to Mr. McBreen and others in that area like Mr. Walsh so they
could be familiar with its contents before asking their questions. Mr. Keane, on behalf of
the Council, said this would be arranged.
23.9. Cross-examined by Bernard Walsh, Newtown Bridge, Summerhill Road,
Dunboyne -- Plot 331 :
Mr. Walsh asked if she had prepared the EIS for the Dunboyne By-pass as part of the
Clonee to Dunshaughlin section and when told that she had, asked her to explain the
reference on page 95 in Vol. 3A to "noise levels changing at all locations even within the
do-nothing scenario due to traffic growth on the N3", saying he lived 1.5 miles from the
N3, the do-nothing meant the Bypass would not be built and he failed to see how he
could hear traffic on the N3 at that distance. Ms Dempsey replied that meant traffic
would grow on all of the feeder roads to the N3 as well, that Ms Joyce could deal with
this in more detail and accepted this wording should have been made clearer. Asked what
was the predicted traffic level for the Dunboyne By-pass, Ms Dempsey said the dosomething
scenario had a daily flow of 4300 AADT in 2004 and 9700 in 2024. When Mr.
Walsh asked what would the hourly throughput of the roundabout at his house be for the
152
9700 AADT, he was told Ms Joyce would deal with that as she was not a traffic engineer
and she had taken these figures from the Tables in the EIS.
Mr. Walsh asked that the references in Table 5.4 in Vol.3A to "adverse impact from
visual intrusion from slip road crossing" be explained saying he was one of the "two
houses at Newtown Bridge, P17 & P18", Ms Dempsey said this continued "during
construction, lighting during operation" where the formatting had gone over the page (
Note -- Mr. Walsh did not have a full copy of Vol.3A having been supplied with extracts
by his agent Gaynor Corr as he stated later on ). The Inspector established Mr. Walsh
lived at Ref. P18. Ms Dempsey then confirmed there would be a moderate temporary
impact during construction and a minor impact after that. Mr. Walsh said he could not see
how this could be on account of the amount of property being taken from his house, with
part of the roundabout at the bottom of his garden and when Ms Dempsey said he would
have to ask Mr. Burns who did the landscape assessment, Mr. Walsh complained that
every time he asked a question he was passed on to someone else. The Inspector
commented he was P18 and had straightforward objections and Ms Dempsey said that
Ms Joyce should be able to answer most of his questions as they had received replies
from their sub-consultants on the objections he had submitted.
Mr. Walsh then referred to the traffic noise levels reported in Table 4.6 on page 104 in
Vol.3A and asked for clarification about the reference to Location 1 where the current
level was 64 dB, in 2004 with no road built it would be 66 dB and if the road was built
the noise dropped by 3 dB which he could not follow. Ms Dempsey said she would have
to refer that to the noise consultant but Mr. walsh said he could not see why it took an
expert to see that it was not possible for noise levels to drop by 3 decibels when a 38
metre wide road and a 50 metre roundabout were put in the bottom of his garden and all
of that without mitigation. The Inspector said he was entitled to get answers but the
witness had said she could not help him and that Ms Joyce, who was the Project Engineer
for that section, would be following and he could ask her about them.
23.10. Questioned by Michael Kieran, Knockmark, Drumree -- Plot 172 :
Mr. Kieran asked who decided the alignment in the EIS was the best one to follow and
Ms Dempsey said this came from the Route Selection process with alterations made
during the preparation of the EIS to ameliorate identified impacts and that it was an
iterative approach, liaising with the design team and the sub-consultants on an ongoing
basis.
23.11. Cross-examined by Mary Begley, Collierstown, Tara :
Ms Begley referred to her previous query about the omission of the side road geometrics
from Vol. 4B when these were in all of the other B volumes and said Mr. Guthrie had met
them and explained the reasons but she wanted this to be put on the record of the Hearing
and asked to cross-examine Mr. Guthrie on the matter.
