CASE NUMBER: 07.MA0001 (MOTORWAY SCHEME/CPO) 07.HA0005 (EIS)

AN BORD PLEANALA

REPORT OF INSPECTOR

ORAL HEARING

GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL

M17 GALWAY (RATHMORRISSEY) TO TUAM MOTORWAY SCHEME

INSPECTOR: Billy Moore, BE, MSc, MBA DATE: 23 rd September 2008

1 CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………….3

1.2 Arrangements for Oral Hearing ………………………………...4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT …………………5

3.0 OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS TO THE BOARD ……………. 7

3.1 Details of Remaining Submissions/Objections …………………8

4.0 ORAL HEARING ……………………………………………………….15

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES ……………………………….……………16

5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………...16 5.2 Need for Project ………………………………………………….17 5.3 Suitability of Proposal …………………………………………...19 5.4 Consideration of Alternatives …………………………………...22 5.5 Planning Issues …………………………………………………...23 5.6 Environmental Issues ……………………………………………24 5.7 Other Issues Raised in Submissions/Objections Received by the Board ….………………………...... 35

6.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………...40

7.0 RECOMMENDATION IN RESPECT OF MOTORWAY SCHEME/CPO ………………………………………………………….46

8.0 RECOMMENDATION IN RELATION TO SCHEME IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN EIS HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT ………………………..47

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ORAL HEARING …………………….49

APPENDIX B: LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT ORAL HEARING ……………………………………….137

2 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report relates to the Galway County Council, M17 Galway Rathmorrissy to Tuam Motorway Scheme 2007.

Galway County Council is the Scheme Promoter for the M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) to Tuam Motorway Scheme 2007. Galway County Council made the Motorway Scheme under Section 47 of the Roads Act, 1993 – 2007 as amended, on 4 th December 2007. Galway County Council has applied to An Bord Pleanala for approval for the Motorway Scheme and the EIS under Sections 49 and 51, respectively, of the Roads Acts, 1993 – 2007, as amended.

A number of objections were received in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO and the EIS and an Oral Hearing was held from 23 rd to 29 th April 2008 under Section 218 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended by Section 39 of the Strategic Infrastructure Act, 2006)..

Approval of the Motorway Scheme will authorise the local authority to acquire compulsorily the lands.

The Prescribed Notice, in accordance with Section 48 of the Roads Acts 1993 – 2007, as amended by the Planning & Development Acts 2000 – 2006, in relation to the Motorway Scheme 2007 was published in the Tuam Herald on 13 th December 2007 and in the Connacht Tribune on 14 th December 2007. A copy of the Motorway Scheme went on public display from the 17 th December 2007 at the offices of Galway County Council, Roads & Transportation, Aras an Chontae, Prospect Hill, Galway; at the Oranmore Area Office, Lackagh, Turloughmore, Co. Galway; and at the Tuam Area Office, High Street, Tuam, Co.Galway. Submissions were to be in writing to An Bord Pleanala before 15 th February 2008.

The Prescribed Notice, in accordance with Section 51 of the Roads Acts 1993 – 2007, as amended by the Planning & Development Acts 2000 – 2006, in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the proposed M17 Motorway Scheme was also published in the Tuam Herald on 13 th December 2007 and in the Connacht Tribune on 14 th December 2007. A copy of the EIS went on public display from the 17 th December 2007 at the offices of Galway County Council, Roads & Transportation, Aras an Chontae, Prospect Hill, Galway; at the Oranmore Area Office, Lackagh, Turloughmore, Co. Galway; and at the Tuam Area Office, High Street, Tuam, Co.Galway. Submissions were to be in writing to An Bord Pleanala before 15 th February 2008.

The Prescribed Form of Notice was sent to a number of Prescribed Bodies/persons in accordance with Section 51 of the Roads Acts 1993 – 2007, as amended by the Planning & Development Acts 2000 – 2006, on 10 th December 2007, as follows:

3
The Arts Council;
The National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS);
The Office of Public Works (OPW);
Failte Ireland;
The Minister, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG);
The Heritage Council;
An Taisce;

The Prescribed Notices stated that submissions were to be in writing and should be made to An Bord Pleanala before 15 th February, 2008.

I am satisfied that the statutory procedures in respect of the Motorway Scheme and in respect of the EIS were followed by Galway County Council in this case..

102 submissions were received by the Board in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and 143 objections were received in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO.

Confirmation of the Motorway Scheme/CPO will authorise the local authority to acquire compulsorily the lands.

I carried out a site visit of the area in question on 25 th March 2008.

1.2 ARRANGEMENTS FOR ORAL HEARING

The Oral Hearing took place at the Courtyard Marriott Hotel, Ballybritt, Galway on 23rd , 24 th , 25 th , 28 th and 29 th April 2008.

4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development involves construction of 25.5km of a new Standard Motorway in accordance with the National Roads Authority (NRA) design standards, as set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). In addition the Scheme consists of associated side roads and a Motorway Services Area (MSA)

The proposed route commences at the Rathmorrissy Interchange at the junction of the proposed N18 and the proposed N6 to the west of Athenry, and continues north through the townlands of Castlelambert, Tobernavean, Ballybackagh, Caherateemore South, Kilskeagh and Cloonnavaddoge. The route interchanges with the N63 at Annagh Hill, and then continues towards Tuam passing through Ballintober, Ballybanagher, Mahanagh, Cloonkeen North and Cloondarone before tying back in with the existing N17 immediately west of Tuam.

The proposed scheme will be constructed as a Standard Motorway (D2M) in accordance with the NRA DMRB design standards. The proposed road scheme has the following characteristics:

The length of the Motorway is 25.5km;
The length of major road realignments (N63) is 1.1km;
The length of minor road realignments is 5.0km;
The number of side road crossings is 12; and
The length of accommodation roads is 9.9km

The horizontal and vertical alignments of the motorway have been designed for a design speed of l20kph and there are no departures from standard.

The proposed Motorway Scheme will incorporate three junctions; two terminal junctions at Rathmorrissy and Tuam and an intermediary junction with the N63 at Annagh Hill. The realignment of the N63 at Annagh Hill will involve the provision of a grade-separated junction between the Motorway and the N63.

The proposed Scheme will include the realignment of 12 regional and local roads crossed by the proposed Motorway. All side roads that are crossed will be bridged over or under with the exception of one cul-de-sac where a new access road from the adjoining side road will be constructed.

A total of 28 structures are included in the scheme as follows:

10 No. over-bridges;
6 No. under-bridges;
2 No. river bridges;
6 No. accommodation structures (i.e. underpasses); and
4 No. culverts.

5

The Motorway Scheme will involve the acquisition of approximately 214 hectares (i.e. 529 acres) of land from some 174 landowners. The Scheme will involve the extinguishment of 17 public rights-of-way and 13 private rights-of-way.

The Scheme will include the construction of a Motorway Services Area (MSA) to be located south east of the proposed N6/N18 junction. The MSA will operate 24 hours per day and will consist of catering and shopping facilities, a toilet block, wash and shower facilities, picnic areas, refuelling areas, on-site effluent treatment, parking for cars and heavy goods vehicles and an access to the R348 for employees and service vehicles only.

The construction estimate for the motorway is €165.4m (excluding VAT) and €30m (excluding VAT) for the Motorway Service Area (MSA). Subject to approval, it is anticipated that construction will commence in 2011 and will continue for an estimated three year period.

6 3.0 OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS TO THE BOARD

102 submissions were received by the An Bord Pleanala (the Board) in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and 143 objections were received in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO.

During the course of the Oral Hearing a number of the submissions and objections were withdrawn. These submissions and objections are not considered further in any detail in this report.

3.1 SUBMISSIONS REMAINING IN RELATION TO THE EIS (07.HA0005)

Of the total of the 102 submissions received by the Board in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the following 12 submissions were not withdrawn:

Ref. Submission in Respect of Agent Objection to EIS CPO 44 Richard & Mary Sice Gaynor Corr & Assoc. Yes 76 John Freeney Gaynor Corr & Assoc. Yes 87 Patrick Treacy Aidan Tynan & Assoc. Yes 88 Enda & Carmel Mooney Aidan Tynan & Assoc. Yes 95 Michael & Marian Rabbitte Aidan Tynan & Assoc. No 96 Timothy Costello Aidan Tynan & Assoc. Yes 97 Vincent Joyce & Others N/A Yes 98 Frank Dunleavy N/A Yes 99 Thomas Collins N/A Yes 100 Peter Sweetman N/A No 101 An Taisce N/A No 102 HEAT C/O Michael Smith N/A No

3.2 OBJECTIONS REMAINING IN RELATION TO THE MOTORWAY SCHEME/CPO (07.MA0001)

Of the total of the 143 objections received by the Board in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO, the following 13 objections were not withdrawn:

Ref. Objector Agent Submission in Respect of EIS 92 Richard & Mary Sice Gaynor Corr & Assoc. Yes 124 John Freeney Gaynor Corr & Assoc. Yes 130 Martin & Mary Cahill Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed Yes

7 131 Tom & Lucy Collins Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed Yes 132 John McGrath Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed Yes 133 Leo Coffey Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed Yes 134 Frank Dunleavy Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed Yes 135 Patrick Treacy Aidan Tynan & Assoc. Yes 136 Enda & Carmel Mooney Aidan Tynan & Assoc. Yes 140 Timothy Costello Aidan Tynan & Assoc. Yes 141 Vincent Joyce & Others N/A Yes 142 Frank Dunleavy N/A Yes 143 Thomas Collins N/A Yes

3.1 DETAILS OF REMAINING SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS

3.1.1 Richard & Mary Sice

Jim Gaynor, of Gaynor Corr & Associates, made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of Richard & Mary Sice, Kilmore, Tuam, Co. Galway in relation to Land Plot 235. This submission is dated 11 th February 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 12 th February 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

Negative impact on the landholding such that the farm enterprise will not be viable in the future;
Lack of proper access to severed lands;
Adequate information not provided in relation to design details, accommodation works and mitigation measures;
Inadequate screening and planting;
No control on the road levels, which will be determined by the Contractor.

3.1.2 John Freeney

Jim Gaynor, of Gaynor Corr & Associates, made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of John Freeney, Derrydonnell, Oranmore, Co. Galway in relation to Land Plot 264. This submission is dated 11 th February 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 12 th February 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

The remaining lands on eastern side of the proposed new service area (MSA) will not be viable for any form of farming in the future;
Adequate information not provided in relation to design details, accommodation works and mitigation measures;

8
Inadequate screening and planting around the proposed service area;
No control on the road levels, which will be determined by the Contractor;
Additional security risk arising from the proposed service area;

3.1.3 Patrick Treacy

Aidan Tynan & John Dore, of Aidan Tynan & Associates, made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of Patrick Treacy, Kilskeagh, Athenry, Co. Galway in relation to Land Plot 152. This submission is dated 9 th January 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 12 th February 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

It is difficult to identify the relevant Agronomy Report in the EIS;
Existing double stone wall to be reinstated along the fence line;
Scheme severs Client’s longest field and this will curtail ability to exercise over 20 horses;
Damage caused by blasting to new slatted shed;
Client objects to increase in noise levels;
Concerns in relation to long-term maintenance of surplus severed lands beside his property.

3.1.4 Enda & Carmel Mooney

Aidan Tynan & John Dore, of Aidan Tynan & Associates, made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of Enda & Carmel Mooney, Kilskeagh, Athenry, Co. Galway in relation to Land Plot 147. This submission is dated 9 th January 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 12 th February 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

It is difficult to identify the relevant Agronomy Report in the EIS;
The return trip of over 3km to the severed land is unacceptable – a suitable underpass/overpass is required;
Land take on the west side of the Scheme appears excessive compared to the land take on the east side;
There is severe angulation to the severed fields;
Details of maintenance and security of access track are required;
The Scheme fencing needs to be suitable for horses;
Possible damage to Client’s house caused by blasting;
Client objects to increase in noise levels;
Concerns in relation to the security of the proposed fencing to the attenuation pond on the boundary of Client’s property – pallisade fencing should be provided;

9
Commitment required that measures will be put in place to prevent parking and dumping;
Amenity value of walking to the hill will be removed by the Scheme.

3.1.5 Michael & Marian Rabbitte

Aidan Tynan & John Dore, of Aidan Tynan & Associates, made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on behalf of Michael & Marian Rabbitte, Kilskeagh, Turloughmore, Athenry, Co. Galway in relation to Land Plot 141. This submission is dated 9 th January 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 12 th February 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

It is difficult to identify the relevant Agronomy Report in the EIS;
Client objects to the realignment of the local road;
The Scheme will significantly devalue property;
The severed lands will not be viable for any purpose;
Stone wall boundaries are required;
Accesses to be agreed;
Client objects to increase in noise levels;
Woodland planting on embankments and on over-bridge required;
Concerns in relation joint access track adjacent to Client’s property;
Commitment required that measures will be put in place to prevent parking and dumping;

3.1.6 Timothy Costello

Aidan Tynan & John Dore, of Aidan Tynan & Associates, made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of Timothy Costello, Hill House, Glenmore, Athenry, Co. Galway in relation to Land Plot 135. This submission is dated 2 nd February 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 12 th February 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

It is difficult to identify the relevant Agronomy Report in the EIS;
The Scheme will significantly devalue property;
Client objects to the realignment of the local road:
Client is concerned about safety of realigned road;
Client has limousine cattle and thoroughbred horses. Existing stone walls to be reinstated along the fence line;
2m high noise barrier required from Ch 5,700 to 6,300;
Dust nuisance will have a significant adverse impact on Client’s grass and sileage;
Details of fencing arrangements for the attenuation pond to be provided;

10
Concerns that Scheme will create more extensive flooding on his land;
Details of ownership, maintenance and security of proposed access track required;
Possible damage to Client’s house caused by blasting;
Concerns that large cuttings may affect water supply;
Concerns in relation to increase in noise levels;
Further screening and planting to be provided;
Client’s requires details of how the Scheme will impact on REPS participation;
Concerns in relation to badger setts proposed giving rise to increased badger activity;
Commitment required that measures will be put in place to prevent parking and dumping;

3.1.7 Vincent Joyce & Others

Vincent Joyce, Annaghill, Balyglunin, Tuam, Co. Galway made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of himself and 14 others. This submission is dated 1 st February 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 12 th February 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

Inadequate information provided in the EIS in relation to noise mitigation measures, drainage details, lighting proposals, and proposed new realigned road;
Objection to inadequate screening and planting, particularly between Ch 11,200 to 12,000 and around proposed attenuation pond at Ch 11,950;
No mitigation measures to alleviate noise caused by proposed bridge on N63 over the M17;
No control on the road levels, which will be determined by the Contractor;
Propose road will sever them from local community;
Cul-de-sac will be created;
Objection to closure of local road/right-of-way;

3.1.8 Frank Dunleavy

Frank Dunleavy, Prospect, Athenry, Co. Galway made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Motorway Scheme/CPO on his own behalf. This submission is dated 31 st January 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 4 th February 2008.

Mr. Dunleavy’s objection is based on the fact that the original route recommended by the Consultants in their first Constraints Study Report, dated June 2000, is the more appropriate route.

11 3.1.9 Thomas Collins

Thomas Collins, Prospect, Athenry, Co. Galway made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Motorway Scheme/CPO on his own behalf. This submission is dated 31 st January 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 8 th February 2008.

Mr. Dunleavy’s objection is based on the fact that the original route recommended by the Consultants in their first Constraints Study Report, dated June 2000, is the more appropriate route.

3.1.10 Peter Sweetman

Peter Sweetman, Prospect, Athenry, Co. Galway made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on his own behalf. This submission is dated 20 th December 2007 and is date stamped by the Board 20 th December 2007.

Mr. Sweetman requested that the Board direct Galway County Council to withdraw the proposals as premature pending approval of the Galway City Outer Bypass. The main effect of the proposal would be to increase traffic generation onto the Galway City Outer Bypass, which is the subject of an Oral Hearing by An Bord Pleanala.

3.1.11 An Taisce

Ian Lumley, made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on behalf of An Taisce - The National Trust for Ireland. This submission is dated 2 nd January 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 3 rd January 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

The effect of the proposal would be to significantly exacerbate the effect of urban sprawl around Galway and foster the development of Tuam for car-based commuter development;
The proposal would create a conflict between the upgrading of the western rail corridor including the potential development of services between Tuam and Galway (via Athenry), which in turn could accelerate car dependency;
The pattern of car-dependent sprawl will be accelerated if the proposed Galway City Outer Bypass proceeds;
The pattern of development in Galway, with its poor split between transport modes, epitomises the sort of urban sprawl planning failure that has been criticised by the European Environmental Agency (EEA);
Section 10.8.9 of the EIS, which deals with climatic impact, is flawed. The proposed Scheme is compared to a ‘do nothing scenario’ and the EIS

12 concludes that “ the Scheme would result in an imperceptible increase in CO 2 emissions, amounting to 0.05% of Ireland’s Kyoto target in 2008 – 2012 ”. This is a false comparison as it does not consider an alternative transportation strategy (i.e. modal shift to rail and bus) which would obviate the need for the proposal.

3.1.12 HEAT C/O Michael Smith

Michael Smith made a submission in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on behalf of Sixdegreesofheat Ltd., trading as HEAT. This submission is dated 24 th January 2008 and is date stamped by the Board 28 th January 2008.

The main issues raised in the submission are summarised as follows:

The proposal is part of Transport 21 and the National Development Plan (NDP), 2007 – 2013. The NDP does not properly address climate change;
The National Climate Change Strategy, Ireland, 2007 – 2012, shows that transport emissions have increased from 5.18 million tonnes of CO 2 in 1990 to 13.46 million tonnes in 2005. The strategy indicates a figure of 16.48 million tonnes for 2020;
The Government, under its “Programme for Government”, is committed to an average 3% annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This constitutes the overriding policy which An Bord Pleanala must have regard to;
The effect of the proposal will be to undermine the viability of restoring inter-regional freight transport to rail and to further widen the disproportionate modal share between public transport and private passenger transport in Ireland;
While the consultants for the Scheme argue that the Scheme would only result in a marginal increase in greenhouse gas emissions, this does not address the issue of cumulative impact;
The submission requests the Board to direct the applicants to provide a revised EIS detailing emissions and mitigation alternatives which would reduced levels of private car and road goods vehicles and which would obviate the need for the development.

3.1.13 Martin & Mary Cahill

Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed made a submission in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of Martin & Mary Cahill, Kilcahill, Claregalway. The submission is dated 14 th January 2008 and is dated stamped by the Board 15 th January 2008.

The submission is essentially an objection to the proposed CPO and the EIS.

13 3.1.14 Tom & Lucy Collins

Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed made a submission in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of Tom & Lucy Collins, Lisheenavalla, Athenry Co. Galway. The submission is dated 14 th January 2008 and is dated stamped by the Board 15 th January 2008.

The submission is essentially an objection to the proposed CPO and the EIS. Part of the objection is the lack of private consultation with their Clients.

3.1.15 John McGrath

Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed made a submission in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of John McGrath, Cregmorebridge, Claregalway, Co. Galway. The submission is dated 14 th January 2008 and is dated stamped by the Board 15 th January 2008.

The submission is essentially an objection to the proposed CPO and the EIS. Part of the objection is the lack of private consultation with their Clients.

3.1.16 Leo Coffey

Joyce, Mackie & Lougheed made a submission in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO on behalf of Leo Coffey, Ballybackagh, Athenry, Co. Galway. The submission is dated 22 nd January 2008 and is dated stamped by the Board 24 th January 2008.

The submission is essentially an objection to the proposed CPO and the EIS. Part of the objection is the lack of private consultation with their Clients and the proposed use of timber post and rail fencing, which are not stock proof.

14 4.0 ORAL HEARING

4.1 INTRODUCTION:

The Oral Hearing in relation to the Galway County Council, M17 Galway Rathmorrissy to Tuam Motorway Scheme 2007, and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS), took place at the Courtyard Marriott Hotel, Ballybritt, Galway on 23 rd , 24 th , 25 th , 28 th and 29 th April 2008. A Summary of the Oral Hearing is attached in Appendix A of this Report.

15 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES.

5.1 INTRODUCTION

I note that Galway County Council made the Motorway Scheme under Section 47 of the Roads Act, 1993 – 2007 as amended, on 4 th December 2007. Galway County Council applied to An Bord Pleanala for approval for the Motorway Scheme/CPO and the EIS under Sections 49 and 51, respectively, of the Roads Acts, 1993 – 2007, as amended.

The Prescribed Notice in accordance with Section 48 of the Roads Acts 1993 – 2007, as amended by the Planning & Development Acts 2000 – 2006, in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO 2007 was published in the Tuam Herald on 13 th December 2007 and in the Connacht Tribune on 14 th December 2007. A copy of the Motorway Scheme went on public display from the 17 th December 2007 at the offices of Galway County Council. Submissions were to be in writing to An Bord Pleanala before 15 th February 2008.

The Prescribed Notice, in accordance with Section 51 of the Roads Acts 1993 – 2007, as amended by the Planning & Development Acts 2000 – 2006, in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the proposed M17 Motorway Scheme was also published in the Tuam Herald on 13 th December 2007 and in the Connacht Tribune on 14 th December 2007. A copy of the EIS went on public display from the 17 th December 2007 at the offices of Galway County Council. Submissions were to be in writing to An Bord Pleanala before 15 th February 2008.

The Prescribed Form of Notice was sent to a number of Prescribed Bodies/persons in accordance with Section 51 of the Roads Acts, 1993 – 2007, as amended by the Planning & Development Acts 2000 – 2006, on 10 th December 2007.

A number of objections were received in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO and the EIS and an Oral Hearing was held from 23 rd to 29 th April 2008 under Section 218 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended by Section 39 of the Strategic Infrastructure Act, 2006)..

I am satisfied that the statutory procedures in respect of the making of the M17 Motorway Scheme/CPO and in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the proposed M17 Motorway Scheme were followed by Galway County Council in this case.

The key issues arising in relation to the Galway County Council, M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) to Tuam Motorway Scheme 2007, are summarised hereunder. Many of the issues raised in the submissions to An Bord

16 Pleanala in respect of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are common to the submissions and objections to the Motorway Scheme/CPO and accordingly I have generally taken a combined approach in the assessment of the issues.

5.2 NEED FOR PROJECT

The need for the Scheme was disputed in a number of the submissions to An Bord Pleanala in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Mr. Lumley, in his submission on behalf of An Taisce, is critical of the EIS in that it does not consider an alternative transportation strategy (i.e. a modal shift to rail and bus), which would obviate the need for the proposed Scheme.

However, during the course of the Oral Hearing, the need to address traffic safety issues on the existing N17 was not disputed. Section 2.4.10 and Section 2.5 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) show the need to improve traffic safety and to avoid the existing high rates of fatalities and injuries along the existing N18.

Mr. Wallace, for the Council, pointed out that the accident statistics for the period 1998 to 2006 identified the N17 between Claregalway and the R333 junction near Tuam as a high accident location. These statistics show an average of 17 accidents per year on the N17 route between the N6 junction in Galway and Tuam Town centre. Approximately 11% of the recorded accidents involved fatalities. This figure is high compared with the national average of 6% fatal accidents for a typical single carriageway.