153
Mr. Guthrie said that as the side roads in the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section were all of a
relatively short length they were included in the overall plan for the main alignment. He
said this meant they did not include long section profiles for the side roads but had
indicated on the long section and plan of the main line geometrics where the bridge
crossings would be and their height. He said that following his discussion with Ms
Begley they had now given her copies of the plans and profiles of all of the side roads
and further copies were available for anyone who wanted them. Ms Begley pointed out
that people who looked at the EIS when it was on display would not have seen this
information and Mr. Guthrie accepted it was an omission and said that it was possible to
determine the information from the drawings. Ms Begley suggested it was a significant
omission but Mr. Guthrie did not agree it was "significant". In response to a further query
he confirmed that he was the person who made the decision about what was put in the
Drawings in the EIS.
Ms Begley then asked Ms Dempsey to clarify again her role as "Co-ordinator of the EIS"
and referred to there being 29 pages of lists of errata in her 34 page Brief, saying people
were finding it difficult to follow the pattern of who was the person to answer questions
and suggested that it might be simpler if she could say in her Brief what exactly she could
answer. Ms Dempsey replied that there were not 29 pages of errata, only 3 and there had
been one omission in the first lot that went out. She said with the engineers working on
the earthworks figures, they were trying to give the most up to date details and so the
second set of errata was the same as the first, except for the changes which were in bold
type. Ms Dempsey said she was asked in her role as co-ordinator to give a brief overview
of the EIS and that was what her Brief was -- how they did it --- but, from the apparent
confusion about the different roles of people in the team, she decided to put in
supplementary details to try and make it clear to the general public how a roads scheme
EIS was developed. Ms Dempsey then gave a description of how the varoius consultants
and sub-consultants were liaised with to ensure all areas were covered and she said that,
when it came to questions, if they could answer it they would but some issues might be
better dealt with by the specialist sub-consultant who had the in-depth knowledge.
Ms Begley again referred to her role as Co-ordinator and asked how the side road
geometrics were omitted when there was to be a "consistency of approach". Ms
Dempsey replied that it was for the Section Project Managers to decide what they put in
their section volumes within a given list of contents and if Mr. Guthrie decided they were
not relevant to his section she must accept that as his professional judgement. When Ms
Begley suggested this conflicted with her role as EIS Co-ordinator and the EIS was being
prepared partly for the public and not for Mr. Guthrie, Ms Dempsey replied the approach
to be adopted was decided and Halcrow Barry made the decision for their section not to
put in the side roads separately. Ms Begley said if five people were feeding information
to her and it was her responsibility to have a consistent approach she would assume it was
up to her to make sure they all included the same details but Ms Dempsey replied that all
she could say was that the approach was to include the side roads but Halcrow Barry
made a decision to exclude them and to show them instead on the mainline and she could
say no more than that.
154
The Inspector commented that Ms Begley had raised a valid point but Ms Dempsey had,
from her perspective, an equally valid point and that Mr. Guthrie would be back again as
the Project Manager for the Dunshaughlin to Navan section and it could be raised again
with him if she wished. Ms Begley asked the Inspector if Mr. Killeen would have had a
responsibility for implementing the NRA Guidelines on Project Management that were
on the NRA website. The Inspector said if this was the document Mr. Galligan had
handed in to the Hearing ( See pages 90/ 91 and Appendix 4 of this Report) that
responsibility seemed, from his reading of it, to rest between the NRA Inspector and the
Project Manager in the Cannon Street Roads Design Office. Ms Begley asked if there
would be an opportunity to question an NRA manager on that document and Mr. Butler,
when asked by the Inspector, said there would not be any NRA person giving evidence.
Ms Begley then read some extracts from the NRA Project Management Guidelines on
page 2 including "--the purpose of the public information sessions is to involve the public
at the early stages of the planning process to inform them of the procedures involved and
to offer an opportunity to the Local Authority to learn about issues of local concern
which would be taken into account as the planning process proceeds" and said that there
had never been public consultation on a Motorway Scheme. She said there seemed to her
to be a question mark over whether the Hearing could continue when the proceedures
involved in the preparation for the scheme were not followed in accordance with the
NRA's own guidelines. The Inspector said he noted her point and as it was an issue which
Mr. Galligan had already raised in cross-examination of Mr. Guthrie, it was likely this
would be "debated" between Counsel for both sides later on.
23.12. Further questioned by Fr. Pat Raleigh, SSC :
Fr. Raleigh said she had given an overview of the EIS on the previous Day and asked if
her team had ever taken into account the way of doing things by the rail system as an
alternative to building a motorway. Ms Dempsey replied that as she had said previously
her brief was for an EIS on a proposed motorway scheme and the alternative routes that
the Road Authority had looked at and she was not paid to depart from that brief. Fr.
Raleigh said that they were talking about transportation and he would have thought the
team would have looked at all possibilities not just a motorway whatever their brief when
they sat down to discuss transportation. He referred to report in the "Meath Chronicle" on
the previous week's proceedings at the Hearing and the editorial heading to "Forget the
Road and Build the Train" which he said was an interesting comment and highlighted the
concerns of many people out there who wanted the rail to be used and to get the same
amount of effort that was being put into this EIS and motorway. He also referred to Fr.
Sean McDonagh's submission on "Motorway Madness" ( See section 24 ). Ms Dempsey
repeated that they were given a brief, that the EIS legislation was specific and they had
folowed that. She said she found Fr. McDonagh's talk very interesting with a number of
very good points raised but they were outside of her brief. She said they had made
provision in the road proposal to ensure the rail line could still be built if it were
considered in the future and they had considered alternative transport insofar as that was
concerned by making that provision, but that was as far as their brief went.
155
23.13. Questioned by the Inspector :
The Inspector said that in a number of submissions it was suggested there was inadequate
or no reference made to "interactions" or "interrelationships" and asked her to comment
on where these references were, as required by Section 50 (2) (c) of the Roads Act. Ms
Dempsey replied that there was a table in Volume 2 of the EIS which showed the
potential interactions between the development and the environment and there was a
further table which showed the main interactions to be considered. She said Table 1.1 at
page 7 in Vol.2 gave the matrix of potential impacts considered during the EIS process
with the different aspects of the environment against the characteristics of the
development for both the construction and operational phases. She said that Table 1.3 at
page 9 in Vol. 2 then gave the potential significant interactions in the receiving
environment and said that, for example, human beings interacted with all of the different
elements and there was a matrix showing the others identified.
Ms Dempsey then referred to Volume 3A and said that at the beginning of each section
there was a yellow coloured page and she pointed to page 25 at the start of section B
which deals with the Human environment and said that the text on that page set out the
groups into which they had put the various impacts such as socio-economic, air, noise &
vibration and landscape & visual effects. She said a similar reference appeared at the start
of each section and this was repeated in the other Volumes but the page colouring was
different for each volume, being blue in volume 4A, purple in volume 5A and so on. She
said that in some Chapters, for example noise, the introduction also said what impacts
were being considered, in that case the effects of noise on human beings. Ms Dempsey
said she considered they had covered the "interactions " adequately. The Inspector said he
had got clarification on the issue.
24. Verbal Submission made to Hearing by Father Sean McDonagh,
Missionary Society of St. Columba :
At the request of Mr. Michael O' Donnell, BL, who represented the Missionary Society of
St. Columba, Dalgan Park, the Inspector agreed to hear a submission by Father Sean
McDonagh, a Columban Missionary, at an early stage of the Hearing as Fr. McDonagh,
introduced by Mr. O'Donnell as an Ecological Theologian, was about to leave Ireland and
expected to be abroad for some time. Mr. O'Donnell referred to Fr. McDonagh's
experiences in the Phillipines, where he had spent many years as a Columban Missionary,
and to his numerous publications on the ecological and theological issues relating to the
destruction of the landscape and its ecology by development pressures. Fr. McDonagh's
Written Submission is listed at Day 2 in Appendix 4 of this Report.