Mr. Wallace also pointed out that it can take in excess of 20 minutes to pass through Claregalway. He stated that the annual average daily traffic flow on the N17 in 2007 was 23,400 vehicles per day. The projected traffic volume at the end of the design period (i.e. for the year 2032) at an annual compound increase of 1.5%) would be 37,400 vehicles per day He clarified that the maximum traffic volumes for a single carriageway road for a level of service D is 15,000 vehicles per day.

I am satisfied that the existing N17 is substandard/deficient in terms of road safety characteristics and in terms of capacity, and poses an unacceptable traffic accident risk. I am also satisfied that it does not provide an adequate level of service at an appropriate design speed for a National Primary Road.

17 In addition, I am satisfied that the route of the N17 through the centre of Claregalway acts as a bottleneck to National Primary through traffic and results in traffic congestion in the town centre.

I am therefore satisfied that a new road scheme is required to improve road safety, to remove bottlenecks on the existing N17 and to alleviate traffic congestion in Claregalway. I am further satisfied that a minimum dual carriageway standard of road is required to meet the existing and projected traffic volumes.

I am satisfied that the transfer of traffic from the existing N17 single carriageway onto a new M17 Motorway would result in a significant improvement in road safety characteristics for users and a consequent reduction in accidents.

I am therefore satisfied that a new M17 Motorway is required in the interests of traffic safety and in the wider interests of the economic development of the region. The Western Regional Guidelines state that it is of critical importance that the Gateway (i.e. Galway) and the Hubs are connected by good road access corridors I am satisfied that the proposed M17 Motorway will achieve this, that it will facilitate the implementation of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) and that it will promote balanced regional development.

Motorway Service Area (MSA)

Mr. Edwards, for the Council, made the case at the Oral Hearing for the proposed Motorway Service Area (MSA) at the Rathmorrissey Interchange. In 2005, the National Roads Authority (NRA) carried out a review of policy with regard to the provision of service areas on motorway and high quality dual-carriageway sections of the National Road Network. Arising from this review, the NRA announced a strategy to provide service areas at intervals of approximately 60 km, where feasible/practicable, through a combination of facilities located on-line and off-line (i.e. at or close to interchanges).

I am satisfied that there is a need for Service Areas on motorway and on dual carriageway sections of the National Road Network in the interest of driver safety and in order to provide appropriate facilities for travellers. I am satisfied that the proposed Motorway Service Area (MSA) at the Rathmorrissey Interchange is consistent with national policy in this regard.

18 5.3 SUITABILITY OF PROPOSAL.

During the course of the Oral Hearing there was considerable discussion in relation to the suitability of the Scheme as proposed.

The proposed development involves construction of 25.5km of a new Standard Motorway (D2M) in accordance with the National Roads Authority (NRA) design standards as set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). In addition the Scheme consists of associated side roads and a motorway services area (MSA).

Mr. Edwards, for the Council, pointed out that the horizontal and vertical alignments of the motorway were designed for a design speed of l20kph and there were no departures from standard. There were, however, 14 relaxations from standard along the length of the motorway in order to minimise impacts at each location without compromising road safety.

Mr. Edwards stated that the predicted traffic flows on the proposed M17 for the assumed opening year of 2012 were 23,300 vehicles per day and 28,100 vehicles per day to the north and to the south, respectively of the proposed Annagh Hill Interchange. Traffic levels on the M17 for the design year 2032 are predicted to rise by 33% to 31,100 and 37,400 vehicles per day north and south of Annagh Hill Interchange, respectively. He stated that at this flow level a dual 2-lane motorway layout (D2M) will operate effectively to provide the minimum Level of Service D criteria, as set out as an objective in the National Development Plan (NDP).

Mr. Wallace, for the Council, clarified that the maximum traffic volumes for a level of service D for a single carriageway commuter road is 15,000 vehicles per day, for a dual carriageway is approximately 55,000 vehicles per day, and for dual two-lane motorway is approximately 72,200 vehicles per day. He pointed out that, even if the actual increase was 5% compound (i.e. instead of the 1.5% assumed), the projected traffic volume at the end of the design period would be 71,000 and this is could be accommodated.

Mr. Dunleavey, who is one of the remaining objectors to the Scheme, pointed out that the proposed route would result in an additional 12.5km increase each way in the journey from Galway to Tuam. He pointed out that a 63km journey would become an 83km journey and that the junction would be slow due to congestion. In his opinion people would use the existing road. This would cost commuters an additional €60 per week (i.e. based on €0.50/mile). Mr. Sweetman, who is also one of the remaining objectors, supported Mr. Dunleavy’s position in the matter and pointed out that people working 5 day per week and 50 weeks per year would generate a mileage increase of 6,250km per person per year. Mr. Wallace contended that the proposed Scheme would save 2 minutes journey time

19 between Tuam and Galway and, in addition, that other journey times would be improved.

Mr. Keane, for the Council, pointed out that the extra 12.5km only applied when travelling from Tuam to Galway City and that for people travelling further south there would be a significant saving of time. Mr. Dunleavy accepted this but pointed out that they represented a small percentage of the total traffic and that the road should cater for the majority of the traffic.

Mr. Edwards acknowledged that the completion of the M17 would increase the traffic flows on the new N6 to the west of Rathmorrissy by 16,000 vehicles per day. If the Galway City Outer Bypass was not completed before the M17 Scheme then this additional flow would distribute into Galway at the new N6 Coolagh Roundabout (i.e. the Doughiska Roundabout).

Mr. Sweetman questioned the cost/benefit improvement of the Scheme, given that the new road would simply move people faster to a traffic jam at the Doughiska Roundabout. Mr. Wallace held that the Scheme had a benefit of €344.2 million over cost and an overall cost/benefit ratio of 2.264.

Mr. Keane, for the Council, pointed out that the scheme is part of the Atlantic Road Corridor identified in the National Development Plan (NDP). This Corridor covers a Section of the route between the proposed Rathmorrissy Interchange on the N6 Galway to East Ballinasloe Scheme (which has already received approval from the Board) and the N18 Oranmore to Gort Scheme (which has also received approval from the Board). The M17 Scheme will travel north from the Rathmorrissy Interchange to a roundabout at the commencement of the Tuam Bypass Scheme, which has also already received approval from the Board.

I note that the National Roads Needs Study (NRNS), published by the National Roads Authority (NRA) in 1998 recommends the construction of new alignments, rather than widening along the existing road network since the new road design standards adopted by the NRA to meet the NDP policy objective could not be accommodated within the existing road reservations.

I accept that the M17 Scheme, taken in isolation, will involve an increase in journey length of up to 12.5km each way for the majority of the traffic (i.e. between 57% and 70%) on the Scheme. I also accept that if the M17 Scheme proceeds in the absence of the Galway City Outer Bypass Scheme that the M17 Scheme will undoubtedly exacerbate the existing traffic congestion problems around Galway City.

20 However, I must also acknowledge that this Scheme, as proposed, reflects an integrated approach and seeks to build on the existing Schemes which have been approved by or which have been submitted to the Board for approval, namely:

The N6 Galway to East Ballinasloe Scheme, which has already received approval from the Board;

The N18 Oranmore to Gort Scheme, which has also received approval from the Board;

The Tuam Bypass Scheme, which has also received approval from the Board; and

The Galway City Outer Bypass Scheme, which has been submitted for the approval of the Board.

I am satisfied that the proposed Scheme represents an integrated approach to road transportation in the region, having regard to other road Schemes approved by or submitted to the Board for approval. I am therefore satisfied that the M17 Scheme, represents an appropriate solution to accommodate the projected future traffic volumes of 37,400 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) between Galway City and Tuam in the year 2032.

I am generally satisfied that the new alignment proposed for the M17 Scheme complies with the overall policy of the NRA to construct new alignments rather than to widen along the existing road network.

I am also generally satisfied with the broad design parameters of the proposed scheme in terms of the carriageway width, design speed and vertical gradients.

Motorway Service Area:

In September of 2006, the NRA published a map showing the preferred distribution of service areas to be provided at on-line locations on the network, taking account of particular factors such as overall length of route and the locations of major junctions between the routes. The NRA in their document “Policy for the Provision of Service Areas on Motorways and High Quality Dual Carriageways”, October 2007, identified the junction of the N6, N18 and M17 as an appropriate location for a service area. The area proposed for the Service Area is approximately 10.7 hectares.

Mr. Sweetman made the point that the service station should not be placed on an interchange because it is dangerous and this is not done in England

21 or Europe. Witnesses for the Council pointed out that the new interchange will be a free flow interchange.

I am generally satisfied that location of a motorway service area (MSA) at the Rathmorrissey Interchange, as proposed, represents an appropriate approach and is in compliance with NRA policy on the provision of service areas on motorways and high quality dual carriageways.

In terms of the overall suitability of the Scheme, I am generally satisfied that:

1. The land necessary for the construction of the proposed M17 Scheme and Motorway Service Area (MSA) is included in the Motorway Scheme/CPO;

2. The land included in the Motorway Scheme/CPO is necessary for the construction for the proposed M17 Scheme and motorway service area (MSA); and

3. The land is being acquired for purposes within the relevant Acts

5.4 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

During the course of the Oral Hearing there was considerable discussion in relation to the consideration of alternatives in respect of the proposed Scheme.

Mr. Dunleavy contended that the proposed Scheme would give rise to 40% more mileage for commuters traveling from Galway to Tuam. In his view it was unlikely that people would use the road and therfore a new bypass may be needed and this may lead to increased costs. Mr. Dunleavy also pointed out that the proposed scheme did not reflect the approach recommended in the Constraints Strategy, 2000. The 2000 Strategy referred to the desire line of existing north/south traffic on the N17 and suggested that this pattern should be maintained. “We…… have selected our study area to reflect the optimum limit of deviation from the existing route ”. Mr. Dunleavy held that Galway County Council had not adopted any of the routes suggested in the Constraints Strategy.

Mr. Sweetman pointed to the amendment of the Roads Act which relates to EIS, which includes the following requirement: “An outline of the main alternatives studied by the road authority concerned and an indication for its main reasons of its choice taking into account the environmental effects ”.

22 Mr. Edwards, for the Council, pointed out that Parkman Carl Bro Punch (PCP) carried out a detailed examination of the various route options which had been presented to the public by Galway County Council. PCP had also produced a Route Selection Report for the proposed Scheme. Their Report (‘Route Selection Report and Cost Estimate’, August 2003,) contained an assessment and evaluation (i.e. in terms of Environment, Engineering and Economics) of five route options (i.e. Blue Route, Red Route, Purple Route, Green Route and Black Route). Following this assessment, the Black Route was presented to and was adopted by Galway County Council as the ‘Preferred Route’ at a meeting on 23rd July 2001.

I am satisfied that a number of alternative route options were considered by Galway County Council.

Motorway Service Area:

Mr. Edwards also pointed out that, for the location of the Motorway Service Station (MSA), a total of five options were considered The Rathmorrissy Motorway Service Area Site Report, 2007 identified Option 5, within the south east quadrant, as the ‘Preferred Site’ as it outperformed all of the other options from an overall technical and environmental point of view.

I am generally satisfied that alternatives options were considered in relation to the proposed Scheme, including the route options for the M17 and the location options for the motorway service area.

5.5 PLANNING ISSUES.

During the course of the Oral Hearing, Mr. Keane asserted that the proposed development did not conflict with any provision of the relevant Development Plan and that the Scheme provided for the proper planning and sustainable development of the functional area of Galway County Council.

Ms. Loughnane-Moran, for the Council pointed out that the M17 Scheme, as proposed:

Complies with the National Development Plan, 2007 – 2013. The NDP points to a major programme of investment in infrastructure to ensure that each Gateway region maximises its potential for economic and social development. This includes the major inter- urban routes between Dublin and the Gateways and other linking routes between the Gateways. The M17 provides for a vital part of the enhancement of the Atlantic Road Corridor thereby improving

23 linkage and connectivity between the Gateway of Galway, the adjoining Hub of Tuam, and the Gateway of Sligo;

Complies with the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), 2002 – 2020. The NSS points to the need for strategic radial corridors between Dublin, Galway, Mayo and Sligo in order to promote regional, social and economic development;

Complies with the West Regional Guidelines, 2004 which state that it is of critical importance that the Gateway and Hubs are connected by good road access corridors;

Complies with the Galway County Development Plan, 2003 – 2009 (as amended 25 July 2006 and 23 July 2007). Objective 13 of Section 3.4 of the Plan specifically refers to the construction of a motorway/dual carriageway between Galway and Tuam along a new alignment.

Mr. Sweetman contended that the proposed post and rail fencing was not consistent with the County Development Plan policy of: “encouraging the preservation and retention of woodlands, individual trees, groups of trees, hedgerows, and stone walls”. Mr. Sweetman contended that 90% of the boundary fences in the proposed corridor are stone walls. Ms. Loughnane- Moran explained that Policy No 43 in the Development Plan stated that such an infrastructure project took precedence over other more general policies articulated in the Development Plan.

I am satisfied that the road in question is included as a specific objective in the Galway County Development Plan, 2003 – 2009. I am also satisfied that the proposed Scheme is consistent with the National Development Plan, 2007 – 2013; the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), 2002 – 2020; and the West Regional Guidelines, 2004.

On this basis, I am satisfied that the proposed Scheme is consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

Galway County Council commissioned Parkman Carl Bro Punch (PCP) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of the Motorway Scheme (MS), as required by legislation.

Mr. Edwards, for the Council, stated that the contract documentation for construction of the proposed Scheme would place requirements on the successful Contractor to design and construct the works in compliance with

24 the requirements of the EIS and any with conditions applied by the Board in its approval of the Scheme.

5.6.1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated November 2007, was prepared by Parkman Carl Bro Punch (PCP), and comprises three volumes:

Volume 1 – Environmental Impact Statement. This includes the Main Text and the Non-Technical Summary.

Volume 2 – Figures

Volume 3 – Technical Appendices

Volume 1 , the Main Text, contains the following Chapter Headings:

Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: Background to the Scheme; Chapter 3: Alternative Routes Considered; Chapter 4: Description of the Scheme; Chapter 5: Scoping and Introduction to the Assessments; Chapter 6: Human Environment; Chapter 7: Ecology – Flora & Fauna; Chapter 8: Soils & Hydrogeology; Chapter 9: Water Quality & Fisheries; Chapter 10: Air Quality & Climate; Chapter 11: Noise & Vibration; Chapter 12: Landscape; Chapter 13: Archaeology & Cultural Heritage; Chapter 14: Architectural Heritage; Chapter 15: Material Assets; Chapter 16: Disruption due to Construction; Chapter 17: Environmental Commitments; Chapter 18: Interactions & Cumulative Impacts

Appendix 1 contains an Appropriate Assessment, as required under Article 6.3 of the EU Habitats Directive. The EIS concludes that there will be no impacts on the watercourses of the Lough Corrib cSAC and that the proposed Scheme will not affect the integrity of the cSAC.

Volume 2 contains the following Figures:

Fig 1.001 Overall Location Plan
Fig 3.001 Route Alternatives
Fig 4.001-017 General Engineering Drawings

25
Fig 4.018-034 Mainline Plan and Profile with Drainage
Fig 6.001 Human Environment
Fig 7.001-017 Ecology – Habitats & Vegetation
Fig 7.018-034 Ecology - Fauna
Fig 8.001 General Geology
Fig 8.002 Hydrogeology, Hydrology and Geomorphology
Fig 8.3-01-17 Infiltration Test Location Drawings
Fig 8.004 Well Monitoring
Fig 8.005 Groundwater Vulnerability
Fig 8.006 Photographs of Geological Features
Fig 9.001 Watercourses & Outfall Locations
Fig 9.002 Photographs of Rivers
Fig 9.003 Photographs of Rivers
Fig 10.001 Air Quality – Claremorris Windrose
Fig 10.002 Air Quality – Ambient Air Monitoring Receptors
Fig 10.003 Air Quality Assessment – Receptor Locations
Fig 11.001-109 Noise - Receptor Locations
Fig 12.001-033 Landscape & Visual
Fig 13.001-017 Archaeology
Fig 14.001-017 Architectural Heritage
Fig 15.001-017 Land Ownership
Fig 16.001-002 Traffic Management Location Plan

Volume 3 contains a number of Technical Appendices related to the Main Text as follows:

Technical Appendix 4: Drainage Strategy
Technical Appendix 7: Ecology – Flora & Fauna
Technical Appendix 8: Geology, Soils & Hydrogeology
Technical Appendix 9: Water Quality & Fisheries
Technical Appendix 10: Air Quality
Technical Appendix 11: Noise
Technical Appendix 12: Landscape & Visual
Technical Appendix 13: Archaeology & Cultural Heritage
Technical Appendix 14: Architectural Heritage
Technical Appendix 15: Material Assets
Technical Appendix 16: Motorway Service Area

Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993 sets out the information to be included in an EIS, as follows:

a) A description of the proposed road development comprising information on the site, design and size of the proposed road development.

26 b) A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects. c) The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed road development is likely to have on the environment. d) An outline of the main alternatives studied by the road authority concerned and an indication of the main reasons for this choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

e) A summary in non-technical language of the above information.

An EIS requires a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development, including in particular:

Human beings, fauna and flora;

Soil, water, air, climatic factors and the landscape;

Material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, and the cultural heritage;

The inter-relationship between the above factors.

I am satisfied that the EIS complies with Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993 in relation to the content of the EIS and the information which should be included as follows:

I am satisfied that the proposed road scheme is appropriately described in relation to the site, and the design of the proposed development;

I am satisfied that mitigation measures are described for all of the significant adverse impacts identified;

I am satisfied that the EIS contains appropriate data to enable the main environmental impacts to be identified;

I am satisfied that a number of alternatives to the proposed Scheme were studied and that the main reasons for the selection of the preferred options were indicated, taking into account the environmental effects.

27
I am satisfied that the information contained in the EIS is summarised in non-technical language in the Non-Technical Summary in Volume 1 of the EIS.

5.6.2 Adequacy of Information Contained in EIS

There was considerable discussion during the course of the Oral Hearing in relation to the adequacy of information contained in the EIS. Mr. Sweetman and Mr. Dunleavy contended that the information provided in the EIS was inadequate in a number of respects. According to Mr. Sweetman, the EIS did not address the requirements contained in the amendment to the Roads Acts and indeed was flawed in a number of respects, as follows:

There was no design of the project, in particular the design of the filling station service area (i.e. the MSA). The drawings of the filling station in the EIS lacked sufficient detail;
The EIS did not contain a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and, if possible remedy significant adverse effects;
The data used to identify and assess the main effects, which the road development is likely to have on the environment, was lacking. For example, the person dealing with impact on human beings had not spoken to anyone;
The non-technical summary read like a sales brochure and contained very little information:
The EIS did not contain details of the land-use requirements during the construction and operational stages. This will be a matter for the Contractor who will be involved in the design and construction of the Scheme;
The climatic impacts were not properly assessed, there was no data on the construction phase and on the amounts of materials being used;
Cultural heritage was forgotten about in the EIS and there was nothing in the EIS about the interrelationship of the above factors;
There was no prior flood risk assessment of the design proposals and of the ecological and environmental mitigation measures. In addition, the flood levels were not known;

Mr. Sweetman contended that the information provided in some areas would not be sufficient for outline planning permission for a bungalow. Mr. Sweetman added that, under no circumstances should compliance conditions be use to complete an inadequate EIS. This applied in particular to development having a potential impact on a site of international importance for nature conservation (i.e. a cSAC in this case). He contended that the Board did not have sufficient information to perform an assessment and, while it was open to the Board to request the developers

28 to provide further information, in his view, the Board should simply refuse to approve the Scheme.

Mr. Keane, for the Council, contended that the EIS and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), including the Oral Hearing, had adequately addressed the detail of the works and the development to be carried out. The legislation acknowledged that not every impact can be determined in minute detail and specifically noted that an EIS can show areas on which there is a lack of knowledge as matters stand. He also pointed out that the submission by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) was out of time and should not be considered. In relation to the issue of flooding, Mr. Keane pointed out that the flooding had been considered and indeed that the vertical alignment had been modified (i.e. the road level increased) as a result.

During the course of the Oral Hearing there was lengthy discussion on case law related to the level of information to be contained in an EIS. Mr. Keane relied on Kenny v Bord Pleanala (2000), on Gregory v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (1996) and on Bolan v An Bord Pleanála (1996).

Mr. Keane pointed out that the scheme was in excess of 25km and that if the Board or members of the public were brought into the level of detail suggested by Mr. Sweetman, the EIS would be unreadable and useless. He contended that the Council was entitled to leave matters of detail to be determined or agreed between the Council and construction company. The function of the Board is to consider the compulsory purchase order (CPO) and the motorway scheme (MS) and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) arising out of same.

Mr. Sweetman refuted Mr. Keanes’ assertions and pointed out that the law had been amended since Kenny V An Bord Pleanála and since the Glen of the Downes case. He quoted Case 21506 by the Commission and asserted that the candidate SAC (i.e. cSAC) actually had a higher level of protection than an SAC, since the exceptions allowed under Article 6(3) did not apply to a cSAC. Mr. Sweetman pointed out that the Circular Letter (i.e. relating to appropriate assessment) had the full force of European Law and he submitted that the Council had not complied with it.

Mr. Keane pointed out that the amendments to the Regulations and Directives had not altered the position. The case law in Ireland remained valid.

I note Mr. Sweetman’s assertion that the information provided in the EIS was inadequate in a number of respects and was therefore was flawed. I however concur with Mr. Keane, for the Council, that the EIS and the

29 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), including the Oral Hearing, addressed the detail of the works and the development to be carried out. I am satisfied, for example, that the impacts on human beings are covered under various sections of the EIS including socio-economic context, community facilities, impacts on pedestrians, economy and employment, community severance (in particular related to the school and properties on the N63 at Annagh Hill), noise and vibration, air quality, and landscape and visual impacts. I am therefore satisfied that all of the aspects of the environment, which are required to be described, were incorporated in the EIS.

Motorway Service Area:

Mr. Sweetman was highly critical in relation to the level of information provided in respect of the proposed Motorway Service Area (MSA). He contended that the information provided in relation to wastewater management would not be sufficient for outline planning permission for a bungalow. Mr. Keane, for the Council, asserted that a preliminary hydrogeological assessment had been carried out and pointed out that an effluent discharge licence would be required for the discharge of the treated wastewater from the on-site WWTP.

During the course of the Oral Hearing different figures were given in relation to the scale of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) proposed. Mr. O’Dwyer, for the Council, stated that the plant would have a design population equivalent (PE) of 232, in hydraulic terms. Under cross- examination by the Inspector, he acknowledged that the design PE, in terms of biochemical oxygen demand (i.e. BOD 5) would be significantly higher. The WWTP would have a PE of 400 initially and it would work up towards a PE of 848 in the design year, 2032. This is equivalent to just less than about 300 houses. I consider an on-site WWTP of this scale to be a significant proposal and I consider that such a facility would have the potential to give rise to pollution of groundwater or surface waters in the vicinity of the proposed WWTP.

I note Mr. Sweetman’s contention that the level of information provided in the EIS dated November 2007 in respect of the proposed WWTP to service the Motorway Service Area (MSA) was inadequate. I hold that the impact of the discharge of treated wastewater from the on-site WWTP to groundwater was not adequately addressed in the EIS. However I am satisfied that the additional evidence provided during the course of the Oral Hearing by Mr. Kieran O’Dwyer, for the Council, including the “Hydrogeological Assessment for the Rathmorrissy Interchange Service Area”, provided an assessment of the likely impact of the discharge of treated to the groundwater.

30 Mr. O’Dwyer pointed out that an engineered solution will be provided both in terms of the treatment method and the disposal area for the proposed on- site WWTP in order to reduce the risk to the groundwater quality. The on- site effluent treatment system will incorporate treatment to tertiary treatment level, incorporating membrane bio-reactor technology. This will be followed by disinfection, which will remove the bacteriological parameters, and by pumping to an intermittent soil polishing filter. The intermittent soil polishing filter will be designed in strict compliance with the EPA Wastewater Treatment Manuals.

Mr. O’Dwyer indicated that the characteristics of the treated wastewater from the on-site WWTP would be as follows:

BOD: Less than 5 mg/l;
Suspended Solids: Less than 5 mg/l;
Ammonia Nitrogen: Less than 5mg/l as N;
Total Nitrogen: Less than 10mg/l as N;
Total Phosphorous: Less than 1mg/l as P; and
E Coli: Less than 1.

Mr. O’Dwyer pointed to groundwater readings which gave depths of 2.3m; 2.21m; and 2.31m to groundwater below ground level. The depth of unsaturated soil at the proposed location of the polishing filter is between 1.4 to 1.5 metres. Having regard to the sensitivity of the location, Mr. O’Dwyer indicated that 1.2 metres of free draining unsaturated subsoil would be provided beneath the point of infiltration of the effluent and the water table and/or the bed rock. The nearest extraction well is located 1.1 kilometres to the north of the site.

Percolation test results gave a ‘T’ value of seven. The percolation test result is indicative of a free draining soil which would be suitable for percolation of treated effluent. The consistent nature of the rating curves for the overburden material indicates that the percolation test result is applicable across the site in general. The Final Schedule of Environmental Mitigations submitted at the Oral Hearing on 29th April 2008, reflects the proposals for on-site wastewater treatment, as outlined by Mr. O’Dwyer and states that “ The high standard of treatment, together with the design of the soil polishing filter, in strict accordance with the EPA Manual, will mitigate any potential impacts on the groundwater quality ”.

Mr. O’Dwyer pointed out that the on-site wastewater treatment system would be subject to a Discharge Licence application and to regular reviews by the Licensing Authority. The Discharge Licence application will be made by the selected PPP concessionaire.

31 I am satisfied that the proposed on-site wastewater treatment reflects a very high level of treatment. I am further satisfied that there is an adequate depth and type of overburden (i.e. subsoil) above the groundwater to allow for an appropriate level of attenuation of the treated effluent. While I consider that a Hydrogeological Impact Assessment should have been carried out as part of the EIS as a matter of best practice, I am nevertheless satisfied, on the basis of the information provided at the Oral Hearing, that an on-site WWTP can be designed, engineered and operated to produce a quality of effluent such that, following a soil polishing filter, it will not be likely to give rise to a significant impact on the locally important aquifer underlying the site. Furthermore, I note Mr. Keane’s comments that an effluent discharge licence will be required for the discharge of the treated wastewater from the on-site WWTP.

5.6.3 Impact on Ecology/ Lough Corrib cSAC

Mr. Sweetman pointed out that the proposed Scheme crossed a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and that An Bord Pleanála, must ensure that a proposal which is likely to have a significant on an SAC is authorised only to the extent that the authority is satisfied is will not adversely the integrity of the area. Mr. Sweetman contended that the Board could not give that consent because they could not be satisfied that the Scheme would not adversely affect the integrity of the area.

Mr. Edwards, for the Council, acknowledged that the selected route crossed both the Abbert and Grange Rivers, which are included in the proposed extended Lough Corrib candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC). However, he pointed out that both river crossings had been designed as open span bridges to avoid construction within the watercourses and with sufficient span to provide clearance of the river banks in the interest of safeguarding habitats and faunal interests.

In addition Ms. Neff, who carried out the ecological assessment for the Council, stated that the Scheme would not have a significant effect on the site.

Mr. Keane, for the Council contended that the Lough Corrib cSAC was not covered by European law as the area impacted by the road was in a ‘candidate’ special area of conservation (cSAC) and not a special area of conversation (SAC). He referred to the case of Murphy V Wicklow County Council (2000). The case related to the Glen of the Downes site.

Mr. Keane pointed out that Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive 92/43 provided for an assessment procedure intended to ensure that a plan or project, which is likely to have a significant effect on a site, is authorised only to the extent that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site.

32 Given the mitigation measures proposed, the Council’s expert witnesses pointed out that the proposed Scheme would not give rise to any significant effect on the cSAC and accordingly would not effect the integrity of the site. Mr. Keane acknowledged that the cSAC was protected because of the amendments under the Wildlife Act, 2000. This had at all times been recognised by the County Council in the development of the design of the proposed Scheme and the mitigation measures. He contended that the clear uncontroverted evidence remained that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on the cSAC and therefore could not adversely affect the integrity of the cSAC. In addition, Mr. Keane contended that the provisions of the Circular Letter had been complied with.

Appendix 1, Volume 1 of the EIS contains an appropriate assessment, in respect of the Lough Corrib cSAC. I note the evidence of the Council’s experts that that the Scheme will not have any significant impact on the watercourses in the cSAC. I am satisfied that the proposed Scheme will not affect the integrity of the cSAC. I am also satisfied that an appropriate assessment has been carried out in respect of the Lough Corrib cSAC, as required under Article 6.3 of the EU Habitats Directive.

5.6.4 CO 2 Emissions & Climate Impacts

Mr. Eoin Collins, for the Council, stated that the Motorway Scheme would give rise to an increase in CO 2 emissions in the order of 0.08% of Ireland’s Kyoto Target for the period 2008-12. He considered such an impact on national greenhouse gas emissions to be insignificant in terms of Ireland’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. In response to the Inspector, Mr. Collins considered that a significant figure would be around 10% of national emissions of CO 2.

Mr. Sweetman raised the issue of CO 2 emissions in the production of steel and concrete required for the construction of the Scheme. Mr. Keane, for the Council, pointed out that an assessment of the environmental impact of construction in relation to climate and air had been carried out and Mr. Collins had confirmed this to be less than the operational impacts.

I acknowledge that, taken in isolation, an increase in the order of 0.08% of Ireland’s Kyoto Target for CO 2 emissions for the period 2008-12 appears to represent quite a small overall amount. However, I do not accept Mr. Collins’ assertion that a small increase in CO 2 emissions from a traffic infrastructure proposal can be considered insignificant. Indeed, if such increases were to become the norm for future road schemes, I am satisfied that the cumulative impact would be significant and that such an outcome would be unsustainable.

33 5.6.5 Noise & Vibration

Ms. Jennifer Harmon, for the Council stated that the proposed low noise road surface would achieve a reduction of in traffic noise levels of 3.5dB(A) when compared to hot rolled asphalt (HRA). With this treatment in place, 11 properties would remain above the NRA’s target criterion of 60dB Lden at sensitive receptors. The EIS sets out the location and heights of the acoustic screens (i.e. the certified acoustic barriers) proposed along the route to mitigate the noise level at sensitive receptors down to the 60dB Lden level. These barriers would be timber acoustic barriers and would vary in height between 1.5m and 3.5m.

Mr. Reid, for the Council, suggested that low earth berms with a timber barrier on top could also be used as an alternative. Mr. Reid confirmed that there might be different designs for the noise barriers and the tallest wooden noise barrier would be 3.5m. Due to the visual impact of the barriers, scrub and hedgerow planting would be used to soften the impact.

Mr. Sweetman refuted the claims of the Council’s experts that scrub and hedgerow planting, in particular blackthorn, would grow to 3.5m in height.

Mr. Keane, for the Council, referred to additional noise barriers to be provided at two locations following negotiations with landowners; a 2- metre high barrier on the eastern boundary of the proposed mainline 400 metres in length from approximate Ch 2,850 to 3,250; and a 1-metre high barrier along the southern boundary of the eastern Annagh Hill slip road, 160 metres in length from approximate Ch 400 to 560. In addition, the Council committed to restrict noise and vibration levels during piling and blasting activities at sensitive receptors to the limits set out in the EIS.

Mr. Dore on behalf of a number of objectors, contended that the noise and vibration impacts of the Scheme were unacceptable. He pointed out that thoroughbred horses (i.e. as in the case of Mr. Timothy Costello) were more susceptible to noise than other farm animals. He requested a 2m noise barrier on behalf of Mr. Patrick Treacy, to extend the length of the long rectangular field beside the proposed Scheme (i.e. from Ch 5,700 to 6,300). Mr. Martin, for the Council accepted that thoroughbred horses were more susceptible to noise and vibration impact. However he contended that they may not require further screening but rather a change in management practices.

I accept that there may be some residual impact, in terms of increased noise and vibration levels at certain sensitive receptors. I also accept that acoustic or environmental barriers will give rise to visual impacts. However, I am satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures will ensure that the threshold criterion of 60dB Lden should not be exceeded during the

34 operational phase of the Scheme. Accordingly, I do not consider that the adverse impacts of the proposed Scheme (i.e. in terms of noise, vibration and visual impact), are sufficient to warrant the withholding of approval of the Scheme or confirmation of the CPO by the Board in this case. I am generally satisfied that after mitigation (i.e. on the maturity of the planting), the residual visual impact in most cases will be moderate.

5.6.6 Landscape Impact

Ms. Valerie Loughnane-Moran, for the Council, pointed out that the majority of the proposed route was located in areas with a landscape sensitivity rating ‘Area Class 1’, which is the lowest landscape classification as adopted in the Current County Development Plan.

Given the scale of project, I accept that the proposed Motorway Scheme will have an impact on the local landscape. I note that a landscape design for the proposed Scheme has been completed in accordance with ‘A Guide to Landscape Treatments for National Road Schemes in Ireland’. I am satisfied that no statutory designated landscapes, scenic routes or protected views will be significantly affected by the proposed route of the development. I am further satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures, in particular the landscape design for the Scheme, will reduce the landscape impact of the Scheme. I do not consider that any residual adverse landscape impacts of the proposed Scheme are sufficient to warrant the withholding of approval of the Scheme or confirmation of the CPO by the Board in this case.

5.7 OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS RECEIVED BY THE BOARD.

A number of submissions were received by the Board in relation to the EIS (102 submissions) and the proposed Motorway Scheme/CPO (143 objections).

During the course of the Oral Hearing the majority of the submissions and objections were formally withdrawn. 12 of the submissions received by the Board in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were not withdrawn and 13 of the objections received by the Board in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO were not withdrawn. In a number of cases the submissions in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the objections in relation to the Motorway Scheme/CPO are identical.

Many of the issues cited in these submissions and objections were addressed by the Council’s team. Some of these issues are addressed in the above Sections of this Report. In addition, many of the issues relate to

35 matters of compensation, which fall outside the jurisdiction of the Board. I contend that the property arbitrator is best placed to address these matters. The following is an assessment of other key issues cited in the submissions/objections.

5.7.1 Fencing

The Scheme promoters pointed out that the fencing adjoining the proposed motorway will typically be a timber post and rail fence with stock proofing (i.e. chain link mesh), to be maintained by the County Council. Where mass/dry stone walls are to be removed they will be replaced with timber post and rail fencing. Fencing used elsewhere will be maintained by the adjoining landowner(s).

During the course of the Oral Hearing Mr. Sweetman and others pointed out that there were more stone walls than any other type of fencing in the area and that their removal and the erection of timber post and rail fencing would be inconsistent with Policy No. 146 of the Galway County Development Plan, which seeks to preserve and retain stone walls, hedgerows, etc.

Mr. Keane, for the Council, pointed out that Policy No. 146 of the Development Plan also states: " It must be noted that this is subservient to the priority status of the road development provided for by Policy 43 at page 39 of the Galway County Development Plan as amended in July 2007 ". Mr. Reid, for the Council, acknowledged that there was more stone than timber fencing in the area but he argued that that the type of fencing was not important given that it will be covered with planting. He also pointed out that people had been replacing stone walls with timber post and rail fencing throughout the area.

In his submission to the Board on behalf of a number of objectors, John Dore, of Aidan Tynan & Associates, contended that stone wall boundaries were required in the areas affected by the Motorway Scheme. He contended that a stone boundary wall would match the surrounding environment more than the proposed timber post and rail fencing. He also expressed his concern in relation to the implications for farmers of the removal of stone walls on the rural environment protection scheme (REPS). Mr. Martin, for the Council pointed out that 49 of the farmers affected by the proposed Scheme participate in REPS (i.e. over 50% of the total number of active farmers along the proposed route) and he contended that the proposed Scheme would not impact upon them.

I acknowledge that the area of the proposed route is generally characterized by stone walls and hedgerows and I note Policy No. 146 in the County Development Plan to preserve and retain stone walls,

36 hedgerows, etc. However, I am satisfied that timber post and rail fencing is an appropriate boundary treatment in the case of a new Motorway Scheme. I also concur with Mr. Reid, for the Council, that the type of fencing will ultimately not be that important, given that it will be covered with planting. I am also generally satisfied that the issue of replacement fencing and new fencing to land boundaries affected by the Motorway Scheme are matters related to accommodation works which, in turn, may impact on the issue of compensation, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Board. I am satisfied that the property arbitrator is best placed to address any remaining matters related to fencing.

5.7.2 Access to Severed Lands

As pointed out by Mr. Martin, for the Council, the Scheme will involve the acquisition of some 202ha of agricultural lands, and will involve the severance of a further 251ha of agricultural lands. He contended that appropriate access would be provided to severed lands as part of the proposed Scheme. He accepted that in some cases the Scheme would pose increased difficulty in working severed lands.

Mr. Dore (on behalf of Mr. Mooney) pointed out that the land severance would result in an increased journey of 2km one way and 4km each return trip to the severed lands along the proposed access track. Mr. Keane, for the Council pointed out that the road was virtually at grade at the location in question. He contended that it would not be economic to build a bridge at that location given that it would cost in the order of €0.75 million. He pointed out that the land in question was rented out and in any event was used for tillage so frequent access was not required.

Mr. Dore (on behalf of Mr. Costelloe) requested that the size of the underpass at Ch. 6,000 be extended from 2.4m x 2.4m to 4.5m wide by 3.5m high. Mr. Edwards, for the Council, accepted that it was possible to go to 3.5m high. During the course of the Oral hearing, Mr. Costello stated that he farmed alone and had trouble getting help, and that without a suitable underpass it would be difficult and dangerous for him to move his livestock. He also pointed out that one of his horses could rear up and hit its head on the concrete roof. Mr. Keane, for the Council, pointed out that Mr. Costello had a herd of only 6 horses and that the proposed underpass was in addition to the access track onto Mr. Costelloe’s land and the track could be used for movement of machinery and stock.

I accept that the Scheme will have a significant impact on some farm holdings, particularly in relation to access to severed lands. However, I am satisfied that this issue is related to accommodation works and injurious affection, which, in turn, may impact on the issue of compensation, which

37 falls outside the jurisdiction of the Board. I am satisfied that the property arbitrator is best placed to address such matters.

5.7.3 Lack of Control on Road Levels

A number of submissions/objections received by the Board refer to the fact that the Council will have no control on the road levels as these will ultimately be determined by the Contractor. Mr. Keane, for the Council, acknowledged that the Scheme is likely to proceed as a Public Private Partnership (PPP), design and build (DB) scheme. Under this arrangement, the successful Contractor will be responsible for the selection of the final structural forms, including determination of the final levels of the road. However, as pointed out by Mr. Keane, the Scheme must be constructed within the parameters set out in the EIS and the contract documents and in accordance with the schedule of commitments given by the Promoting Authority. I am therefore satisfied that the scheme will be broadly constructed along the lines of the Scheme as proposed in the EIS and as presented at the Oral Hearing.

5.7.4 Impact of Proposed Scheme on REPS

In his submission on behalf of Mr. Timothy Costello, Hill House, Glenmore, Aidan Tynan & John Dore of Aidan Tynan & Associates, voiced his concerns in relation to the impact of the proposed Scheme on his Client in respect of the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS). I acknowledge that the removal of hedgerows and stone walls can pose a problem in relation to compliance with REPS. However Mr. Martin, for the Council, contended that the proposed Scheme would not impact on farmers in relation to REPS. Mr. Keane also contended that any lands purchased by the local authority and any changes made by the local authority would not affect a farmer’s participation in REPS. I am satisfied that any issue related to the impact of the proposed Scheme on REPS is a matter related to injurious affection, which, in turn, may impact on matters of compensation, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Board.

5.7.5 Impact of the Proposed Scheme on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Two of the submissions received by the Board in relation to the EIS express concerns in relation to the impact of the proposed Scheme in the context of climate change/greenhouse gas emissions. The consultants for the Scheme argued that the Scheme would only result in a marginal increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Michael Smith, in his submission on behalf of Sixdegreesofheat Ltd. (trading as HEAT), pointed out that the Government, under its “Programme for Government”, is committed to an average 3% annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Smith contended that this constitutes the overriding national policy and the

38 Board must have regard to this. He contended that the EIS did not address the issue of cumulative impact.

Mr. Lumley, on behalf of An Taisce, contended that Section 10.8.9 of the EIS, which deals with climatic impact, was flawed. As stated in the EIS, the Scheme would result in an imperceptible increase in CO 2 emissions, amounting to 0.05% of Ireland’s Kyoto target in 2008 – 2012. Mr. Lumley pointed out that the EIS did not consider an alternative transportation strategy (i.e. modal shift to rail and bus) which would obviate the need for the proposed Scheme.

As stated in Section 5.6.4 above, I accept that the estimated increase in greenhouse gases appears to represent quite a small overall amount. However I agree with Mr. Smith’s contention that the cumulative impact of the proposed Scheme, taken into consideration with other transport options, was not addressed.

I do not consider however, that the adverse impact of the proposed Scheme on greenhouse gases is sufficient to warrant the withholding of approval of the Scheme or confirmation of the CPO by the Board in this case.

39 6.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS.

6.1 INTRODUCTION AND CPO PROCESS:

I am satisfied that the statutory procedures in respect of the making of the M17 Motorway Scheme/CPO and in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the proposed M17 Motorway Scheme were followed by Galway County Council in this case.

6.2 NEED FOR PROJECT:

I am satisfied that the existing N17 is substandard/deficient in terms of road safety characteristics and in terms of capacity, and poses an unacceptable traffic accident risk. I am also satisfied that it does not provide an adequate level of service at an appropriate design speed for a National Primary Road.

In addition, I am satisfied that the route of the N17 through the centre of Claregalway acts as a bottleneck to National Primary through traffic and results in traffic congestion in the town centre.

I am therefore satisfied that a new road scheme is required to improve road safety, to remove bottlenecks on the existing N17 and to alleviate traffic congestion in Claregalway. I am further satisfied that a minimum dual carriageway standard of road is required to meet the existing and projected traffic volumes.

I am satisfied that the transfer of traffic from the existing N17 single carriageway onto a new M17 Motorway would result in a significant improvement in road safety characteristics for users and a consequent reduction in accidents.

I am therefore satisfied that a new M17 Motorway is required in the interests of traffic safety and in the wider interests of the economic development of the region. The Western Regional Guidelines state that it is of critical importance that the Gateway (i.e. Galway) and the Hubs are connected by good road access corridors I am satisfied that the proposed M17 Motorway will achieve this, that it will facilitate the implementation of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) and that it will promote balanced regional development.

40

Motorway Services Area

I am satisfied that there is a need for Service Areas on motorway and on dual carriageway sections of the National Road Network in the interest of driver safety and in order to provide appropriate facilities for travellers. I am satisfied that the proposed Motorway Service Area (MSA) at the Rathmorrissey Interchange is consistent with national policy in this regard.

6.3 SUITABILITY OF PROPOSAL.

I accept that the M17 Scheme, taken in isolation, will involve an increase in journey length of up to 12.5km each way for the majority of the traffic (i.e. between 57% and 70%) on the Scheme. I also accept that if the M17 Scheme proceeds in the absence of the Galway City Outer Bypass Scheme that the M17 Scheme will undoubtedly exacerbate the existing traffic congestion problems around Galway City.

However, I consider that the proposed Scheme, as proposed, reflects an integrated approach and seeks to build on the existing Schemes (e.g. N6 Galway to East Ballinasloe Scheme; N18 Oranmore to Gort Scheme; Tuam Bypass Scheme; and Galway City Outer Bypass Scheme) which have been approved by or which have been submitted for the Board.

I am therefore satisfied that the M17 Scheme, represents an appropriate solution to accommodate the projected future traffic volumes of 37,400 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) between Galway City and Tuam in the year 2032.

I am generally satisfied that the new alignment proposed for the M17 Scheme complies with the overall policy of the NRA to construct new alignments rather than to widen along the existing road network.

I am also generally satisfied with the broad design parameters of the proposed scheme in terms of the carriageway width, design speed and vertical gradients.

Motorway Services Area

I am generally satisfied that location of a motorway service area (MSA) at the Rathmorrissey Interchange, as proposed, represents an appropriate approach and is in compliance with NRA policy on the provision of service areas on motorways and high quality dual carriageways.

41 In terms of the overall suitability of the Scheme, I am generally satisfied that:

1. The land necessary for the construction of the proposed M17 Scheme and motorway service area (MSA) is included in the Motorway Scheme/CPO;

2. The land included in the Motorway Scheme/CPO is necessary for the construction for the proposed M17 Scheme and motorway service area (MSA); and

3. The land is being acquired for purposes within the relevant Acts

6.4 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

I am generally satisfied that alternatives options were considered in relation to the proposed Scheme, including a number of route options for the M17 and a number of location options for the motorway service area.

6.5 PLANNING ISSUES.

I am satisfied that the road in question is included as a specific objective in the Galway County Development Plan 2003 – 2009. I am also satisfied that the proposed Scheme is consistent with the National Development Plan, 2007 – 2013; the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), 2002 – 2020; and the West Regional Guidelines, 2004.

On this basis, I am satisfied that the proposed Scheme is consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

6.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

I am satisfied that the EIS complies with Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993 in relation to the content of the EIS and the information which should be included.

I am satisfied that the EIS and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), including the Oral Hearing, adequately addressed the detail of the works and the development to be carried out. I am satisfied, for example, that the impact on human beings were covered under various sections of the EIS including socio-economic context, community facilities, impacts on pedestrians, economy and employment, community severance (in particular related to the school and properties on the N63 at Annagh Hill),

42 noise and vibration, air quality, landscape and visual impacts. I am therefore satisfied that all of the aspects of the environment which are required to be described, were incorporated in the EIS.

In relation to the proposed on-site wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to service the proposed Motorway Service Area, I note Mr. Sweetman’s contention that the level of information provided in the EIS dated November 2007 was inadequate. I hold that the impact of the discharge of treated wastewater from the on-site WWTP on the groundwater was not adequately addressed in the EIS. I consider that an on-site WWTP of this scale to be significant and such a facility would have the potential to give rise to pollution of groundwater or surface waters in the vicinity of the proposed WWTP.