Fr. McDonagh said that his paper was entitled "Motorway Madness" and that he would
be speaking to it but would not be reading all of it and said everyone agreed there was a
great need to improve the transport infrastructure in Ireland and the place to start this was
with an effective National Spatial Plan but that the present and previous Government did
not do this, instead they produced a National Development Plan which, to him, was like
156
placing the cart before the horse. He said that you first decided where people would live
and then built the facilities around them and these included the transport facilities. He
said that he had no problem with the principle of improving roads and by-passing towns
and villages, but had huge problems with wasting enormous sums of money on
motorways that might not be even needed in the future. Fr. McDonagh said he would
look at the need for rail systems to be improved; he would refer to the White Paper on
European Policy in the context of sustainable development in which it seemed to him that
rail should get priority and would argue that the NRA plans for the M3 was not justified
on transport, financial, ecological and ethical grounds.
Fr. McDonagh said that in a recent paper by the Campaign for Sensible Transport, which
co-ordinated the opposition of numerous groups to some of the NRA Projects, it was
claimed that the NRA's road program had run into serious financial difficulties with cost
increases of 100% over the 1999 estimates. He quoted from recent Newspaper articles on
the Irish economy and the State finances and asked if money was going to be ploughed
into un-neceaasary roads at the expense of areas like Education and Health care. He said
that the Roads Needs Study was commissioned by the NRA at a cost to the taxpayer of
£2M and it accepted a standard two lane road from Virginia to Kells with a dual
carriageway from Kells to Navan and on to Clonee, yet Two years later the NDP opted
for a number of motorways. He said people have a right to know whose agenda was
served by these massive un-necessary motorway building programs that divided
communities, destroyed land and would contribute to Ireland's overrun in greenhouse gas
emissions. He questioned the reasons for PPPs and asked how much were the public
involved in these and referred to the need to follow the Agenda 21 requirement for local
communities having an input into programs that affected their way of living.
Fr. McDonagh then dealt with the possiblity of oil becoming scarce within a few decades
and said that most of the research he had seen did not support the assumption in the
Roads Needs Study and the NDP of oil being readily available for decades to come. He
quoted from his experience in visiting China in 1984 and last year and the changes there
in the last 20 years which have meant major increased demand for oil in the developing
Third World countries that will hasten the post-petroeleum era. He questioned why the
NRA EISs did not address this issue or our moral obligations under the Kyoto protocol
on Climate Change and said that we needed new forms of energy and new ways to
transport people and goods and a less exploited pattern of living. He suggested that even
if £12bn was spent on roads that might be used to their capacity for only 20 or 30 years,
we would only get 15 to 20 years until the oil ran out, unlike the 70 years of motorway
life in Britain and the USA. He said it made more sense to invest money in alternative
transport options like rail and water which was why a National Transport Authority that
looked at all options was needed, unlike the NRA that only focussed on roads.
Fr. McDonagh said that even if cheap oil remained available into the future, other options
should still be considered since the use of fossil fuel was driving climate change and he
referred to the expected increase in Greenhouse Gases of 30% over the next 50 years as
reported by scientists at recent meetings on global warming. He detailed the likely
consequences from these climatic changes and from global warming such as the effects
157
from Melting Ice on lowland areas; more frequent and violent storms and flooding
quoting recent examples and referred to Ireland's obligations from the1997 Kyoto
Conference. He quoted from the EPA publication in August 2000 on "Emissions of
Atmospheric Pollutants in Ireland 1990-1998" that we had exceeded our 2010 target by
1998, and from Chapter 5 in the "National Climate Change Strategy" that dealt with
transport saying rail transport was mentioned but the authors of that Strategy took
transport to mean road transport. He said that the NRA confirmed to his query to them, in
July 2002, that they still had not quantified what increase in the greenhouse gas load
would follow from the road building program. He said that their EISs only looked at local
air pollution levels from motorway building but did not include figures on the increase in
greenhouse gas emissions. He referred to the Government in publishing the report
"Making Ireland Sustainable" in 2002 as acknowledging that Ireland was already 23.7%
above the 1990 levels and could exceed these by 37% in 2010, and that this report rather
feeble in saying how this increase would be reduced to the 13% required to meet the
Kyoto protocol.