However I am satisfied that the additional evidence provided by Mr. Kieran O’Dwyer, for the Council, including the “Hydrogeological Assessment for the Rathmorrissy Interchange Service Area”, provided an assessment of the likely significant impact of the discharge on the groundwater.

I am satisfied that the proposed on-site wastewater treatment reflects a very high level of treatment. I am further satisfied that there is an adequate depth and type of overburden (i.e. subsoil) above the groundwater to allow for an appropriate level of attenuation of the treated effluent. I am satisfied that an on-site WWTP can be designed, engineered and operated to produce a quality of effluent such that, following a soil polishing filter, it will not be likely to give rise to a significant impact on the locally important aquifer underlying the site.

In relation to ecology and the Lough Corrib cSAC, I am satisfied that the proposed Scheme will not affect the integrity of the cSAC. I am also satisfied that an appropriate assessment has been carried out in respect of the Lough Corrib cSAC, as required under Article 6.3 of the EU Habitats Directive.

I acknowledge that, taken in isolation, an increase in the order of 0.08% of Ireland’s Kyoto Target for CO 2 emissions for the period 2008-12 appears to represent quite a small overall amount. However, I do not accept Mr. Collins’ assertion, for the Council, that a small increase in CO 2 emissions from a traffic infrastructure proposal can be considered insignificant. Indeed, if such increases were to become the norm for future road schemes, I am satisfied that the cumulative impact would be significant and that such an overall outcome would be unsustainable.

I accept that there may be some residual impact, in terms of increased noise and vibration levels at certain sensitive receptors. I also accept that

43 acoustic or environmental barriers will give rise to visual impacts. However, I am satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures will ensure that the threshold criterion of 60dB Lden should not be exceeded during the operational phase of the Scheme. Accordingly, I do not consider that the adverse impacts of the proposed Scheme (i.e. in terms of noise, vibration and visual impact), are sufficient to warrant the withholding of approval of the Scheme or confirmation of the CPO by the Board in this case. I am generally satisfied that after mitigation (i.e. on the maturity of the planting), the residual visual impact in most cases will be moderate.

I am further satisfied that issues of noise, vibration and visual impact on various properties are matters related to accommodation works, disturbance and injurious affection, which, in turn, may impact on matters of compensation, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Board. I contend that the property arbitrator is best placed to address these matters.

Given the scale of project, I accept that the proposed Motorway Scheme will have an impact on the local landscape. I am satisfied that no statutory designated landscapes, scenic routes or protected views will be significantly affected by the proposed route of the development. I am further satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures, in particular the landscape design for the Scheme, will reduce the landscape impact of the Scheme. I do not consider that any residual adverse landscape impacts of the proposed Scheme are sufficient to warrant the withholding of approval of the Scheme or confirmation of the CPO by the Board in this case.

6.7 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED AND OBJECTIONS RECEIVED BY THE BOARD.

In relation to the submissions received, I note that a number of objections were formally withdrawn during the course of the Oral Hearing. I am satisfied that many of the issues raised are capable of being addressed by Cork County Council during the course of the execution of the proposed scheme.

6.7.1 Fencing

I acknowledge that the area of the proposed route is generally characterized by stone walls and hedgerows and I note Policy No. 146 in the County Development Plan to preserve and retain stone walls, hedgerows, etc. However, I am satisfied that timber post and rail fencing is an appropriate boundary treatment in the case of a new Motorway Scheme. I also concur with Mr. Reid, for the Council, that the type of fencing will ultimately not be that important, given that it will be covered with planting. I am also generally satisfied that the issue of replacement

44 fencing and new fencing to land boundaries affected by the Motorway Scheme are matters related to accommodation works which, in turn, may impact on the issue of compensation, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Board. I am satisfied that the property arbitrator is best placed to address any remaining matters related to fencing.

6.7.2 Access to Severed Lands

I accept that the Scheme will have a significant impact on some farm holdings, particularly in relation to access to severed lands. However, I am satisfied that this issue is related to accommodation works and injurious affection, which, in turn, may impact on the issue of compensation, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Board. I am satisfied that the property arbitrator is best placed to address such matters.

6.7.3 Lack of Control on Road Levels

I accept that the Scheme, if approved, is likely to proceed as a Public Private Partnership (PPP), design and build (DB) scheme and that the successful Contractor will be responsible for the selection of the final structural forms, including determination of the final levels of the road. However, I also accept Mr. Keane’s assertion that the Scheme must be constructed within the parameters set out in the EIS and the contract documents and in accordance with the schedule of commitments given by the Promoting Authority. I am satisfied that the scheme will be broadly constructed along the lines of the Scheme as proposed in the EIS and as presented at the Oral Hearing and that sufficient information has been provided to enable an appropriate assessment in this regard.

6.7.4 Impact of the Scheme on REPS

I am satisfied that any issue related to the impact of the proposed Scheme on farmers in respect of REPS is a matter related to injurious affection, which, in turn, may impact on matters of compensation, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Board.

6.7.5 Impact of the Proposed Scheme on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

I accept that the estimated increase in greenhouse gases arising from the proposed Scheme appears to represent quite a small overall amount. However I consider that the cumulative impact of the proposed Scheme, taken into consideration with other transport options, was not addressed. I do not consider however, that the adverse impact of the proposed Scheme on greenhouse gases is sufficient to warrant the withholding of approval of the Scheme or confirmation of the CPO by the Board in this case

45 7.0 RECOMMENDATION IN RESPECT OF MOTORWAY SCHEME/CPO

7.1 RECOMMENDATION

Having examined the scheme proposals, inspected the site and studied the submissions both written and oral of the promoting authority, Galway County Council and the submissions and objections, both written and oral of other parties, I recommend that the Board confirm the Galway County Council M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) To Tuam Motorway Scheme 2007 under Section 49 of the Roads Acts, 1993 – 2007, as amended, without modifications.

7.2 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONFIRMATION OF MOTORWAY SCHEME/CPO

Having regard to:

The condition and alignment of the existing section of the N17 route from Galway to Tuam;

The current and projected traffic flows on this section of the N17 route and the road network in its vicinity;

The need for a suitable route from the hub town of Tuam to the gateway City of Galway in the interests of traffic safety and in the wider interests of the economic development of the area;

The provisions of the National Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and the National Spatial Strategy 2002 - 2020 and the Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region 2004;

The provisions of the Galway County Development Plan 2003 - 2009, in particular Objective 13 of Section 3.4 which refers to the construction of a motorway/dual carriageway between Galway and Tuam along a new alignment; and

The nature of the objections,

I am satisfied that acquisition by the local authority of the land included in the Motorway Scheme/Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) is necessary for the stated purpose and the objections cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity.

46 8.0 RECOMMENDATION IN RELATION TO SCHEME IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN EIS HAS BEEN PREPARED

Having examined the Scheme proposals, inspected the site and studied the submissions both written and oral of the promoting authority, including the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the submissions both written and oral of other parties, I recommend that the Board approve the Scheme in respect of which an EIS has been prepared under Section 51 of the Roads Acts, 1993 – 2007, as amended, subject to the modification set out below.

8.1 MODIFICATION

8.1.1 Schedule of Environmental Mitigation Measures

The proposed development shall be modified to incorporate the mitigation measures set out in the document entitled “Final Schedule of Environmental Mitigations”, submitted at the Oral Hearing by Mr. Keane for Galway County Council and dated 29 th April 2008 (Document No.42 submitted at the Oral Hearing).

Reason: In order to define the mitigation measures to be carried out and to ensure that the development will not have significant adverse effects on the environment

8.2 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF MOTORWAY SCHEME IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN EIS HAS BEEN PREPARED

Having regard to:

The condition and alignment of the existing section of the N17 route from Galway to Tuam;

The current and projected traffic flows on this section of the N17 route and the road network in its vicinity;

The need for a suitable route from the hub town of Tuam to the gateway City of Galway in the interests of traffic safety and in the wider interests of the economic development of the area;

The provisions of the National Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and the National Spatial Strategy 2002 - 2020 and the Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region 2004;

47
The provisions of the Galway County Development Plan 2003 - 2009, in particular Objective 13 of Section 3.4 which refers to the construction of a motorway/dual carriageway between Galway and Tuam along a new alignment; and

The nature of the objections,

I am satisfied that the proposed development, subject to the modification set out above, is necessary to provide for the future traffic movements between Tuam and Galway, would be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, would not adversely effect the integrity of the Lough Corrib candidate special area of conservation (cSAC) and would not otherwise have significant adverse effects on the environment.

______

Billy Moore Inspector

11 th August 2008

48 SUMMARY OF ORAL HEARING

DAY 1 OF THE ORAL HEARING (23 rd April 2008)

At the outset the Inspector outlined the context of the Oral Hearing. He pointed out that Galway County Council had made the Motorway Scheme under Section 47 of the Roads Act, 1993/2007, as amended, and had applied to An Board Pleanála (the Board) for approval for the Motorway Scheme under Sections 49 and 51 of the Roads Acts.

A number of objections were received in relation to the Motorway Scheme and the Oral Hearing was being held under Section 218 of the Planning and Development Act, as amended by Section 39 of the Strategic Infrastructure Act, 2006. The Inspector pointed out that approval of the Motorway Scheme would authorise the local authority to acquire compulsorily the lands. He explained that the Hearing would be conducted without undue formality. He pointed out that he had inspected the area in question on 25 th March 2008. He then enquired in relation to appearances.

Mr. Esmond Keane, Senior Counsel for Galway County Council, indicated that he was instructed by Ms. Anne McCormack and Ms. Vivienne Rane, from the Law Agents Office with the Council. He indicated that the following persons would give evidence on behalf of the Council.

Mr. Peter Edwards - to give a general outline of the Scheme, the route selection, it's design, the extinguishment of rights of way and drainage, etc.;

Mr. Steven Wallace - to deal with traffic;

Ms. Valerie Loughnane-Moran of Galway County Council - to deal with planning issues;

Ms. Jennifer Harmon - to deal with noise and vibration;

Mr. Paul Reid - to deal with landscape and interactions;

Ms. Jenny Neff - to deal with ecology, flora and fauna;

Mr. Ray Ryan - to deal with human environment;

Mr. Piers Sadler - to deal with hydrogeology;

Mr. Gerard Morgan - to deal with water quality and fisheries;

Mr. Eoin Collins - to deal with air quality and climate;

49

Mr. William Martin - to deal with material assets and agriculture;

Ms. Musetta O'Leary - to deal with archaeology and cultural heritage; and

Mr. John Cronin - to deal with architectural heritage.

The Inspector then asked who was representing objectors to the scheme.

Mr. Vincent Costelloe indicated that he was representing 30 objectors.

Mr. Tom Corr, of Gaynor, Corr and Associates, indicated that he was mainly representing one objector, Mr. Padraigh Connolly. He indicated that he would be calling Mr. Ned O'Flynn a Veterinary Surgeon and equine specialist, as an expert witness, in relation to Mr. Padraigh Connolly.

Mr. Jim Gaynor, of Gaynor, Corr and Associates, indicated that he was representing about 33 objectors.

Mr John Dore, of Aidan Tynan & Associates, indicated that he was representing ten objectors. He pointed out that negotiations were ongoing with the County Council officials and should these negotiations be successful, some of those objections would be withdrawn.

Mr. Gerard Horgan, of HDS Consultants, indicated that he was representing four objectors.

Mr. Padraig Larkin, of P. Larkin & Associates, indicated that he was representing 31 objectors.

The Inspector concluded that a total of 108 objectors were represented by the various persons at the Oral Hearing. Mr. Frank Dunleavey then indicated that he was speaking for himself, Mr. Thomas Collins and Mr. John McGrath. They were represented by Mr. Greg Casey who could not be there today through illness.

CASE PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL

Mr. Esmond Keane , Senior Council, made a submission on behalf of Galway County Council, the promoting authority, in relation to the Motorway Scheme, the main points of which are summarized as follows:.

The scheme is part of the Atlantic Road Corridor identified in the National Development Plan. This Corridor covers a Section of the route between the proposed Rathmorrissy Interchange on the N6 Galway to East Ballinasloe Scheme (which had already received approval from An Bord Pleanála – the Board) and the

50 N18 Oranmore to Gort Scheme (which has also received approval from the Board). The M17 Scheme will travel north from the Rathmorrissy Interchange to a roundabout at the commencement of the Tuam Bypass Scheme, which has also already received approval from the Board.

Mr. Keane pointed out that the Scheme is likely to proceed as a Public Private Partnership (PPP), design and build (DB) scheme. A Motorway Service Area (MSA) is also to be included at the Rathmorrissy Interchange. The acquisition of the land is proposed to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 76 in the Third Schedule to the Housing Act, 1966, as amended by Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1960, as substituted by Section 86 of the Housing Act, 1966, and as amended by Section 6 in the schedule to the Roads Act, 1993.

The Scheme is also to be carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and pursuant to the powers conferred by the Planning and Development Acts, 2000 to 2006, especially Section 213 of the 2000 Planning and Development Act. The Motorway Scheme is being proposed pursuant to the powers conferred by the Roads Acts, 1993 to 2007.

Mr. Keane pointed out that a number of documents had been made available on the centre table as follows:

The Site Selection Report;
Report on Infiltration Tests;
Route Alignment Options, Books 1 and 2;
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), November 2007;
A Constraints Study Report;
The Route Option Report of June 2000, revision B;
A Winter Bird Survey for Galway;
A Geotechnical Interpretative Report;
Amendments to Motorway and Maps;
Supplementary Route Selection Report;
Site Investigations and Borehole Reports;
Factual Report on Infiltration Tests on the M17 Galway to Tuam;
The bat fauna studies;
The Route Selection Reports and
A Preliminary Report on Site Investigations

Mr. Peter Edwards , Technical Director, Mouchel Consultants and Project Director on the M 17 Scheme, circulated a Brief of Evidence which he then presented on behalf of Galway County Council. The key points of Mr. Edwards’ evidence are summarized as follows:

In 2000, Galway County Council appointed PCP to prepare the Constraints Study, the Route Selection Report and the Preliminary Design Reports for the Scheme. PCP (Parkman Carl Bro Punch) is a joint venture between Mouchel (formerly

51 Parkman); Grontmij (formerly Carl Bro) and Michael Punch and Partners. PCP prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as part of the Motorway Scheme (MS) as required by legislation.

The current County Development Plan (2003-2009) has an objective to “facilitate the development of the N17 as part of the Atlantic Corridor. This involves the construction of a motorway/dual carriageway between Galway and Tuam along a new alignment”. The M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) to Tuam route upgrade achieves this objective.

The National Development Plan (NDP), 2000 to 2006, provided a strategic plan for the improvement of the Irish road network, including the upgrading of strategic routes, including the N17 Galway to Sligo Route. The current NDP, 2007 to 2013, holds the development of the National Road Network as a key objective in order to allow completion of schemes such as the M17 which were developed during the lifetime of the previous Plan. By the end of the Plan it is intended that all of the inter-urban routes between Dublin and the Gateways will have been completed and that many of the key inter-urban routes between the Gateways, such as the Atlantic Corridor, will have been significantly upgraded.

The Transport 21 Initiative was launched by the Irish Government on the 1st November 2005. This includes the Atlantic Corridor - i.e. connecting the Gateways of Letterkenny, Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Waterford.

The National Roads Needs Study (NRNS), 1998, published by the National Roads Authority (NRA) is a prerequisite for the preparation of a long-term programme for the improvement of the Inter-urban National Road System. It sets out the type of roadway that would be appropriate for each segment of the system, in order to cater for projected traffic flows up to the year 2019. The NRNS justifies the construction of new alignments, rather than widening along the existing road network since the new road design standards adopted by the NRA to meet the NDP policy objective could not be accommodated within the existing road reservations.

Access would no longer be permitted onto the new routes from properties and farms located along the existing roads. The development of new routes off-line means that the existing roads can be used for incident and emergency responses, particularly when it becomes necessary to divert traffic off the main line.

The Galway County Development Plan, 2003 to 2009, has the objective to provide and facilitate the development of the National Road Network, including the M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) to Tuam route.

At a national level, the M17 Scheme will improve the internal road transport infrastructure with other regions and within the region, will contribute to the competitiveness of the productive sector and will foster balanced regional development. At a regional level, the scheme will form part of the Atlantic

52 Corridor which extends from Letterkenny to Galway to Limerick, to Cork and on to Waterford. The completion of this section of the M17 upgrade, when operational, will reduce journey times and improve safety for traffic on the M17 and will also improve access to other towns and regional centres linked to the Scheme.

The existing N17 Scheme under consideration runs north from Galway City to Tuam, a distance of 31km, and is the principle transport route to the north. The upgrade of this road section to motorway standard will provide significant benefits in terms of reduced travel times, improved economic opportunities and improved safety for road users. The route passes through the town of Claregalway where traffic experiences congestion during busy periods. To the north of Claregalway and the junction with the N63, traffic flows on the N17 reduce in volume.

The existing road network has developed over a period of time and does not meet current design standards with respect to visibility, etc. at many locations. The M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) to Tuam Route is designed to current standards. There will be a transfer of traffic from the existing road network onto the M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) to Tuam route. The N18 Oranmore to Gort Scheme and the N6 Galway to East Ballinasloe Scheme have both been approved by the Board.

Under the Roads Act, 2007 the Government has the powers to re-designate existing dual carriageways as motorways, taking into consideration the standards of carriageway, routes for prohibited users, etc., to ensure that alternative routes are available and safety is not compromised. It is envisaged that both the N6 and N18 will have been designated as motorways (i.e. M6 and M18 respectively) by the time that the M17 is constructed and open to traffic.

PCP was appointed by Galway County Council (GCC) to produce a Route Selection Report for the proposed Scheme. This Report (‘Route Selection Report and Cost Estimate’, August 2003, PCP) followed a detailed examination of the various route options presented to the public by Galway County Council. A further Report (Supplementary Route Selection Report, April 2006, PCP) was also issued to incorporate the 3km section of proposed road between Cloonkeen North and the proposed junction with the existing N17 where it joins the proposed Tuam Bypass. In September 2007, a Site Selection Report on the location of the Motorway Service Area was completed.

A Constraints Study was carried out in accordance with Phase 2 of the NRA “National Roads Project Management Guidelines” (March 2000) and two Reports were issued:

Constraints Study Report & Route Options, June 2000; and
Constraints Study Addendum Report & Route Options (Revision B), December 2001.

53 These Reports covered aspects such as land ownership, land use, details of planning searches, archaeology, geological features and traffic.

The definition of specific constraints within the study area allowed for the development of four route corridors, with a fifth option allowing for a crossover between routes. Mr. Edwards then described the routes in detail (i.e. the Blue Route, the Red Route, the Purple Route, the Green Route and the Black Route). These routes are shown on Figure 3-001 of the EIS.

In evaluating the Route Options, an assessment framework was adopted using three categories of assessment (i.e. Environment, Engineering and Economics). The Black Route was presented to a full County Galway Council meeting on 23rd July 2001. The Council passed a resolution to accept it as the ‘Preferred Route’ and to present the route to the public at exhibitions at locations along the route.

A number of Public Consultations were held including:

Meetings with individually affected landowners;
A public exhibition, that displayed information on existing engineering/ environmental constraints and the four potential route corridors, held in Claregalway and Tuam on 7th and 8th June 2000, respectively;
Following an extension of the study area, a further public exhibition was undertaken on 22nd and 23rd May 2001;
Further public exhibitions held at Athenry on 12 th September 2001 (in conjunction with the N18 Oranmore to Gort Scheme – Consultants: Tobin- Hyder-McCarthy); at Corofin, and Tuam on 13 th September 2001 and on 21 st September 2001, respectively (in conjunction with Tuam Bypass Scheme – Consultants: Ryan Hanley-WSP);
Over the course of the study a number of individual and group landowner meetings were held;
In June 2006, meetings were held with the landowners along county road No. L7137 at Ballyglunin;
In October 2005, a meeting was held with the landowners of the only property to be demolished as part of the scheme at Corrofin;
Open days were held in Athenry and Tuam on the 12th and 13 th September and the 21 st and 22 nd September 2006, respectively. All effected landowners were invited to attend and were provided with a map showing the extent of the impact on their holdings;
Comprehensive consultation with all relevant Statutory Bodies and Non - Government Organisations. These are referred to throughout the EIS as appropriate.

In early 2005, a decision was taken to extend the Black Route from its original terminal point south of Tuam to meet the proposed southern end of the Tuam By- pass at a new roundabout on the existing N17 west of the town.

54 The Black Route was reviewed in light of earlier comments from landowners and other members of the public and localised modifications of the original route were made at Castlelambert, Kilskeagh, Corrofin and north of the Grange River.

In 2005 the National Roads Authority (NRA) was requested by the Minister for Transport to undertake a review of policy with regard to the provision of service areas on motorway and high quality dual carriageway sections of the National Road Network. Arising from this review, the NRA announced a strategy to provide service areas at intervals of approximately 60 km, where feasible/practicable, through a combination of facilities located on-line and off-line (i.e. at or close to interchanges).

In September of 2006, the NRA published a map showing the preferred distribution of the service areas to be provided at on-line locations on the network, and which broadly conformed to the stated spacings, but which took account of particular factors such as overall length of route and the locations of major junctions between the routes. The NRA in their document “Policy for the Provision of Service Areas on Motorways and High Quality Dual Carriageways”, October 2007, identified the junction of the N6, N18 and M17 as an appropriate location for a service area.

Halcrow Barry completed a detailed evaluation of the service area options (Rathmorrissy Motorway Service Area Site Report, 2007). A total of five options were considered, two in the north-west quadrant of the junction and one in each of the other three quadrants, as shown on Drawing Number TJ/SARE/S3/014 (Document Number 3 submitted at the Oral Hearing). Mr. Edwards described the following options in detail:

Option 1: North West Quadrant
Option 2: North West Quadrant
Option 3: North East Quadrant
Option 4: South West Quadrant
Option 5: South East Quadrant

The options appraisal identified Option 5, within the south east quadrant, as the preferred site as it outperformed all other options from an overall technical and environmental point of view. The area proposed for the Service Area is approximately 10.7 hectares.

Mr. Edwards then presented an overview of the scheme geometrics. The proposed route commences at the Rathmorrissy Interchange on the proposed N18 and the proposed N6 to the west of Athenry, continues north through the townlands of Castlelambert, Tobernavean, Ballybackagh, Caherateemore South, Kilskeagh and Cloonnavaddoge. The route interchanges with the N63 at Annagh Hill, and then continues towards Tuam passing through Ballintober, Ballybanagher, Mahanagh, Cloonkeen North and Cloondarone before tying back in with the existing N17 immediately west of Tuam.

55 The proposed scheme will be constructed as a Standard Motorway (D2M) in accordance with the NRA DMRB design standards, as follows:

Length of Motorway 25.5km
Length of major road realignments (N63) 1.1km
Length of minor road realignments 5.0km
Number of Side Road Crossings 12

The horizontal and vertical alignments of the motorway have been designed for a design speed of l20kph and there are no departures from standard. There are, however, 14 relaxations from standard along the length of the motorway which minimise impacts at each location without compromising road safety.

The N63 realignment and roundabouts at Annagh Hill have been designed to the standards laid out in the NRA DMRB. The N63 has a design speed of 70kph and a 7.3m-wide carriageway. The realignments of side roads have been designed as Non-National Single Carriageway (NRA TD 27/00 Annex A). The width of these roads varies between 5.5m and 6.0m and, in order to minimise impacts on private land and properties close to the affected side roads, there are five locations where there are departures from standard and four locations where there are relaxations from standard. The scheme requires three junctions; two terminal junctions at Rathmorrissy and Tuam and an intermediary junction with the N63 at Annagh Hill.

All other side roads that are crossed will be bridged over or under with the exception of one cul-de-sac where a new access road from the adjoining side road will be constructed.

The drainage for the scheme has been designed in accordance with the NRA design standard and takes into account the recommendations of the relevant sections of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The drainage design takes into account the likelihood of flooding due to increased impermeability, the added risk of pollution to receiving waters from road surface runoff and future possible effects of climate change. Flooding and pollution have been mitigated by introducing Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) into the design. These systems treat the runoff by filtration, sedimentation and/or biological controls and reduce the pollutant levels in the carriageway runoff while also providing attenuation. The selection of drainage systems for the preliminary design was carried out in accordance with the DMRB HD33/96 (Surface and Sub-Surface Drainage Systems for Highways). Areas of road in cutting will generally be drained using combined filter drains. Areas of road on low embankments (between 1.5m to 6m high) will normally be drained by over-the-edge drainage into swales and/or grassed outfall channels. Embankments exceeding 6m in height will be drained using concrete surface water channels or kerbs and gullies with closed carrier drains. Median drainage will be achieved by surface water channels, slot drains and/or gullies adjacent to the safety barrier.

56

Culverts are required at a number of locations and minor alterations to some of the watercourses are expected. Run-off attenuation will be required upstream from the proposed outfalls to existing waterways to ensure that the discharge flows do not exceed the appropriate ‘greenfield’ runoff rates (i.e. rates appropriate to pre- motorway construction).

A number of existing drainage ditches and field drains are to be diverted or intercepted as a result of the proposed works, though these can only be quantified during detailed design and construction. The road drainage has been designed to NRA and UK DMRB standards and guidelines, following consultations with the appropriate authorities including the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG), the Office of Public Works (OPW), and the Western Region Fisheries Boards.

The ground investigation has shown that over much of the proposed route the ground conditions comprise thin (typically 0.2m to 0.4m) topsoil overlying Glacial Till. Alluvial Deposits, overlain by peat, were proved at the northern end of the scheme. Limestone bedrock underlies the entire route corridor, although it was not proved in every borehole. Much of the excavated material both from the Glacial Till and the limestone bedrock is considered to be suitable for re-use as general fill. Apart from locally perched water tables in the Glacial Till and Alluvium, groundwater was generally encountered well below proposed foundation level except for the section between Ch. 4,000 and Ch. 5,800.

Soft ground is encountered within three sections at the northern end of the Scheme as follows: Ch. 20,600 – 21,700; Ch. 22,200 – 23,400 and Ch. 23,900 – 25,400 (the end of Scheme). A preliminary review shows that a load transfer platform supported by piles is the most feasible option for the deep areas of soft ground. For the shallower areas (<3m), the most feasible option is the excavation and replacement of weak soil.

Additional site investigations have been undertaken at the locations of infiltration ponds to confirm the infiltration characteristics of the underlying soils. The project will be procured as a Design and Build (D/B) contract. Thus the successful Contractor will be responsible for the selection of the final structural forms, within the parameters set out in the EIS and the contract documents. The typical structures outlined are therefore subject to further development; however they are representative of the solutions being delivered on similar schemes throughout the country at present.

The road crosses the proposed extended Lough Corrib candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and the structures will need detailing to avoid encroachment within the cSAC boundary. There are a total of 28 structures included in the scheme as follows (10 No. over-bridges; 6 No. under-bridges; 2 No. river bridges; 6 No. accommodation structures – i.e. underpasses; and 4 No. culverts).

57

Over-bridges will conform to current NRA DMRB guidelines, and will be designed as integral structures. The predominant structural material will be concrete, with the substructures cast in-situ and the deck a composite of precast pre-stressed beams and an in-situ top slab. While precast concrete beams provide the most economical form of construction at present, it is likely that contractors will also consider the use of steel beams.

It is expected that most under-bridges will be constructed using proprietary precast concrete systems for spans in excess of about 4.5m, and a range of non-proprietary precast box culverts and pipes will be used for the smaller spans.

The bridges over the rivers will comply with the hydrological requirements of the OPW and each will require approval under Section 50 of the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act. It is proposed to set the bridge abutments back a minimum of 3m from the river banks. The designs reflect the outcome of consultation with the Western Regional Fisheries Board, and at construction stage will be subject to specific requirements in order to avoid damage to each watercourse. The larger river structures, spanning the Abbert and Grange Rivers, require spans which are outside the normal range for proprietary systems, and the foundations and approach embankments must also cope with the soft ground identified in these river valleys. These rivers are within the cSAC and the designs of the structures have taken these proposed boundaries into consideration and no bridgeworks will take place within the limits of the cSAC.

Farm access structures are divided into two types, depending on whether they are designated for animal or machine usage. Precast box culverts are the typical solution for both. For an animal underpass, an internal cross section of 2.4m x 2.4m is proposed. Machine underpasses are typically 4.5m x 4.5m.

Four culverts are required to maintain the existing watercourses, and in certain cases provision is also required for badgers and otters to pass through. It is anticipated that construction will be precast concrete box culverts of 2.1m x 1.5m in cross-section. However the final requirements will be determined by the Contractor, following consultation with the Western Region Fisheries Board regarding the provision of gravel beds and the shaping of the channel such that low flows still maintain adequate depths of water for fish.

The Motorway will require the provision of a safety barrier along the whole length of the motorway, the location of which will be determined by reference to NRA DMRB TD19/07. The use of a safety barrier along verges will be determined by the requirements of the same standard.

Public Lighting will be provided at the three junctions on the scheme at Rathmorrissy, Annagh Hill and Tuam. The standard of lighting will meet the

58 recommendations of ISEN 13201-2 Road Lighting, and BS5489 “Code of Practice for the Design of Road Lighting”.

Signage along the proposed mainline and on the approach to all junctions will be in accordance with the motorway requirements of the Traffic Signs Manual (1996), published by the Dept of Environment. The fencing adjoining the proposed motorway will typically be a timber post and rail fence with stock proofing (chain link mesh), to be maintained by the County Council. Where mass/dry stone walls are to be removed they will be replaced by timber post and rail fencing. Fencing used elsewhere will be maintained by the adjoining landowner(s).

Only boundary walls for residential properties will be replaced on a ‘like-for-like’ basis. Farm access gates will be provided in accordance with the NRA Road Construction Details Series 300 in positions to be agreed with the landowners. However there will be no direct access from adjoining lands onto the Motorway.

Garda Observation Platforms are a requirement on motorways and 4 No. platforms will be provided and designed in accordance with the NRA DMRB TA 66/95.

The construction estimate for the motorway is €165.4m excluding VAT and €30m excluding VAT for the Motorway Service Area (MSA). Subject to approval, it is anticipated that construction will commence in 2011 and will continue for an estimated three year period.

The contract documentation will place requirements on the successful Contractor to design and construct the works in compliance with the requirements of the EIS and any conditions of the approval by the Board. These requirements include:

A Contract Programme;
An Environmental Operating Plan (EOP). The Contractor will be required to prepare and implement a Topsoil Management Plan as part of the EOP;
A Construction & Demolition Waste Management Plan;
Working Hours to comply with the 'Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise & Vibration in National Road Schemes' (NRA 2005);
A Plan for Site Compounds; and
A Traffic Management Plan

The preliminary design includes sections of cutting and embankment which have been designed to minimise the impact on the surrounding topography whilst achieving the required design standards for the proposed motorway. The preliminary design indicates an approximate balance of cut and fill between Rathmorrissy and the Abbert River crossing. North of this point there is a requirement to import suitable fill to achieve design levels and to replace excavated peat and soft material. The following quantities of materials are estimated:

Import of general fill: 236,000m 3

59
Import of structural fill: 88,000m 3
Disposal of peat alluvial material: 88,000m 3
Disposal of unsuitable material: 10,500m 3
Import of sub-base material: 80,000m 3
Import of pavement material: 200,000m 3

The Contractor will be required to identify approved receptor sites for the disposal of excess materials and to meet all legal obligations relating to licensing and planning approvals if required.

Four options have been considered for the disposal of the 88,000m 3 of peat/alluvial material, as follows:

Disposal to landfill - 6 suitable sites have been identified. This option was assessed in the EIS.
Dry soil mixing and stabilization of soft ground.
Acquisition of additional land.
Disposal to Bord Na Mona.

Under the Waste Management Acts, a Waste Licence is not required from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) where excavated materials are re-used within the take-line of the scheme. A number of suitable quarries have been identified in the local vicinity that could be used as sources for the import of general fill, structural fill and road stone materials.

The Geotechnical Interpretative Report for the proposed Scheme concluded that piling will be required for foundations to 3 structures and for the load transfer platform across the soft ground at the northern end of the route.

The proposed preliminary design of the Scheme includes excavation through limestone in areas of deep cut. The rock strength testing shows the rock to be moderately strong to very strong. It is considered highly likely that blasting of rock will be necessary at the following locations: Ch. 4,900 – 5,800; Ch. 9,100 – 9,600; Ch. 12,300 – 13,100; Ch. 13,500 – 13,800; and Ch. 16,600 – 18,500. The Contractor will be required to include in the EOP for designing blasting sequencing that creates minimal disturbance to the local community and minimises the risk of damage to property.

Mr. Keane circulated an Errata and Addenda to the Environmental Impact Statement (Document No. 4 submitted at the Oral Hearing).

Mr. Edwards continued delivering his direct evidence. He referred to Figures 4- 001 to 4-017 in the EIS in describing the elements of the Scheme in detail. The main points of Mr. Edward’s evidence in this regard are summarised as follows:

60 Figure 4-001: Chainage 0 – 1,800 (Rathmorrissy to Castlelambert): At the three-level interchange at Rathmorrissy, the M17 will meet the N6 and the N18. The N6 will be at the lower level, the roundabout and the slip roads will be at the middle level and the M17 running through to the N18 will be at the high level. From the interchange, the road will be on an embankment varying up to approximately 8m in height until Ch. 1,400 where it goes into a small cut. At Ch. 1,550 a local road will be bisected by the mainline. This road will be serviced by an over- bridge that will be constructed offline. Surface water will be discharged into a proposed retention pond and/or infiltration basin at Ch 1,250.

Figure 4-002: Chainage 1,800 - 3,400 (Castlelambert to Tobernavean): The mainline is on high embankment at Castlelambert. There will be an under- bridge for the local road L31031 at Ch. 2,350, which will be constructed offline. The alignment will then proceed on a low embankment for several hundred meters before going into a small cutting. The area from Ch. 1,850-2,300 will be discharged into a proposed retention pond and/or infiltration basin at Ch. 2,250. A further retention pond and/or infiltration basin is proposed at Ch. 2,850.

Figure 4-003: Chainage 3,400 – 5,200 (Tobernavean to Caherateemore South): The alignment will proceed north in a cut with a maximum depth of approximately 4m. The local regional road R339 is on an embankment approximately 7m high as it crosses the mainline with the structure constructed offline. The alignment will continue at grade for several hundred metres before going into a deep cutting through a hill at Ch. 4,850. Competent limestone rock will be encountered which will require blasting prior to excavation. Drainage will be accommodated through a retention pond and/or infiltration basin upstream at Ch. 4,600.

Figure 4-004: Chainage 5,200 – 7,000 (Caherateemore South to Kilskeagh): The mainline will be in a deep cut, and it will cross the local road L31-05. The alignment will then go into an embankment varying in height between 1m and 6m. An animal underpass will be constructed at Ch. 6,100. Competent limestone rock will be encountered which will require blasting prior to excavation. The nearest property is 50m away at Ch. 5,500. Drainage will be accommodated through a proposed infiltration basin at Ch. 6,100.

Figure 4-005: Chainage 7,000 – 8,800 (Kilskeagh to Cloonnavaddoge): The alignment will enter a cut at Ch. 6,900. The local road L7120 will be realigned to cross over the mainline at Ch. 7,230 on a 6m high embankment. Drainage will be accommodated through a proposed retention pond and/or attenuation basin at Ch. 7,450.

Figure 4-006: Chainage 8,800 – 10,600 (Cloonavaddoge to Laragh More): The alignment though this section will vary from low embankments to shallow cut following the existing ground. Competent limestone rock will be encountered which will require blasting prior to excavation. The nearest property is 250m away at Ch. 9,600. Drainage will be accommodated through a proposed infiltration basin

61 at Ch. 9,600. High voltage ESB lines cross over the proposed scheme at Ch. 9,600. The lines will be assessed for clearance and the mounting height of the towers/poles will be increased if necessary.

Figure 4-007: Chainage 10,600 – 12,400 (Laragh More to Annagh Hill): The mainline will be largely at grade. Two local roads will be bisected by the mainline, the L3106 and the L7137 will be served by one bridge crossing over the mainline at Ch. 11,000 on a 7m-high embankment. There will be a new road running parallel to the mainline through the townlands of Garrauncreen and Laragh More, which will provide access to the properties along the L7137 west of the mainline. The road will enter a cut through Annagh Hill and will be joined by the merges and diverges for the Annagh Hill grade-separated junction. Competent limestone rock will be encountered which will require blasting prior to excavation. The nearest property is 50m away at Ch. 13,100. Drainage will be accommodated through a proposed infiltration basin at Ch. 11,000.

Figure 4-008: Chainage 12,400 -14,200 (Annagh Hill to Annagh): A grade-separated, 'Dumbbell' type junction at Annagh Hill will provide access to the M17 mainline from the N63. The mainline alignment will be straight as it goes through the junction, in a cut of approximately 7m. There will be an accommodation underpass at Ch. 14,100 serving farmland severed by the mainline. Competent limestone rock will be encountered which will require blasting prior to excavation. The nearest property is 50m away at Ch. 13,100.

Figure 4-009: Chainage 14,200 – 16,000 (Annagh to Ardskea Beg): The alignment will cross the Abbert River at a low skew and an accommodation track at Ch. 16,500, on embankments approximately 8m high. As it passes through the vicinity of the Abbert River, the alignment will be a minimum of 1.5m above existing ground levels. An attenuation pond will limit the discharge to the river at the ‘Greenfield Runoff’ rate. Drainage will be accommodated through a proposed retention pond and/or infiltration basin.

Figure 4-010: Chainage 16,000- 17,800 (Ardskea Beg to Ballybanagher): As it passes the settlement of Corrofin the alignment will be in cut varying in depth up to 6m. There are two local roads with close proximity to each other, L2123 and L2130 which will be bisected by the mainline and will be served by over-bridges on embankments 6.5m high and 2m high, respectively. The alignment will pass through one property just to the south of the L2123. This property will be acquired and demolished. Competent limestone rock will be encountered which will require blasting prior to excavation. The nearest property is 30m away at Ch. 16,700 (Patrick and Mary Maloney). Drainage will be accommodated through a proposed retention pond and/or infiltration basin at Ch. 16,300 to 16,400.

Figure 4- 011: Chainage 17,800 – 19,600 (Ballybanagher to Cloonkeen South): Through this section, the alignment will go from a deep cut of approximately 14m to high embankments of approximately l0m. One local road is bisected at Ch.

62 19,200 and the mainline crosses the Grange River at Ch. 19,450. The mainline will avoid a ring fort to the east at Ch. 18,200. Drainage will be accommodated through a proposed retention pond and/or infiltration basin and via an attenuation pond at Ch. 19,450, prior to discharge to the River Clare.

Figure 4-012: Chainage 19,600 – 21,400 (Cloonkeen South to Cloonkeen North): The start of the procedure to extend the Lough Corrib Special Area of Conservation (since December 2007) and the flooding in the Corrib Catchment in December 2006, required PCP to carry out further consultations with Galway County Council and the OPW. This resulted in a review of the vertical alignment between Ch. 20,340 and 21,720 and further consideration of the drainage discharges. The vertical alignment across the valley was raised to keep above future flood levels. This is shown in Figure 4-012 in the Errata Pack (Document Number 4 submitted at the Oral Hearing). The alignment will pass through the historical flood plains of the River Clare from Ch. 20,600, and will be raised above the existing flood levels. At Ch. 20,200 there will be an accommodation underpass for a farmland severed by the mainline. The alignment will pass across a large area of deep soft ground that will require the construction of a load transfer platform. The sections from Ch. 19,600-20,150 and from Ch. 19,600-20,150 will outfall into tributaries of the River Clare via attenuation ponds. High voltage ESB lines will cross over the proposed scheme at Ch. 21,800. The lines will be assessed for clearance and the mounting height of the towers/poles will be increased if necessary.

Figure 4-013: Chainage 21,400 - 23,200 (Cloonkeen North to Cloondarone): Through this section, the alignment will vary from low embankments to shallow cuts. There will be a farm underpass at Ch. 21,650. The alignment will pass across a large area of deep soft ground that will require the construction of a load transfer platform. The embankment across the flood plain will be constructed of rock fill to a level higher than the recorded flood levels. This section will outfall into a small tributary of the River Clare via attenuation ponds (located outside the flood plain and the cSAC). High voltage ESB lines will cross over the proposed scheme at Ch. 21,890 and Ch. 22,900. The lines will be assessed for clearance and the mounting height of the towers/poles will be increased if necessary.

Figure 4-014: Chainage 23,200 - 25,000 (Cloondarone to Killeelaun): Through this section, as the alignment passes through an area of peat, the alignment will be raised a minimum of 1m above the existing ground to reduce the risk of flooding and to aid in the construction of a Load Transfer Platform. The alignment will cross the local road L6142 on embankments approximately 8.5m high at Ch. 23,420. This is an on line construction with the local road. The alignment will cross the local road L6141 on embankments approximately 8m high, at a skew. This section will outfall into the Suileen River and a small tributary of the Suileen River. High voltage ESB lines cross over the proposed Scheme at Ch. 24,850. The lines will be assessed for clearance and the mounting height of the towers/poles will be increased if necessary.

63 Figure 4-015: Chainage 25,000 - 25,420 (Killeelaun to Tuam Roundabout): Through this section, as the alignment passes through an area of peat, the alignment will be raised a minimum of 1m above the existing ground to reduce the risk of flooding and to aid in the construction of a Load Transfer Platform. This section will drain into a small drainage channel, a small tributary of the Suileen River. The proposed junction at the existing N17 west of Tuam will be in the form of a roundabout providing for continued access along the existing road and a link with the proposed Tuam Bypass.

Mr. Edwards then described the alignment of the N64 Annagh Hill Junction (Figure 4-106), which will include roundabouts east and west of the mainline. An animal underpass will be provided.

Mr. Edwards then described the proposed Rathmorrissy Interchange Motorway Service Area (Figure 4-107) as follows. The proposed MSA Site comprises a central building of 1700 sq. metres containing catering and commercial facilities along with separate forecourt fuelling operation facilities for both private vehicles and heavy goods vehicles. The facilities comply with NRA Advice Note TA 90/04. Segregated parking for 212 private cars (including 13 disabled bays), 13 coaches and 105 heavy goods vehicles will be provided for patrons of the catering and facilities block. Separate staff parking facilities will be provided. The service area will be screened from the main carriageway by means of landscaping and shaped earthworks.

A new access from the motorway interchange of the N6/M17/N18 by means of a fifth arm on the roundabout junction within the motorway interchange will be provided. A new priority controlled T-junction with the R348 Regional Road will provide access for emergency vehicles/deliveries/staff to the service area from the local road network to the rear of the site.

The location of the MSA and the surrounding area is devoid of surface water features such as rivers and streams. There are a number of ponds and caves nearby which would indicate that existing drainage is through infiltration and groundwater discharge. The site is situated on an aquifer category Ll (i.e. Locally Important Aquifer), while the proposed local access road to the R348 is over the category Rk (i.e. Regionally Important Karstified Aquifer). The vulnerability classification is extreme (E). The proposed design for treatment of the surface water runoff from the development involves a separate closed drainage system for buildings, roads and parking areas which will discharge to an attenuation pond and pollution control system prior to discharge into soakaways and infiltration ditches.

The wastewater from the proposed Motorway Service Area (MSA) will be discharged to a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) designed for the projected usage in the year 2032.

The proposed MSA will be constructed at ground level with an embankment up to 7.7m high for the access road to the Rathmorrissy Interchange. Excavation in rock

64 will be necessary for installation of underground fuel tanks. These tanks will be fully lined to prevent corrosion and leakage into the groundwater system. The construction of the MSA will take a year to complete and is programmed to open to the public at the same time as the Rathmorrissy Interchange opens to traffic in 2010.

A settlement pond will be constructed on site during the construction stage where silt laded run-off is expected. A lined, permanent pollution control/attenuation pond will be provided to allow for the removal of pollutants including sediments prior to discharge to groundwater. The proposed peak discharge flows will be no greater than the existing situation and there will be no increased risk of flooding.

Class 1 petrol/oil bypass interceptors will be used within the drainage system to deal with hydrocarbon pollutants in the road run-off. A full-retention, Class 1 forecourt separator will be provided the petrol station forecourt area. Fuel storage tanks will be located within a lined bunded area to a capacity of at least 50% greater than the storage tank so that secondary containment and groundwater protection can be provided. A detailed EIA has been completed in respect of the MSA.

The proposed Motorway Scheme will involve the acquisition of approximately 214 hectares (529 acres) of land which is necessary for the construction of the scheme. This land is included in the M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) to Tuam Motorway Scheme 2007 which was published in December 2007. The lands contained in the Scheme are necessary to construct the project. The First Schedule of the Scheme provides details of all lands required to provide the Motorway and also lands required to provide all other associated works necessary to construct the works. The Public Rights of Way to be extinguished are listed in Part I of the Third Schedule of the Scheme. The Private Rights of Way proposed to be extinguished are listed in Part 2 of the Third Schedule. The prohibition of access rights of adjoining landowners to the Motorway are contained within the Fourth Schedule. The lands required for the MSA are listed and described under the Eighth Schedule.

Mr. Edwards referred to a number of changes in the ownership of the lands contained within the Motorway Scheme since its publication in December 2007.

Mr. Edwards concluded that:

An extensive route selection and consultation process had taken place to arrive at the preferred route for the Scheme;
An extensive environmental assessment had been carried out and mitigation measures had been identified;
The Scheme provides a route designed to modern geometric standards to cater for the predicted volumes of traffic;
Without the Scheme, the existing road network will become extremely busy leading to significant congestion and an increase in accidents;
The Scheme will have a positive net benefit to the community in terms of savings on journey time and accident reduction;

65
The Scheme provides a modern transport network in order to facilitate continued economic development of the area in line with national, regional and local policy;
The Scheme provides appropriate welfare facilities for the road user in line with national policy;

Mr. Edwards concluded his direct evidence by recommending that the Board confirm the Scheme.

Mr. Keane then brought Mr. Edwards through the detail of the various public and private rights-of-way to be extinguished and the various alternative access arrangements proposed.