Fr. McDonagh said that one of the reasons the Society of St. Columba became involved
in opposing the M3 motorway was because they believed environmental issues like
global warming were not merely technical but also constituted ethical and religious
challenges, and that this came from their missionary experiences in Countries that will be
adversely affected by global warming. He referred to the World Council of Churches
document of 1994 " Accelerated Climate Change: Sign of Peril, Test of Faith" which
discussed the theological and ethical issues involved in global warming and said that
neither the Departments of the Environment; of Transport; the EPA or the NRA had
addressed the global warming issue in the context of the massive motorway building
program and they should return to the drawing board and factor in these considerations to
meet Ireland's target under Kyoto, rather than push through this project.
Fr. McDonagh said that recent newspaper articles made it clear that, rather than removing
any remaining barriers to transporting freight by rail as was stated in Chapter 5 of the
"National Climate Change Strategy", it was the rail itself which was being removed and
he referred to the suggested forced reduction of Irish Rails freight service and Coillte's
decision to cease rail transport of timber from October 2001. He said the NDP proposal to
commit € 12 Bn into building motorways would only exascerbate Dublin's sprawl into
surrounding counties and would not solve the commuter problem for many people. He
quoted comments made in newspapers and radio on the recent census findings of a
decline in City centre areas and large increases in towns and villages within a 60 mile
radius of Dublin and used Ratoath as an example of this, where the population had
increased from 3064 to 5585 in the last six years.
Fr.McDonagh questioned the basis for using PPPs to fund much of the roads program and
quoted extensively from articles by George Monbiot on the PPP program in Britain who
claimed the comparators being used in the UK to compare PPPs with conventional
contracts were flawed and that cost over runs on PPPs were significant. Fr. McDonagh
suggested that PPPs did not represent value for money for the taxpayer and said that
questions on this aspect had been raised by Dr. Eoin Reeves, an economist at the
158
University of Limerick, and by Martin Kay who criticised PPPs as they did not guarantee
value for the community or "quality" public service in his paper to a Conference of the
Regional Studies Association in April 2002.
Fr. McDonagh was worried by the absence of a ethical policy in the NRA motorway
program and that the NRA had no code of land ethics to guide its strategies when it was
seeking to acquire over 24000 acres of land for the road building program. He said that as
we begin to understand more the magnitude of the destruction which humans have
wreaked on local and global ecosystems, we know that we are in dire need of a land ethic
and he said this must come from accurate ecological knowledge of our habitat and an
ecological conscience. He said that such an ethic saw man as part of the communityof the
living and not its master; that a land ethic flowed from viewing an ecosysytem as a
community rather than a collection of interacting individuals and that it imposed
obligations on individual farmers to take responsibility for the health of their land.
Fr. McDonagh said there was not sufficient data to warrant building the M3 motorway
and that what was planned was a waste of money and would foreclose other sustainable
transport options; that it was predicated on the illusion of fossil fuel being readily
available and cheap for the foreseeable future and took no account of our obligations
under the Kyoto protocol. He said that a land use ethic had not been articulated on the
basis of Judaeo-Christian teaching wthat saw land as a gift from God which ought to be
stewarded in th best possible way. He said that many felt the public authorities had not
entered into real dialogue with those opposed to the motorway and that people did not
find the process either open or transparent and it was lacking in accountable proceedures.
He said that in the light of this general disregard by the NRA for genuine public concerns
Martin Kay had suggested there was a lot of pent-up anger against the NRA and Local
Authorities in communities where such projects were proceeding without proper
consultation and that there was a risk that, if unchecked, the PPP system in Ireland could
provoke civil disruption. Fr. McDonagh concluded his submission by referring to the
intransigence of civil authorities in the USA in the 1960s as being Martin Luther King's
motivation to lead the Civil Rights movement when the establishment there was blind to
the injustices of racism and he suggested that the Irish establishment was so dazzled by
economic factors that it was blind to everything else and that he could not understand
why the tolling issue was not part of this Hearing as it was central to the funding of the
proposal.