Mr. Steve Wallace , Technical Director, Grontmij Consultants (formerly known as Carl Bro), circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with traffic-related matters, which he then presented on behalf of Galway County Council. The key points of Mr. Wallace’s evidence are summarized as follows:

Traffic data collected in the area surrounding the proposed M17 Scheme had been studied in detail. The existing N17 in the study area runs north from the outskirts of Galway City to Tuam, a distance of around 30 km. To the north of Claregalway traffic flows on the N17 reduce in volume.

Data from an automatic traffic counter (ATC) immediately to the north of Claregalway indicated there had been a steady increase in traffic averaging 5% per annum over the ten year period between 1998 and 2007, when the annual average daily traffic flow was 23,400 vehicles per day. The level of growth was consistent with trends on national primary routes in general.

The average weekday hourly flows for 2007 for the ATC immediately north of Claregalway indicated that the highest peak hour flows were experienced between 7 and 8 am southbound and 5 and 6 pm northbound (i.e. a ‘tidal’ effect with three times traffic volumes on adjacent carriageways). Peak period journey time surveys undertaken in 2008 showed that it could take in excess of 20 minutes to pass through Claregalway. The proportion of heavy commercial vehicles on the N17, as measured at the ATC north of Claregalway during 2007, was 7%.

The initial traffic studies carried out in 2000 included a roadside interview of motorists travelling south from Tuam. This survey was carried out on a weekday with a sample of the passing traffic stopped and questioned between 7am in the morning and 7pm in the evening. Approximately 60% of the traffic had destinations in Galway city and 20% had destinations north of Galway (e.g. Claregalway). The remaining 20% were heading for destinations to the south and east of Galway.

The NRA publication “High Accident Locations 1996-2000” identified the N17

66 between Claregalway and the R333 junction near Tuam as being a high accident location. More recent statistics for the period 1998 to 2006 showed an average of 17 accidents per year on the N17 route between the N6 junction in Galway and Tuam town centre. Approximately 11% of accidents recorded involved fatalities, whereas the national average proportion of fatal accidents for a typical single carriageway is around 6%. The transfer of traffic from the N17 single carriageway onto the new M17 Motorway would result in a significant improvement in road safety characteristics for users and a consequent reduction in accident occurrences.

The N6/N17/N18 traffic model had been used to predict the transfer of traffic onto the new M17 route. This model was developed using the traffic data collected during the 2000/2002 period. The N6/N17/N18 model was constructed using SATURN software to have the capability of reporting on the effects of three NRA road schemes. The model was “fit for purpose” and allowed robust projections to be made of potential future traffic flow levels on the new routes being considered.

The predicted opening year traffic flows assume that both the N6 and N18 Road Improvement Schemes are opened to traffic prior to the construction of the M17 Motorway Scheme.

The N6 Scheme has been approved by the Board and is currently under construction. The N18 Scheme has been approved and is out to tender with construction due to commence in October 2008.

The N6/N17/N18 model predicts that the new route will offer journey time savings in the opening year 2012 as follows:

Fourteen minutes between Tuam and Rathmorrissy; and
Two minutes between Tuam and the existing N17/N6 junction on the outskirts of Galway

The new M17 forms the quickest route between these destinations.

The predicted traffic flows for the assumed opening year of 2012 are shown in Figure 17-001 in the EIS Errata and Addenda Document (Document No. 4 submitted at the Oral Hearing). The traffic model predicts a transfer of 23,300 vehicles per day onto the M17 to the north of the proposed Annagh Hill Interchange as a consequence of traffic reassigning from the existing N17, R347 and R332 routes. To the south of Annagh Hill the additional traffic movements associated with the N63 will increase the predicted flow to 28,100 vehicles per day. Traffic flows on the new N6 are predicted to increase to the west of Rathmorrissy by 16,000 vehicles per day to the west of the new Glennascaul Interchange. If the Galway City Outer Bypass is completed before the M17 scheme then this additional flow will split, with around 50% using the Bypass route. If not then the additional flow will distribute into Galway at the new N6 Coolagh Roundabout. The changes in traffic flows on the existing road network will give rise to a

67 reduction in traffic on the existing N17 of approximately 21,200 vehicles per day in Claregalway.

Traffic levels on the M17 for the design year 2032 are predicted to rise by 33% to 31,100 and 37,400 vehicles per day north and south of Annagh Hill Interchange, respectively. This level of growth is similar to that predicted for national primary routes throughout the country. Traffic turning movements used for the design of the proposed intersections have been derived using origin-destination survey information. Turning volumes generated by the MSA are estimated to be 264 arrivals and 219 departures during the busiest hour of the day which is between 12:00 and 13:00 hours.

The traffic model forecasts a “design year” flow on the new M17 of 37,400 vehicles per day (AADT) in 2032. At this flow level a dual 2-lane motorway layout will operate effectively to provide the minimum Level of Service D criteria as set out as an objective in the National Development Plan. For a Level of Service D, which is equivalent to an average inter-urban journey speed of 80kph, the associated capacity of a 2-lane motorway is 55,500 vehicles per day. Given the proposed interchange layouts, all of the interchanges will be able to operate effectively at the design year traffic flow levels.

For traffic between Tuam and Galway use of the new motorway will bring a minimum of two minutes journey time saving at off-peak travel times and substantially more during busy periods. If no scheme were provided then Claregalway traffic conditions would continue to deteriorate with congestion increasing as traffic levels continue to rise.

In terms of long distance traffic travelling on the “Atlantic Corridor” between Sligo and Limerick it is predicted there will be a significant journey time saving as a result of the Scheme of around 14 minutes.

The overall cost of the Scheme is estimated at €244,412,000. The Present Value Cost (PVC) of the scheme is €152.2m compared to the Present Value Benefit (PVB) of €344.2m. This means the scheme has a large and positive Net Present Value of + €192.0m (PVB minus PVC) and a Benefit/Cost Ratio of 2.26 (PVB divided by PVC). The Internal Rate of Return is calculated to be 10.5%, which is well in excess of the generally adopted threshold of 5%. All of the economic results indicate that the proposed Scheme represents good value for money.

Ms. Valerie Loughnane-Moran, Senior Executive Planner, Galway County Council, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to planning issues, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

The subject Scheme relates to the construction of approximately 25.5km approx of standard motorway between Rathmorrissy interchange on the intersection of the N6

68 and the N18 and a proposed roundabout at the end of the Tuam Bypass on the existing N17 west of Tuam. The scheme also involves the construction of a service area site located approximately 4km south west of Athenry town at Rathmorrissy.

The project as proposed finds support in the current National Development Plan, 2007 – 2013. Chapter 3, which deals with Regional Development states: “ Strategy of the National Development Plan points to balanced regional development as central to its investment strategy. A major programme of investment in infrastructure is set out with a particular focus on addressing deficits in the various National Spatial Strategy Gateway areas to ensure that each Gateway region maximises its potential for economic and social development. In relation to transport, key priorities for completion within the lifetime of the Plan include the major inter-urban routes between Dublin and the Gateways and other linking routes between the Gateways ”. This priority includes the enhancement of the Atlantic Road Corridor thereby improving road links to other Gateway centres. The M17 provides for a vital part of this linkage and connectivity with the adjoining Hub of Tuam and to the Gateway of Sligo.

The National Spatial Strategy (NSS), 2002 – 2020, states that transport networks are required to promote regional, social and economic development. Strategic radial corridors have been suggested as part of the strategy to support good quality road connections between Dublin, Galway, and Mayo and Sligo. The M17 proposal complies with this concept and provides for high quality connections between the Gateway of Galway and the Hub Town of Tuam.

It is an objective of the West Regional Guidelines, 2004 to ensure that all routes identified for construction and upgrading in the Regional Planning Guidelines are progressed as soon as possible in order to facilitate the implementation of the NSS and to promote balanced regional development. Section 6.3 of the Regional Guidelines set out the overall regional infrastructural priorities and states that it is of critical importance that the Gateway and Hubs are connected by good road access corridors. The M17 proposal achieves this goal.

The Galway County Development Plan, 2003 – 3009 (amended 25 July 2006 and 23 July 2007), sets out a number of policy objectives which relate to the Scheme. Objective 13 of Section 3.4 specifically refers to the construction of a motorway/dual carriageway between Galway and Tuam along a new alignment. The majority of the route is located in areas with a landscape sensitivity rating ‘Area Class 1’, which is the lowest landscape classification as adopted in the Current County Development Plan.

The proposed scheme is considered to have little or no impact on focal points/views listed in the Plan. There are no structures which are included in the Record of Protected Structures within a 700-metre distance of the proposed route.

69 The EIS prepared for the Scheme deals with sites and monuments located along the route. The proposal crosses both the Abbert and Grange Rivers, both of which have been recently designated cSACs. Both river crossings have been designed as open span bridges to avoid construction within the watercourses and with sufficient spans to provide clearance of the river banks in the interest of safeguarding habitats and faunal interests. There are no Tree Preservation Orders along the proposed Scheme.

Ms. Loughnane-Moran then referred to a number of live planning permissions that currently conflict with the Scheme. She concluded by stating that the M17 Galway (Rathmorrissy) to Tuam Scheme and the service area site as proposed is in accordance with the policies and objectives of Galway County Development Plan, 2003- 2009, and complies with the relevant National and Regional policies as expressed in the National Development Plan, the National Spatial Strategy and the Western Regional Planning Guidelines. She considered that the scheme as proposed is in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

Ms. Jennifer Harmon, Senior Acoustic Consultant with AWN Consulting circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to noise and vibration, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

An appraisal of the noise and vibration impacts associated with both the construction and operational phases of the proposed M17 Tuam to Galway Road Scheme and the Rathmorrissy service area was undertaken as part of the EIS. The existing noise climate was quantified by a series of baseline noise surveys conducted in accordance with the NRA Guidance Document: 'Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes' (2004) and ISO 1996, ‘Acoustics: Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise'.

Predicted noise levels were compared with the recommended operational criterion set down by the NRA to assess the requirement for noise mitigation at noise sensitive properties. This has been achieved by the provision of a low noise road surface along the length of the Scheme and a series of acoustic barriers at specified locations. In order to establish the prevailing noise levels, noise surveys were conducted during August and November 2005 and February and July 2006 in accordance with the methodology as set out in the NRA Guidance Document.

Noise sources at properties along the proposed route are currently from existing road traffic along national primary and secondary roads in the vicinity, in addition to local traffic on minor roads. Additional sources of noise included birdsong, agricultural sources and small amounts of wind-generated noise such as rustling foliage. Road traffic noise calculations were conducted using an acoustic modelling package (Brüel and Kjaer 'Predictor' Version 4.10), which generates predicted noise levels for selected receiver points. The prediction methodology is based on the

70 calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) L Aeq Method. The relevant L den values were then calculated for each receiver location. 67 receptor locations within 300m of the proposed road and along the existing N17 were modelled to assess the impact of the route on the surrounding environment. The design goal for national road schemes is 60dB Lden .

A low noise road surface has been proposed along the entire length of the scheme. This has been assumed to offer a mean reduction in traffic noise levels of 3.5dB(A) when compared to hot rolled asphalt (HRA). With this treatment in place, 11 properties remain above the target criterion, the details of which are contained in Section 11.7 of Volume 1 of the EIS and in Figures 11.1 to 11.16 in Volume 2 of the EIS. The noise barriers are shown by a blue line and the noise receptors are shown with a red bullseye. Ms. Harmon then referred to the location of the acoustic screens (i.e. the certified acoustic barriers) along the route, which would be made of a timber barrier, a wall or a bund. The proposed barriers will vary in height between 1.5m and 3.5m to mitigate the noise level at sensitive receptors down to the 60dB level.

At the Rathmorrissy service area mitigation measures will be incorporated into the site design to ensure the impact to noise and vibration during the operation of the service area will not cause any significant noise impact. These include:

The erection of a 2m high boundary bund along the northern boundary of the site;
The siting of building services plant as far away from the nearest noise- sensitive location as is practicable; and
The selection of plant/pumps with low inherent potential for generation of noise and vibration.

Guidance on allowable levels of noise during the construction phase of the Project has been taken from the NRA Document “Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration during National Road Schemes, 2004”. These are set out in Table 11.5 in the EIS. Noise levels during all construction operations will therefore be limited to the construction noise limits specified in the EIS. The Contractor undertaking the construction works will be required to take specific noise abatement measures and to comply with the recommendations for noise and vibration control as set out in BS 5228, “Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites”.

Access to the site for construction-related traffic will generally be limited to the existing N17, the N63, the R339, the R348 and the L-2123. Piling will be required at four locations along the proposed route, at the Abbert River crossing, the Grange River crossing, at the L6141 over-bridge and at the areas of soft ground at the northern end of the corridor. This operation will be carried out using recognized noise reducing systems, including the selection of best available piling technology and equipment and will occur only during specified working hours. Noise and

71 vibration levels during all piling works will be limited to the construction noise and vibration limits as set out in the EIS.

Blasting for the purpose of excavation is likely to be required during the construction of sections of the proposed road within five areas of deep cut identified. A precondition survey will be conducted at all properties within 50m of the Scheme in areas where blasting is proposed. Monitoring at the nearest property will take place during all blasts. The Contractor will be required to notify nearby residents in advance of any blasting, to carry out test blasts to assist the blast design, to apply appropriate charging and stemming and to use independent monitoring by external bodies for verification of the results. Rock crushing may be required at designated areas along the route to process excavated rock. Noise and vibration levels during these activities will be restricted to the limits set out in the EIS.

The noise impacts on all modelled receptors, which were predicted to be above the threshold criterion of 60dB Lden during the operational phase of the Scheme, have been reduced to within this threshold value by appropriate mitigation measures. The proposed Scheme will therefore meet the operational noise criterion.

During the relatively short-term construction phase of the Scheme, ensuring that working hours, noise and vibration limits and construction best practice is implemented according to the guidelines set out in BS5228, will result in a moderate impact to its surrounding environment.

In response to the Inspector, Mr. Keane indicated that the noise and vibration levels relating to the MSA at Rathmorrissey were set out in Sections 11.1 to 11.6 (i.e. pages 175 to190) in Technical Appendix 16, Volume 3 of the EIS.

In response to Mr. Gaynor, Ms. Harmon clarified that the noise and vibration levels relating to the realigned N63 were set out in Table 11 in Technical Appendix 16, Volume 3 of the EIS.

DAY 2 OF THE ORAL HEARING (24 th April 2008)

Mr Gaynor indicated that a number of people had duplicate objections submitted by their consultants. Mr. Gaynor stated that he represented the following objectors at the Oral Hearing:

Ref. 126, the Duffy Family
Ref. 241, Michael Joyce
Ref. 244, Martin Mannion
Ref. 210, Michael and Paul Shaughnessy

72 Ms. Paul Reid , Techinal Director within the Land and Environmental Business Unit of Mouchel, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to landscape impact and interactions, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

Mr. Reid referred to the following guideline documents:

Guidelines on Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements (Environmental Protection Agency, March 2002)
Advice Notes on Current Practice in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (Environmental Protection Agency, 2003)
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Second Edition (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2000)

The boundaries of the site are:

The R348, to the South
The N17, west of Tuam, to the North
The N17 running from Claregalway to Tuam to the West, and
The R347 to the east

In terms of landscape context, the eastern valley slopes of the River Clare are in the southern part of the motorway corridor. These lead to an undulation limestone plateau east of the proposed corridor. There are low east/west orientated ridges from the higher plateau at Annagh Hill and Sheeaunpark. There are prominent peaks at Knockroe and Corrafairenn, which are further east and out of the scope of the Scheme.

The valley slopes of the River Clare extend further to the east, with its opening against the higher ground of the proposed motorway corridor. These are dissected by three tributaries of the main river (i.e. the River Clare): the Abbert, the Grange and the Suileen Rivers, which are at the northern end of the Scheme. Low limestone hills form localised watersheds between these tributaries. The northern area is dominated by small-scale pastoral farming and irregular shaped fields grazed by sheep, cattle and horses. There are low lying peat bogs and wetland landscapes.

In the southern part of the corridor the field boundaries are low-level stone walls, which are often topped with hawthorn hedges or post and wire fencing. Established hedgerows are frequent. At the north and south of the corridor there are large conifer plantations.

The main settlements are Athenry, Tuam and Corrofin. There are also smaller settlements scattered throughout the area, forming ribbon developments and clusters along local roads. They consist of farm buildings and residential housing.

73

New single houses and groups of houses appear ad-hoc throughout the area. This has a marked and detrimental impact on the structure and quality of the landscape. Other detractors include the electricity pylons at the northern and southern ends of the proposed corridor, open peat extraction, and a scrambling track on the southern ridge at Sheeaunpark.

A number of local landscape character areas have been identified, including:

Local ridge and associated hazel scrub at Sheeaunpark;
Low-lying valley slopes between Sheeaunpark and Laragh More;
Local ridge at Annagh Hill;
Immediate vicinity of the Abbert and Grange Rivers (the two main rivers in the area);

There are no areas designated on the basis of landscape quality.

In terms of visual context, the area between Rathmorrissy and Sheeaunpark is characterised by stone and hedge-lined field boundaries. Hedgerow trees and small woodland copses enclose areas of varying scale and break views. Between Sheeaunpark and Annagh Hill the area is more open as the landscape rises to the prominent high ground at Laragh Hill. The L3106 is the local road and L7137 is a cul-de-sac where new housing is emerging. This area constitutes the most significant visual detractor within the local landscape. Between Annagh Hill and Tuam the extent and quality of views, demesnes and continuing pastoral agriculture vary.

There are open views from various properties along the N63. Descending north into the Abbert Valley there are fewer households and their views are frequently broken by hedgerow trees. North of Corrofin the number of farmsteads and houses reduce significantly, and the openness of view varies significantly. Some have open expansive views to the west and beyond the N17.

Proposed Scheme impacts include:

The alignment of the Motorway and traffic using the road;
Earthworks in the form of cuttings and embankments to achieve current design standards for the proposed Motorway;
The grade-separated junction with link to the N63 at Annagh Hill;
Two open-span river crossings at Abbert and Grange Rivers;
10 over-bridges and 6 under-bridges to maintain access to existing roads;
One farm accommodation bridge and 5 farm underpasses;
Road lighting at the two terminal roundabouts and the intermediate grade- separated junction at Annagh Hill;
Balancing ponds, infiltration ponds and associated SUDS proposals forming part of the proposed drainage strategy;

74
The Motorway Service Area (MSA) with its complex of buildings, parking, circulation roads and lighting;
Construction activity associated with preparation and installation of the Scheme;
Environmental barriers required to migrate identified impacts from associated traffic noise.

The impacts on the regional landscape character will not be significant having regard to the low value of the landscape. The southern end of the Scheme (i.e. the Rathmorrissy Interchange) has already received Board approval in respect of the N18 Road Scheme. The service area will involve further local development. The central section of the Motorway with its associated earthworks and traffic will be more intrusive.

At Castlelambert large-scale embankments will fragment the existing field pattern, and the motorway will form a new feature in the area. Proposed planting will compensate for the loss and fragmentation of hedgerows. At Caherateemore South and Sheeaunpark the proposed motorway will form a deep cut through a local ridge and will require removal of hazel scrub. Planting will compensate for the scrub and help soften the ridge. At Clonnavaddoge dry stone boundaries and established hawthorn scrub will be disturbed. At Annagh Hill the interchange will break the ridgeline and introduce light at night-time. From there to Grange River the motorway will cut into the eastern margins of Brockagh.

Some 356 out of 478 visual receptors will be adversely affected once construction is complete. Of those receptors subject to adverse impact, some 141 will be of an order greater than slight. The number of receptors subject to adverse impact will be reduced to 165 once proposed planting is established. Some 50 of these will be of an order greater than slight. The number of receptors subject to the highest impact will reduce from 24 to 6 once planting has matured. A small number of properties on the west fringes of Laragh More will be affected.

Mitigation of impacts involved the following:

Identification of key landscape features and visual constraints as part of the identification of potential route options;
Assessment of key landscape and visual constraints as part of the identification of potential route options and the selection of the preferred route;
Identification of detailed mitigation measures as part of the preliminary design and detailed assessment;
Avoidance of direct impacts on important landscape features. An example of this approach included moving the route further east because an area of limestone pavement, which had landscape and ecological importance, was encountered;

75
Realisation of opportunities to utilise features within the landscape to achieve sympathetic fit within the landscape. The preferred route closely follows existing field boundaries; and
Control of the vertical alignment to minimise visual intrusion on the landscape and the breaking up of views from surrounding properties. The proposed engineering vertical profile has been lowered.

The landscape design has been completed in accordance with ‘A Guide to Landscape Treatments for National Road Schemes in Ireland’. Woodland planting will compensate for limited loss of existing woodland planting and will reduce the impact of prominent structures in the local landscape. A planting framework has been established for the proposed Motorway Services Area (MSA). A continuous belt of planting will be introduced along the eastern boundary of the service area. Typical species will include ash, beech, birch and sycamore with an under-storey of blackthorn, elder, hawthorn, holly and willow. Pine will be introduced for year- round screening in some locations. New hedgerows will compensate for the loss of existing hedgerows and will mitigate the impact where the motorway cuts through established field patterns.

Scrub and grassland will extend into neighbouring areas of existing scrub and this will aid integration of the alignment. It will also compensate for loss of habitat, will soften the impact of the engineering embankments, will mitigate the potential visual impact of environmental barriers, and will enhance representation of the habitat in the local landscape.

Mr. Reid than outlined specific landscape proposals for the Motorway Scheme as follows:

At the MSA, a 10m x 2m woodland belt (with a 30% evergreen component) on the full length of the eastern site boundary and the eastern access road of the Ratmorrissy Interchange. Lower belts of scrub will be introduced to differentiate between the different internal sections.
Between Castlelambert and the R339, blocks of woodland planting and open tree planting are proposed. Sections of embankment that can be seen will be planted with scrub and scrub-grassland (30%:70%) mix.
Between R339 and L3105 a 30%:70% scrub-grassland mix, with a high proportion of hazel is proposed. Hedgerows will be planted to soften the impact between Ch. 5,350 and Ch. 5,570. Between the regional road and local road on the eastern side scrub will be planted.
From Sheeaunpark to Annagh Hill (L3105 and N63), a 90%:10% scrub- grassland mix is proposed. Low canopy woodland will be planted to the embankments supporting over-bridges. Where the Motorway cuts Annagh Hill localised low moulding will reduce the impact to the skyline. The slopes through the junction will be planted with 30%:70% scrub-grassland mix. The boundary along the realigned N63 will be planted with hedgerows.

76
From Annagh Hill to Grange River Woodland planting, hedgerows and small copses, to reflect existing planting, is proposed. A 30%:70% scrub- woodland mix will be applied where screening for receptors is required. Embankments will be planted with scrub and grassland mix.
From Grange River to Cloonkeen South a 30%:70% scrub-grassland mix will be planted along the embankments. Low canopy woodland planting and rectilinear tree planting will be introduced to break the impact of the alignment and the views for the few affected receptors. Hedgerows, scrub and woodland planting will be used to reflect the current landscape.
From Clonkeen South to Tuam significant blocks of birch and coniferous wood linking established woodland to the proposed motorway will be introduced.

Locations of significant landscape character comprise the following:

The alignment of the Motorway in the open valley;
Where the Motorway cuts the ridge at Annagh Hill; and
Severance of the demesne at Cloonkeen North

24 properties will be subject to significant visual impact following completion of construction. This will be reduced to six once the proposed planting is established.

The Motorway Scheme will have an adverse impact on the surface watercourses and on groundwater should polluted road related run-off be discharged. This could have an impact for aquatic habitats and species associated with the Lough Corrib cSAC. The drainage strategy incorporates SUDS and swales, grass channels, filter drains, balancing ponds and infiltration ponds with protective/filter bases are proposed.

The residences closest to the motorway would be subject to deterioration of air quality and increased traffic noise. These will not be significant and will not pose a risk to health or break the NRA noise level objective for new national roads. Residences living near the existing N17 will be subject to improved air quality and reduced traffic noise.

The Rathmorrissy Interchange will cause significant impact to the landscape. This has already been accounted for in the assessment for the N18.

Ms. Jenny Neff , Director and Principal Ecologist with Ecological Advisory and Consultancy Services, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to ecology issues, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

Habitat surveys included:

A detailed walkover survey in late May 2002, over a 200m-wide corridor;

77
Further surveys in the northern sections in 2005;
Habitats and vegetation types were described and mapped in accordance with ‘A Guide to Habitats in Ireland’;
Survey of areas with access denied in 2005 was facilitated by excellent recent large-scale colour vertical aerial photographs;
During the surveys attention was paid to the possible occurrence of plant species, with particular emphasis on plants listed in the Irish Red Data Book.

Fauna surveys included:

Initial survey by searching a narrow corridor in May and June 2002;
Main survey subsequently undertaken in April 2005 with additional surveys in May-July 2006. The 2005/2006 surveys were undertaken within a broader corridor 700m-wide, (i.e. 300m either side of the proposed alignment);
Bat studies undertaken from 2002 by Conor Kelleher, including mapping of potential bat roosts. Heterodyne bat detectors were employed in the survey;
Subsequent bat surveys carried out by Conor Kelleher in June and September 2007. Report from 2002 to 2007 produced. NRA guidelines were developed during the period that Conor Kelleher conducted the surveys and hence the additional surveys;
The presence of mammals indicated by their dwellings or feeding signs as well as occasional sightings;
Bird species observed were recoded and Keville and Associates surveyed the area in early 2007 to check on the status of over-wintering;
Additional information on bats was received from Dr. Kate McAney.

Habitat surveys and fauna surveys at the Rathmorrissy Interchange Service area were carried out independently by Halcow Barry.

There are no listed rare species of plant within the route of the Scheme, including those on the current Flora (Protection) Order 1999. Similarly no FPO species were found in the 2002 and 2005 surveys.

The principal habitats and areas of vegetation recorded along the proposed route include:

Catherateemore South and Rathmorrissy - low woodland dominated by hazel. Most of the scrub is dominated by gorse;
Neutral grassland, largely confined to one field located at south of the Grange River and in an area subject to flooding during winter. This comprises a mixture of plant species of varying ecological tolerances;
Small pockets of habitat were also found on re-vegetated mounds of dredged spoil on the northern banks of the Abbert River. This has

78 moderate value and is increasingly rare in Ireland owing to agricultural reclamation;
At Catherateemore South a small section of calcareous grassland on thin limestone soil is traversed by the proposed route. This is dominated by species-rich grassy vegetation with low growing hazel/blackthorn scrub. A number of interesting plants are present including spring gentian, fly orchid and limestone bedstraw. This habitat is a small area of scientific interest (i.e. it corresponds to the EU Habitats Directive Priority Annex 1 Habitat - Semi-natural dry grasslands) and is of high local importance primarily because of the species-rich associated flora;
Improved grassland is dominant along the proposed route. This is abundant throughout the country and is of low value (i.e. it is of local importance);
Marshy grassland occurs at locations along the route often near cutover raised bog. Vegetation occurs in seasonally flooded soils, is low-growing and is species-rich, dominated by sedges. Although relatively widespread this is considered moderately important and of international importance;
At Cloonkeen North and at the northern end of proposed route modified cutover raised bog occurs. Little intact surface remains, and the area is colonised by gorse scrub and various types of grassland;
There are relatively few rivers and streams along the proposed route. The most notable are the Abbert and Grange Rivers. Both rivers have been extensively dredged, as evidenced by the banks, and there is sparse and limited flora;
The Grange and Abbert Rivers are internationally important because of their inclusion in the Lough Corrib cSAC, although extensive dredging has reduced the quality somewhat;
Hedgerows occurring along the proposed route are scarce and low- growing. Most are associated with dry-stone walls and are dominated by hawthorn roughly 4-6m high. Hedgerows with ash are restricted to the southern end of the route. They are low and of occasionally moderate value;
Dry-stone limestone walls, 1 stone wide and 1 to 1.5m high, are a conspicuous feature of the landscape, and these are generally devoid of vegetation other than those associated with hedgerows.

Mammal species protected under the Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000, and present on site include otter, badger, pygmy, shrew, hedgehog, Irish hare, Irish stoat and all bat species. Most of these are common species throughout Ireland as are several bat species. Otter, badger, Irish hare, pipistrelle bats, daubenton’s bat, leisler’s bat and brown long-eared bat are considered species of conservation interest. Across Europe bats are further protected under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1983 was instigated to protect migrant species. The Irish government ratified both these Conventions. It is an offence to wilfully interfere with the breeding or resting place of these

79 species although there are limited exemptions for certain kinds of construction developments. The common lizard, common frog, smooth newt and most bird species are all protected species under the Wildlife Act (1976). Derogations from the provisions of Wildlife Acts are permitted in certain circumstances.

In relation to fauna species, the following were noted:

Irish hare are widespread and are common in the pastureland. Rabbits were observed as locally common but not widespread. Brown rat and wood mouse were also encountered. The Irish stoat is almost certainly present in this area. The pygmy shrew is frequent in grassland and meadow habitats. One hedgehog was seen in the area of the proposed slip roads, and dead hedgehogs were noted at Ch. 23,500 and at Ch. 16,800;
47 badger setts were identified in the survey area, however a small number identified in 2002 could not be found in 2005 & 2006. They may have been disused, blocked or destroyed;
Otters were observed at the Abbert, Grange, and Suileen Rivers and also at streams and drains associated with these rivers. As otters travel large distances any sightings within several hundred meters down stream or up stream would indicate their presence along the entire length of the watercourse. One potential otter bolt (dwelling) was identified within the study area 9,250m from the proposed alignment. They are protected under the Irish Wildlife Acts and the EU Habitats Directive;
Bat activity was limited due to the open landscape, the lack of woodlands and hedgerows. Two pipistrelle species were well represented and were common over the Mahanagh River. Daubenton’s bats, which forage over open water, were present at both the Abbert and Grange Rivers. Leisler’s bat was considered likely to occur as it forages over agricultural land. All are protected under the Wildlife Act (1976) and the Wildlife Amendment Act (2000) as well as the EU Habitats Directive;
No signs of squirrels or deer were noted. Signs of pine martin were seen at Rathmorrissy in 2002. Feral American Mink were observed recently but are declining in numbers;
41 avian species were recorded prior to 2007. 61 avian species were recorded during 2007.
The following EU Directive Annex 1 species were recorded: o Peregrine, one in flight, not likely to be effected by the route; o Whooper Swan, 3 in Cloonnavaddoge in mid-April to the west; o Golden Plover, flocks varying in size, at 5 separate locations to the west
The following birds of conservation concern in Ireland were noted: o Lapwing, west of the route at Cloonkeen North and Castlelambert; o Yellowhammer, at several sites along Southern route, likely to sparsely distributed throughout similar agricultural lands in the wider vicinity;

80 o Grey Partridge - a single bird likely to have been introduced by a local gun club
The common frog was present at several locations but no smooth newts were found;
The common lizard is difficult to observe but typically occurs in heather- dominated moors and was seen in Rathmorrissy. They are protected under the Wildlife Act (1976).

Halcrow Barry found that the Rathmorrissy Interchange comprised of agricultural fields of improved grassland. Field boundaries were stone walls with occasional trees. No badger signs noted but common fauna are expected to occur. The site is not subject to any conservation designation.

The following impacts were indicated:

Impact on a small area of calcareous grassland at Caherateemore South, considered moderately negative although the area has been extensively damaged by quad bikes;
Impact on a small area of hazel scrub at Ch. 5,600, considered minor to moderately negative;
Direct impact on 9 badgers setts. One of these is main active sett, though the impacts to the wider badger populations are not significant;
No impacts on the otter holts, except for short-term disturbance during construction work and slight pollution of waterways. The proposed open span bridges would provide unobstructed movement for the species in accordance with NRA guidelines;
No confirmed bat roosts were identified along the proposed route corridor. Loss of hedgerows, scrub and trees would result in a reduction of foraging areas. As the taller treelines will remain undisturbed the overall impact on the bats will be neutral or minor negative. No evidence for Lesser horsehoe bats were found and so the impact is considered negligible;
Loss of habitat would affect many mammals and would give rise to some mortality during construction. The protected species - the common shrew and the hedgehog, will be directly impacted. There are methods to protect such species. The pine martin will be affected at Rathmorrissy but this is not considered a serious concern;
The breeding grounds for frogs will be affected and will require mitigation as other areas of breeding are scarce along the route. The common lizard is not affected;
The loss of foraging and breeding habitats and the loss of scrub will lead to minor negative impacts on common species of birds;
Watercourses associated with the proposed scheme corridor provide foraging habitat for a number of species of birds, including the protected Kingfisher;
The loss of foraging habitats at ponds present at Killeeluan at the north of the site will result in minor to moderate negative impact.

81

In terms of indirect impacts, the following impacts were indicated:

Neutral or minor negative impact on surrounding agriculture, and minor negative impacts on other local habitats such as bogs, other scrub or woodland areas;
The area of terrestrial habitat to be impacted on within the cSAC is very small (i.e. 1.13 hectares of improved grasslands and 1.81 hectares of marshy grassland).
Minor habitat severance at Cloonkeen North and on the extreme eastern periphery of the cSAC;
Consultation took place with the NPWS and a screening process was undertaken in accordance with the ‘Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (Nov 2001)’. It was concluded that neither the habitats nor the species will be adversely effected by the proposed development;
It was further concluded that during the construction and operation of the proposed motorway there would be no likely significant impacts on the watercourses of the Lough Corrib cSAC or on listed Annex 1 animals;
There is no expected impact on those designated areas in the wider locality.

Halcrow Barry concluded that the main impacts on the Rathmorrissy Interchange will be associated with site clearance prior to construction, and because the habitat is improved, the impact level is minor negative. Impacts on fauna would be during construction and these are expected to relocate to the wider area.

The following mitigation measures were outlined in relation to flora:

All trees to be sourced if possible from Irish native stock;
Fencing to be placed to protect the botanically diverse shattered limestone pavement, and also the neutral grass and marsh from construction vehicles;
Grassed, steep road cutting will be seeded with native grasses and herbaceous species in accordance with NRA Guidelines ‘A Guide to Landscape Treatments for National Road Schemes’;
Mr. Ger Morgan will give evidence on mitigation measures for watercourses.

The following mitigation measures were outlined in relation to fauna:

Limiting the season of disturbance to trees and vegetation to reduce impact on breeding;
Provision for habitat replacement;
Measures to reduce pollution and sedimentation into watercourses;
Measures to protect badgers otters, bats and frogs on site.

82

In relation to the Rathmorrissy Interchange service area proposed planting would serve as mitigation to compensate for the loss of trees.

Ms. Neff stated that the residual impacts of the Scheme would be as follows:

The effects on areas of botanical significance would be minor to moderate negative;
The effects on agricultural lands and associated fauna would be neutral or minor negative;
The effects on scrub, bog and pond habitats would be minor or moderate negative;
The effects on fauna utilising watercourse habitats would be neutral or minor negative.

Procedures for implementing and monitoring mitigation measure would be detailed in the Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) for the Contract. This ensures that works comply with environmental commitments and requirements detailed in the EIS, in environmental legislation, and in any conditions and modifications imposed by An Bord Pleanála.

Ms. Neff concluded as follows:

Habitats within and neighbouring the Scheme are common throughout the region and in Ireland and are generally of low ecological interest;
The Lough Corrib cSAC is crossed in a few places but none of the habitats traversed correspond with those listed in Annex 1 of EU Habitats Directive with the exception of the small area at Caherateemore South. This area is of doubtful status due to the use of quad bikes.
There is no record or knowledge of plant species listed on the Flora Protection Order (FPO), 1999. Some cutover bog areas are of interest but the habitat is common in East Galway;
Terrestrial species of fauna including those legally protected are generally commonly occurring, with the exception of some bird species and certain bats;
The overall impacts on the fauna species would be minor negative taking account of the mitigation measures;
A schedule of additional mitigation measures would be prepared.

Mr. Ray Ryan , qualified town planner and Principal of Brian Meehan & Associates, Planning Consultants, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to strategic land use and transport planning issues, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

The Scheme is supported by range of planning sources such as the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), 2002-2020, and the Regional Planning

83 Guidelines for the West Region, 2004 and it is supported in the Government’s Capital Investment Program, as set out under ‘Transport 21’;
The Scheme will improve traffic and travel times between the west and the adjoining mid-west and border regions and will link with the following strategic routes: M6, N18, N17;
The Scheme will improve the linkages between Galway city, Tuam and the wider rural hinterland thus enhancing the potential of these areas and employment opportunities. The objective of the Council is to facilitate the N17 as stated in the section 3.4 of the County Development Plan and this involves the construction of a dual carriageway between Galway and Tuam;
The Rathmorrissy Service Area delivers important NRA policy and promotes sustainable land use and transportation planning principals in relation to provision of retail and other services to motorists.

Mr. Ryan stated that the overall impact of the Scheme, in terms of strategic land use and transport planning, is significant and positive. In terms of economy and employment the Scheme would contribute to economic growth and employment generation in the area. There will be negative impact on existing business along the N17 route as a result of reduced traffic and associated reduced trade.

The reduction in traffic in Claregalway can be assessed by the negative environmental impacts of the existing traffic on the town. The proposed motorway will have a positive impact.

The ribbon development pattern along the N17 will be reduced and the Scheme will be of significant benefit in terms of increased road safety, improved access to local services and improved environmental quality generally. The proposed Rathmorrissy service area will provide jobs and will give rise to a slight positive impact on local employment. Overall the proposed motorway will give rise to moderate beneficial impact for the general area.

In relation to Community Impact and Severance, Mr. Ryan pointed to the following:

The crossing at L7137 will be replaced with a new connection at L3106 but this will increase travel distance to the north, by approximately 2km. Journeys are not made on foot and so the impact on pedestrian movement will not be significant;
The proposed motorway will close access along the N63 and will benefit the local residents and the school in terms of reduced traffic volumes. However it will sever pedestrian access for any children living west of the proposed route who currently walk to school. It should be noted that in March 2008 no children walked to school, due to the dangerous nature of the road;

84
The overall community severance will be slight with overall potential locally significant impact at Annagh Hill.

The existing N17 has a poor safety record and the motorway will improve this. Some properties will have increased noise, visual impact and impacts on general amenities. One resident will have to be removed but this person will be in a position to make a claim for compensation through the CPO procedure.

Mr. Ryan concluded that the overall local and transport benefits would outweigh the negative local impacts. The Scheme is designed to minimise impact on the local human environment and includes measure to mitigate landscape, air quality & climate, noise & vibration, material assets and disruption due to construction activities.

Mr. Piers Sadler , Technical Director in hydrogeology at Mouchel, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to hydrogeology and hydrology aspects, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

In relation to hydrogeology:

The southern zone consists of gently undulating low lying limestone plateau 30-80m in height above sea level;
The northern zone consists of low lying plains and peat bog 30-50m in height above sea level.

In relation to hydrology (i.e. surface water):

The southern half of the route is devoid of surface water except for small number of ephemeral ponds;
The surface water features of the northern half of the route are the Grange and Abbert Rivers. The current surface water drainage network is artificial as these rivers were realigned in the 19 th century and also in the 1960s;
The River Clare is an artificial waterway with pre-existing lakes, turloughs, springs and short lengths of river. The nearest turlough is 3km west of proposed road alignment.

The solid geology underlying the proposed route consists solely of carboniferous limestones of the Burren and Lucan formations. These two limestone formations could not be distinguished by the Mouchel geologists.

In terms of quaternary geology, drift deposits overlie the bedrock with typical thickness up to 20m. In the Abbert River valley the drift is at least 30m thick.

In terms of hydrogeology the following applies:

85
Glacial till deposits are present in the southern region with hydraulic conductivities ranging from 1x10 -6 to 4x10 -7 m/s, suggesting the drift would be a poor aquifer;
In karst terrain the flow direction of the groundwater is difficult to determine;
At Sheeanpark Hill the cutting is below the water table;
Karst features were identified by aerial photographs and by close inspection of 1:50000 Ordnance Survey maps and include caves, sinking streams, closed depressions and limestone pavements. Springs are believed to feed the nearest turlough and known water sometimes emerges as springs. Water disappears into the Ballyglunin Cave system 2km east of the Scheme and remerges at Aucloggen spring at 10km west of the Scheme;
There are a small number of wells and boreholes in the vicinity of the route particularly in the Tuam and Corrofin areas. Door-to-door enquiries showed that private water supplies were not found as houses are supplied through mains water;
Groundwater is of good quality although it may be prone to contamination of an agricultural nature;
Septic tanks are common along the proposed route and bedrock and high water tables mean that local pollution may occur. There are no known areas of land contamination such as landfills or historical industrial sites.

Mr. Sadler considered the main potential impacts to be contamination of water and derogation of water supplies. The impact of the road on natural recharge will be minimal as the surface area is small and run-off discharged will be recharged by rainfall. There are no potential risks to turloughs or wetlands. There are no geological protected sites in the area.

During the construction phase the groundwater quality will be at risk, and the vulnerability of the aquifer will be increased in some areas. During the cutting process between Ch. 4,900 and Ch. 5,900 the groundwater levels will be lowered.

During the operation phase the main impacts are spillages or contamination from road run-off. Possible types of contaminants are trace metals, organic particulates from vehicles, and chemicals associated with road management & maintenance. All run-off from Ch. 0-18,300 will be collected and discharged to infiltration ponds which discharge to groundwater. There is a risk of moderate impact as continuous road run-off will provide a continuous source of potential contaminants into the drainage system.

Spillages from crashes will be a moderate impact because the likelihood is low and is mainly localised. However it could be a significant impact if it affected local wells or boreholes.

86 In order to mitigate the impacts SUDS-type pre-treatment facilities will be installed to protect the infiltration basins. Good motorway design and provisions for spillages will protect water resources.

Mr. Gerard Morgan , Manager of the Aquatic Services Unit, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to water quality and fisheries aspects, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

All drainage channels within the study area have been modified recently or in the more distant past through arterial drainage works like the River Clare drainage system. Such works have the potential to degrade the habitat for fish and Annex II species. However, the Grange and Abbert Rivers have thriving salmonid fish populations, which are important for the Clare River. Electrofishing surveys in Spring 2007 confirmed the presence of healthy salmon and trout within the crossing stretches.

The smaller channels were generally unsuitable for salmon but included numerous sticklebacks. No lampreys were found even though suitable habitation was encountered. One of the small streams revealed numerous lamprey ammocoete (juvenile lamprey). Surprisingly, neither the Abbert nor the Grange Rivers revealed any white-clawed crayfish, despite suitable habitat and water quality (it is possible that a very low-density population could have been overlooked). The conditions suitable for Pearl Mussel were not realised at any of the watercourses. The water quality is slightly polluted but is adequate to maintain healthy stocks of salmonid fish, lamprey and crayfish.

The proposed project includes open span bridges across the Grange & Abbert Rivers, and 3 culverts to convey the carriageway over the Suileen River and two other minor watercourses.

The main construction phase impacts include the following:

Run-off of suspended solids from the construction site;
The smothering of stream bed habitats. Smothering of spawning gravels (especially on the Abbert River) could adversely affect the potential for recruitment of salmon and trout in the affected sections;
Heavy sedimentation which could be damaging to the white-clawed crayfish habitat, although the species appear to be absent;
Accidental discharge of bulk liquid cement or oil thus increasing the potential for large fish kills and a rise in the pH of the watercourse.

The main operational phase impacts include the following:

87
Traffic-associated contaminants including suspended solids, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons all giving rise to sedimentation as well as persistent toxins to streambed sediments;
Poorly designed bridges and culverts with the potential to impede two-way passage of fish.

All contractors on the scheme will be required to draw up a method statement outlining the measures to be adopted during construction to ensure watercourses will not be adversely impacted upon. A designated member of the construction team will be in charge of all pollution prevention mitigation measures and monitoring.

Mr. Morgan outlined the main mitigation measures for the construction phase as follows:

Bridges will be single span and the base will be below the level of the riverbed, so as not to impede fish movement. Culverts will be similarly designed;
The Western Regional Fisheries Board will be informed in advance about the design of bridges & culverts. By-pass channels constructed during the insertion of culverts will be lined with geotextile or otherwise stabilised;
All in-stream works will be undertaken in May to September to avoid the spawning period of salmon and trout;
Lamprey in the small stream in Cloonkeen North will be removed from that portion and re-located upstream of the works (i.e. to be supervised by personal from the National Parks & Wildlife Service [NPWS] or to be approved by them);
Construction sites will be managed to reduce suspended solids wash-off to a minimum risk;
Construction vehicles will only cross watercourses on temporary bridging structures built from materials that do not leach toxins or fine solids into watercourses;
All water discharged from site will be treated with sedimentation to minimise suspended solids;
All concrete will be cured for a suitable period of time before being exposed to watercourses;
All concrete batching will be completed >50m from the nearest watercourse, it will be bunded and all run-off will be collected and treated before discharge;
Re-fuelling will not take place close to watercourses and all fuel storage will be >100m from the nearest watercourse. Any water will be directed to a full-retention, Class A Interceptor before discharge.

Mr. Morgan outlined the main mitigation measures for the operational phase as follows:

88
All road drainage will be filtered through a combination of swales, grassed strips, filter drains and finally settlement ponds before discharge to watercourses;
Settlement ponds will be preceded by oil interceptors where sealed drains are used in the drainage catchment. The ponds will have by-pass channels to prevent discharge of accumulated silt;
Due to flooding in part of the route around Cloonkeen North the proposed ponds cannot now be used because they would flood during flood events.

Mr. Morgan concluded that residual impacts would not be significant as long as the mitigation measures were followed carefully and monitored.

Mr. Eoin Collins , Senior Environmental Consultant with AWN Consulting, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to air quality and climate, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

Mr. Collins used the “Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality during the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes”, prepared by the NRA. The baseline air quality was extensively assessed by air quality measurements at sensitive locations close to the proposed development, by analysis of representative EPA monitoring data for the region and by comprehensive air dispersion modelling of the existing road infrastructure.