Fr. McDonagh questioned by Peter Sweetman for An Taisce :
Mr. Sweetman asked Fr. McDonagh to read the first paragraph on Climate in the Non
Technical Summary of the EIS (Vol.1) and, when he had done so, asked how that
statement related to his own understanding of the Kyoto protocol was really about. Fr.
McDonagh replied that he was a social scientist and what he liked was data and that,
when he could not get data from people, he could only conjecture. He said that he
considered it irresponsible that the NRA or the Department of Transport had not the data
he had asked them for of greenhouse gas emissions when the EPA data clearly said we
159
were not doing our best and when the question of whether you developed motorways or
rail should be a serious matter and it was not being taken that way.
Mr. Sweetman asked if he was familiar with a study in England which proved motorways
were conducive to the disimprovement of children's health and Fr. McDonagh replied he
was not but he would not be surprised at this finding since there were other pollutants
emitted besides greenhouse gases that would have a deleterious effect on people's life. Fr.
McDonagh said that he would not disagree with Mr. Sweetman's suggestion to him of the
statement on Climate Change in Vol.1 of the EIS being contrary to what civilised
people's thinking would be on greenhouse gases and climate change.
Questioned by Eamon Galligan SC for Ms Maher, Ardbraccan House :
Mr. Galligan asked if he would be surprised that the significance of the global impacts of
climate change were not adequately addressed by the Council and Fr. McDonagh replied
that he had asked the NRA if this had been quantified and, when he could not get those
figures, it alarmed him that the NRA had no overall figure for all of the motorways as it
seemed the constraints of Kyoto were not being taken seriously. Mr. Galligan said that
the alternative of rail to motorway did not appear to have been dealt with as part of the
consideration of alternatives in the EIS and asked if this approach was acceptable to him.
Fr. McDonagh said it was not and referred again to the details on transport in Chapter 5
in the National Climate Strategy and said the issues of climate change and of fossil fuel
shortages should have prompted a look at alternative ways of transport to that of roads.
Mr. Galligan asked if it would have been feasible for the Council to consider a
combination of the re-introduction of a rail service and a less drastic upgrading of the
Navan to Kells road and Fr. McDonagh agreed with this saying railways were less
abusive of land than motorways which was the reason for his questioning the lack of
ethics.
Mr. Galligan referred to his commments about the absence of a National Spatial plan and
of the NRA having no plan and asked if this concerned him. Fr. McDonagh said this did
concern him and referred to the Nenagh By-pass as an example of his concern saying that
when the NRA were building the seven bridges there they should have foreseen it might
be made into a dual carriageway in the future, and it was redundant the day it opened. Mr.
Galligan referred to his comments about value for money and referred him to page 39 of
the Route Selection Report ( Note -- probably for Navan By-pass ) which listed the most
important factors affecting the choice of route and pointed to value for money as being
second last on that list and asked if it was possible to assess whether best value had been
obtained in the absence of the tolling scheme being considered in that context. Fr.
McDonagh said this was the point he had made at the end of his submission since he was
worried that the social partners and the civic society had no place in this PPP and that a
lot of people felt these Agencies were inflexible with their minds made up beforehand.
Mr. Galligan referred to the need for a "land ethic" that he had spoken about and asked if,
in the context of the need to take the broader community and social considerations into
account, he was concerned that the Advertisement for the Variation to the CDP for the
motorway gave no reason in it for that Variation. Fr. McDoangh said his concern was that
160
it could mean a huge disaster for people who built houses up to 60 miles from Dublin
with access to these motorways and found in 15 years time that they could not pay for
gasoline. Mr. Galligan asked if it was his view the Scheme and the manner in which it
had been put forward by the Council and the NRA was contrary to the common good. Fr.
McDonagh replied that it was also contrary to the ethical tradition of the Catholic Church
and that this PPP idea came from the thatcherite regime in 1983/84 where there was no
such thing as society, just individuals and families. He said that in his world society was
central and that was the common good, which also included ecological issues as we
depend on the natural world for our energy.
------------------------------------------
Back to INDEX