During the operational phase the local air quality impacts were outlined as follows:

The predicted concentrations of CO, Benzene, NO 2, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 were below their respective limit with levels ranging from 7-38% of respective limit values;
In relation to CO impacts, the concentration at one receptor will decrease by >2% of the limit value whilst the levels at the remaining 27 receptors will remain essentially unchanged, meaning negligible impact;
Benzene concentrations will not increase or decrease by >2% at any of the receptors and the impact is therefore negligible;
PM10 concentration will increase by >2% of the annual limit value at 4 receptors whilst the remaining 24 will remain unchanged. The impact of the road means alight adverse effect on one receptor but negligible impact at the other 27 receptors;
The PM 2.5 concentration will increase by >2% of the limit value at 5 receptors and the impact at the remaining 23 receptors will remain unchanged;
The NO 2 concentrations will increase by >2% of annual limit value at 9 receptors whilst the impact at the remaining 18 receptors will remain essentially unchanged.

89 In summary, the levels of traffic-derived air pollutants will not exceed the ambient air quality standards in either 2012 or 2032. The Scheme may increase ambient concentrations for some pollutants although levels will still be within ambient air quality limit values.

The impact of air quality on sensitive ecosystems showed the following:

The NO x imission levels (Lough Corrib cSAC) show that the predicted annual average level at the Grange and Abbert River crossings is below the limit value of 30 µg/m 3 for both the “do minimum” and “do something” scenarios in the years 2012 and 2032;
The maximum predicted NO 2 dry deposition rate reaches only 13% of the critical load for inland and surface water habitats;
For the operational phase, the predicted results for NO x and VOCs indicate that the impact of the proposed road on national emission levels is insignificant. The predicted impact is to increase the NO x level by <0.19% of the NO x emissions ceiling and to increase VOC levels by <0.014% of the VOC emissions ceiling to be complied with in 2010;
The increase in CO 2 emissions will be <0.08% of Ireland’s Kyoto Target for the period 2008-12. Therefore the impact of the proposed road on national greenhouse gas emissions will be insignificant in terms of Ireland’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol;
During the construction phase the proposed road development is likely to produce dust emissions though these can be mitigated as follows: o Site vehicles will have their speeds restricted to 20 kph; o Vehicles exiting the site will make use of a wheel wash facility; o Material handling systems and site stockpiling will be designed to have minimum exposure to the wind; o Water misting or sprays will be used if required to reduce dust during dusty activities; o During movement of materials with potential dust generation trucks will be enclosed or covered; o A liaison officer will be appointed to provide a point of contact with local residents and deal with any concerns; and o Site roads will be regularly cleaned and maintained.
During the operational phase the impacts on air quality will be mitigated by ensuring free flowing traffic to reduce traffic emissions. This will lead to emissions being less than built up areas due to lack of stop-start driving. The proposed motorway will redirect traffic away from built up areas, which are highly populated, and pollutant levels in Claregalway will decrease by 16% of the limit values.

Mr. Collins concluded as follows:

90
The ambient concentrations of CO, Benzene, NO 2, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 at the 28 worst-case sensitive receptors will be within the ambient air quality standards in the opening year;
Compared to baseline conditions in the opening year the levels will decrease or remain low in future years as result of legislation-driven technical improvements;
The impact of the road on CO and Benzene levels is negligible, on PM 10 is slight adverse at 1 location, on PM 2.5 is slight adverse at 3 locations, and on NO 2 is slight adverse at 4 locations. The impacts at all the other locations are negligible;
The predicted annual average NO x imission levels at the Grange and Abbert River crossings is below the limit value of 30 µg/m 3. Maximum predicted NO 2 reaches only 13% of the critical load for inland and surface water habitats;
The NO x and VOC emission levels are insignificant;
Greenhouse gas emissions will be insignificant in terms of Ireland’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol;
The levels of dust emissions will be mitigated through the implementation of a dust minimisation plan.

Mr. William Martin , a self-employed agricultural consultant, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to impact of the proposed Scheme on agriculture, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

The proposed road is circa 25.5km in length and results in a land take of circa 202 Ha from 115 holdings;
Each farm was visited and details were obtained particularly on land owned and rented; land use; milk quota; farm enterprise; general livestock numbers; buildings and services;
One farm is presently being developed at a stud farm. Planning permission for development was approved after publication of the EIS and this farm was reassessed;
Turbary Rights and historical land commission records were researched initially to obtains names of those who may have the right to cut and spread turf in Killeelaun Bog area (i.e. Folio Numbers 35426F, 60590F, 5484F and 39341 in the Land Registry);
Two persons have written to the Council advising of their interest in commonage bog and seeking compensation;
In relation to the land through which the road passes, circa 3,539 hectares are farmed, of which circa 3,253 ha are owned and circa 286 ha are rented;
Farm size ranges from 1.34 ha to 101 ha. Approximately 47% of the farms are <20ha with a further 28.7% <40ha. The average farm size is 28.3 ha;
The land type varies in quality from excellent mineral soils, to rock outcrop, to bog peat soil types, and is mainly in permanent grassland used for grazing, silage and hay production;

91
Cattle farming is practiced on almost ¾ of the subject lands with 6 active dairy farms along the route. Most farms operate mixed farming and approximately 18% of the farms affected by the route are let. Some 23 farmers operate horse enterprises and 37 operate sheep enterprises;
Some 53.04% (61 holdings) are farmed full-time, 28.70% (33 holdings) are part-time and 18.26% (21 holdings) are leased;
Some 49 farmers participate in REPS which represents 50.5% of the total number of active farmers along the proposed route and the proposed Scheme will not impact upon them.

Mr. Martin outlined the impacts of the proposed Scheme on agricultural lands as follows:

Some 202ha of land will be taken and some 251ha will be severed;
Profound impacts arise where there is large land loss (i.e. as a proportion of land owned) and/or where there is a substantial area of land severed and where the potential for access and mitigation measures are limited;
Significant impacts arise where there is a significant level of land take and/or where there are severed lands where access and mitigation measures are feasible or where the land severed is small. This may give rise to significant disturbance to the operation of the farm, which is likely to require change in management practices;
Moderate impacts occur where loss of land and severed plots are moderate and where the operation of the holding can continue with some change in management practices;
Slight impacts arise where the land take is close to the farm boundary and where disturbance to farming is minimal;
Profound impact does not arise in any holding, significant impact will arise in 18 holdings, moderate impact will arise in 49 holdings, and slight impact will arise in 48 holdings;
The total land take is 6.2% of the land holdings and this will have a moderate impact on retained lands. The majority of holdings will lose <1ha, with 83 losing <2ha and with 32 losing >2ha. Land take is mainly good quality land with a small amount of bog and rough land. The impact on the majority of holdings will be slight and the land taken can be replaced with purchase or rental of other lands;
Some farms will have problems with access to severed plots and difficulties with irregular field shapes, but production should not be affected to a significant level. Access will be provided to severed lands as part of proposed Scheme. With the compensation available landowners should be able to adjust and restructure their farm operations;
Turbary rights will impact on an area of 4.11ha within 15 separate turbary rights interest holdings. Holders will suffer the loss of the right to cut turf under the footprint of the new road. Access will be maintained through existing roads.
Temporary disturbance during the construction phase will include:

92 o Disruption of access to severed lands; o Disruption of water and other services; o Impact of noise, which could be significant in the immediate vicinity. Noise will have an effect on cattle and horses particularly from blasting and piling (i.e. sudden sounds); o Dust creation from the construction site could cause significant irritation to livestock and reduce palatability of grass and hay.
Permanent disturbance will include: o Increased difficulty in working severed lands o The impact of traffic noise. This impact should be negligible as shown by the impact of new road schemes such as the N7 and N8 where livestock have acclimatised easily.

Mr. Martin outlined the mitigation measures as follows:

Provision of suitable access to severed lands;
Culverting of Rivers and streams to maintain the flow of water to lands where ground levels permit;
Where land drainage is interrupted it will be connected to the new road drainage system;
Payment of compensation to landowners to allow for replacement of facilities;
Provision of boundary fencing with timber post and rail with wire mesh;
Installation of stud-type fencing where required with particular care to rounding off tight angles to fields;
During the construction phase: o Providing temporary access to severed lands; o Minimising the duration of road closures and diversions; o Noise control measures; o Dust minimisation measures; o Reinstatement of land acquired temporarily to facilitate construction; and o Advance notice of blasting or piling to farmers with livestock
The overall impact on 18 farms will be significant, on 40 farms will be moderate and a further 48 farms will be slightly affected. No farm will be profoundly affected.

Ms. Musetta O’Leary , Co-ordinator, Sheila Lane & Associates, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to archaeology, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

The work carried out included a desktop study, questionnaires completed by the landowners and close inspection of various maps. Six archaeologists completed walkover surveys throughout 2005, 2006 and 2007;

93
60 recorded archaeological sites are located within 1km of the route corridor and these have statutory protection under the National Monuments Acts, 1930-2004. However the proposed Motorway Scheme will not affect them.
7 features of local cultural heritage interest were identified within the route corridor.

Ms. O’Leary outlined the mitigation measures as follows:

Testing of four potential archaeological sites to ascertain their true nature;
7 features of local cultural heritage interest to be preserved by record;
16 cultural heritage sites located either within the CPO line and/or within 5.6m from the edge of the preferred scheme will be cordoned off and preserved in situ;
Intensive archaeological testing in the environs of potential sites (i.e. CHS 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21);
Underwater archaeological assessment to be carried out in consultation with the scheme’s Project Archaeologist and under license from the National Monuments Service of the DEHLG on all rivers affected;
Extensive archaeological testing to be undertaken throughout the entire route corridor ahead of construction to give time to take ameliorative action if needed;
Consideration of strategies for the preservation in situ of archaeological remains on a case-by-case basis.

Ms. O’Leary pointed out that the proposed Motorway Service station (i.e. MSA) will not impact on any recorded archaeological site. However, it will have slight impact on one feature identified in the N18 EIS as an area of low archaeological significance. This will require testing and full excavation if required.

Mr. John Cronin , town planner and building conservation consultant, circulated a Brief of Evidence and gave evidence on behalf of Galway County Council in relation to architectural heritage, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

The assessment demonstrated that the proposed road scheme would not give rise to profound or significant impacts on the Architectural Heritage interests in the area. There would be moderate to slight impact on a small number of features, all of which have been assessed as being of local or “record-only” value. Subject to the recording and re-construction of demesne walls (i.e. which have been proposed in mitigation of predicted impacts) it can be concluded that the proposed Scheme will not involve significant impacts on the architectural heritage. The proposed service area will not give rise to any likely or significant impacts either.

Mr. Keane then withdrew a number of plots from the CPO including Gabriel Lardner (CPO No. 249); Patrick Stephens (CPO No. 222); John Mannion, (no

94 CPO Number but was referred to in Mr. Martin’s Brief of Evidence as the person who had turbury rights); and Anthony Freeney (CPO No. 190).

The Inspector questioned Ms O’Leary on the tables with reference to the various Maps in relation to the location of archaeological features.

The Inspector referred to a number if issues in relation to which he would be seeking to cross-examine the witnesses for the Council at a future stage. These issues included:

The impact of the proposed on-site wastewater treatment plant on the aquifer underlying the Motorway Services Area (MSA). He did not appear to have detailed information in relation to the issues such as the population equivalent of the proposed wastewater treatment scheme and details on any tests carried out to address groundwater impact;
Clarification on how the proposed foundation levels could be indicated given that the Scheme would be delivered as a DB arrangement, and given that final design would be up to the Contractor;
The issue of the lighting at the 3 junctions and proposed measures to mitigate light pollution;
A description or a detail on the type of fencing proposed;
The purpose of the emergency lay-bys at Ch. 15,300-15,700;
Information on the residential property that needs to be acquired;
The relevance of the removal of Plot Nos. 109d.201 and 224f.201
Information on the capacity of the different road types and annual percentage increase in traffic;
Details on the proposed height of the noise barriers and whether this issue was down to the Contractor or not;
An explanation as to what was meant by Ms. Neff when she stated that access was prevented at a more appropriate survey season;
The separation distance between the base of the infiltration ponds and ground water levels and in particular what will happen to the ground water between Ch. 4,900 and 5,900;
The safe separation distance of blasting from housing.

DAY 3 OF THE ORAL HEARING (25 th April 2008)

The Inspector cross examined a number of witnesses for the Council in relation to the Motorway Scheme. He asked Mr. Edwards how the Scheme promoter could dictate what foundation levels would apply in relation to platforms on soft soils and/or infiltration ponds given that the Contract would be placed on a Design/Build basis.

Mr. Edwards stated that mandatory requirements would be placed on the designers and contractors to comply with certain criteria. In terms of infiltration

95 ponds, specific requirements and/or trigger levels and/or thresholds to be achieved in relation to infiltration rates, would be set out. The bearing platform will be made, either through excavation of peat material or by piling to produce a stable embankment to build the road on.

In response to the Inspector’s further questions Mr. Edwards gave the following clarifications:

Full cut-off lantern sodium lighting (i.e. as in the NRA specification and guidelines) will be used. There is an example of this type of lighting in Tuam presently;
The timber fencing could comprise post and either three-rail or four-rail fencing. It was most likely to be timber post and four-rail fencing;
The lay-bys between Ch. 15,300 and 15,700 are “Garda Enforcement Lay- bys” and are a requirement of the Gardai. They consist of a barrier at the front entrance, a small island running along the motorway and they are provided with a safety barrier;
The properties at 64A, 64B, 64C and the cottage will all need to be removed;
The reason behind the removal of plots 109D to 201 and 224F from the Second Schedule Part 2 was following the discovery that there was planning application standing on them. The designers were in a position to refine the design at the locations in question without affecting the extant planning permissions while not compromising any aspect of safety. The acquisition of these plots was then removed.

In response to the Inspector, Ms. Loughnane-Moran went through the listed views, as follows:
There is one listed view at the church ruins south of the N63 and the view from all around it in a rough circle.
The second is Tuam High Cross in the centre of Tuam.
There were a further two views in the EIS: o The crest of Knockma; and o The crest of Knockroe.
The impact of the new road would be negligible because there are already views of the existing traffic on the N17.

In response to the Inspector, Ms. Harmon clarified that the environmental noise barriers proposed were timber acoustic barriers which have been used throughout the country. Ms. Harmon explained that the different heights of the environmental noise barriers in the Table were predominantly a matter of geometrics and the level of attenuation required in each case.

Mr. Keane gave an assurance that the low noise road surface would be a term of the Contract. This is one of the proposed mitigation measures that is being put forward to the Board. The low noise road surface is a thin surface core system as

96 set out in Section 942 of the DMRB as adopted by the NRA. It is generally referred to as a low noise road surface.

In response to the Inspector, Mr. Wallace clarified that the annual percentage increase in traffic adopted was 1.5% per annum compound, based on national projections of growth. This would give rise to a 33% growth (i.e. to a figure of 37,400 vehicles per day) between the opening year and the design year, 2032. He indicated that the annual percentage increase over the last 10 years had been about 5% on the current N17. Mr. Wallace pointed out that, even if the annual growth was 5% the road would still achieve a level of service D, which is the design criteria.

He clarified that for a level of service D, the maximum traffic volumes on commuter routes are as follows:

Single carriageway road: 15,000 vehicles per day;
Dual carriageway is approximately 55,000 vehicles per day; and
Dual two-lane motorway is approximately 72,200 vehicles per day. Mr Wallace stated that the threshold for a level of service C is around 55,000.

The projected traffic volume at the end of the design period at an annual compound increase of 1.5% is 37,400 vehicles per day. If the actual increase was 5% compound the projected traffic volume at the end of the design period would be 71,000 and this is within the range of level of service D.

In response to the Inspector, Ms. Neff clarified that that access was denied to lands to carry out some surveys at the optimal time for such surveys. In relation to the red listed species recorded the references to BOCCI in Newton 1999 and Lynes 2007 related to Birds of Conservation Concern Ireland. Extra criteria for red listing included the following:
Lapwing: a decline in breeding population ≥ 50% over a period of 25 years;
Yellow hammer: also decline in breeding population;
Grey partridge: also a decline in breeding, though this has been noted as historical over a 100 year period.

In response to the Inspector, Mr. Sadlier explained that infiltration tests were carried out on every settlement pond, that the infiltration rates are known and that the ground conditions have sufficient permeability to allow for the required infiltration. In relation to the impact to the groundwater Mr. Sadler confirmed that the infiltration rates and permeability were sufficient but there were issues with high water table.

Mr. Eric Spronck intervened and explained that the design of the infiltration systems was guided by the BRE (Building Research Establishment) in the UK. He

97 clarified that the base of the infiltration systems should be 1m above the maximum groundwater level.

Mr. Sadler explained that the road cuts into the hill at an elevation of about 55m above datum between Ch. 4,900 and 5,900. Dealing with groundwater should not be a big problem, as long as it was planned for. This is essentially a construction problem rather than an environmental one. Mr. Sadler explained that the groundwater management systems will all be passive. They will consist of channels/french drains to ensure the escape of the groundwater. There are no identified wells in the area or anywhere near the road.

In relation to the proposed on-site wastewater treatment system for the Motorway Service Area (MSA), Mr. Sadler explained that, given the very shallow ground water and thin drift, there were reduced opportunities for attenuation of contaminants. This means that any discharge must be acceptable before it is discharged.

In response to the Inspector, Mr. Collins explained the slight adverse results from the gas tests carried out and pointed out the locations in question. He confirmed, as stated in his ‘Brief of Evidence’, that the new road would give rise to a net increase in CO 2 emissions of 0.083%. He stated that this was an insignificant increase and a significant figure would be around 10% of national emissions of CO 2.

In response to the Inspector, Ms. O’Leary explained that initial surveys were carried out in 2002. Following changes to the route more surveys were needed in 2005 but Ms. O’Leary was refused access to lands in the Castlelambert area. This area was subsequently surveyed in 2006. More surveys were carried out in 2007 to ensure that the sites surveyed in 2002 were still impacted by the route.

Mr. Gaynor cross-examined Mr. Reid in relation to the scrub and grassland planting as this issue will be left open to the Contractor. Mr. Reid explained that the rough outlines were a basis for the detailed design but that specific details will be left open to the Contractor. Along different sections of the road different needs will be addressed. The scrub planting will include specimens of hazel, willow and hawthorn, which offer dense growth. Mr. Reid pointed out that the promoting authority could put in certain requirements that the Contractor would have to adhere to.

Mr. Dore cross-examined Mr. Reid in relation to the types of noise barriers which would fit best into the receiving environment from a landscape perspective. Mr. Reid explained the two options available:

The timber barrier referred to earlier; and
A low earth berm with a timber barrier on top.

98 Mr. Reid recognised the need for planting to the barriers in the rural setting so they would not be seen after some time, for the benefit of the people who live nearby.

Mr. Dore then referred to the Galway City Outer Bypass Oral Hearing where it was decided that an earth barrier blended in best. Mr. Reid countered this by pointing out that all landscapes are different and what was right for Galway City might not be right for this Scheme. The second option combined both earth works and timber structures.

Mr. Dore queried whether a stone or concrete block barrier would be acceptable within the existing environment. Mr. Reid considered that concrete block would not be in keeping; a stone wall might be in keeping but a timber fence would probably be better particularly as it was being covered with planting. Mr. Reid acknowledged that there was more stone than timber fencing in the area but that the type of fencing was not important given that it will be covered with planting.

Mr. Reid explained that along the boundary of the motorway the standard treatment was timber post and rail fencing. People have been replacing stone walls with timber post and rail fencing throughout the area. Hedgerows are popular throughout the area too, and they have been incorporated into the Scheme to help mask the timber rail fencing. To consider incorporating stone walls there would have to be a high percentage of them throughout the existing countryside. While there are many nearby there were not enough to justify that approach here.

In response to the Inspector, Mr. Reid clarified that responsibility for the upkeep of the fences along the motorway (i.e. along the main line) rested with the promoting authority. The fences along the boundaries adjacent to the other roads are to be maintained by the adjoining landowner.

In response to Mr. Dore, Mr. Reid indicated that he was not in a position to comment on the implications of the removal of stone walls on the rural environment protection scheme (REPS). For winter screening, low dense scrub planting provides an effective screen, with percentages of evergreen in the mix varying from 20-30% up to 50%.

Mr. Larkin cross-examined Mr. Reid in relation to the height of the noise barriers. Mr. Reid pointed out that the Contractor will be required to deliver mitigation that meets the goal as specified. The heights indicated are the minimum that will be required to achieve the design goal. It is up to the Contractor to determine the final height of the barriers but it is unlikely they will increase the heights.

Mr. Costello cross-examined Mr. Reid in relation to why pine will only be used in some locations and why all year round screening is not needed at all locations. Mr. Reid explained that the Scheme had been designed to try and make the road

99 appear as part of the current landscape and that in some areas pine is not in keeping. There are large coniferous plantations at either end of the corridor and scots pine could be incorporated there.

Mr. Costelloe explained that there is a 100% penalty for the removal of stone walls in the rural environment protection scheme (REPS). Mr. Keane countered by explaining any lands purchased by the local authority and any changes made will not affect the farmer’s REPS cheque.

Mr. Sweetman then cross-examined Mr. Reid in relation to Photograph No. 11, on Figure 12 in Volume 2 of the EIS, and asked what type of road boundary was proposed. Mr. Reid explained that it would be a boundary fence with scrub and hedgerow planting. Mr. Reid accepted that there was no post and rail fencing or scrub in the picture. Mr. Sweetman continued by stating Policy 146 in the County Development Plan: “ Maintain and enhance the natural heritage and amenity of the county by promoting and encouraging the preservation and retention of woodlands, individual trees, groups of trees, hedgerows, stone walls, and wetlands .” Mr. Reid explained that the barriers selected by the design and build (DB) Contractor would have to be consistent with the County Development Plan.

Mr. Reid confirmed that there may be different designs for the noise barriers and the tallest wooden noise barrier would be 3.5m, and that due to its visual impact scrub and hedgerow planting will be used to soften its visual impact. Mr. Sweetman did not believe that blackthorn would cover the noise barrier and asked Mr. Reid for the rate of growth of blackthorn in the area. Mr. Reid explained that the rate of growth will vary from place to place but in the first 5 years it could be about 1m high then in the next 5 years it could grow between 1.5 to 2.5 additional metres.

Mr. Sweetman asked why Mr. Reid had not considered the Claregalway Development Plan given that the proposed motorway was going to relieve traffic going through Claregalway. Mr. Reid explained that they looked at the various impacts resulting from the proposed Scheme. These were reviewed in terms or interactions. However that did not require them to read the various Development Plans associated with the neighbouring road corridor.

Mr. Sweetman referred to Sections 18.1.2 and 18.1.3 in the EIS (i.e. page 250) and asked how far away Loch Corrib cSAC was. Mr. Reid indicated that it was some kilometres to the west, and that the actual cSAC was extended some 12 months ago.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Reid to explain the implications for water abstraction. Mr Reid stated that if the aquifer becomes polluted then it will affect the quality of water being abstracted.

100 Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Reid where the nearest Turlough was located. Mr. Reid stated that it was 2-3 km to the west of the corridor. Mr. Sweetman then asked how the turlough was hydrologically connected to the site, with reference to the interactions. Mr. Reid referred back to Mr. Sadler’s evidence and stated that, on the basis of the proposed drainage system in the preliminary design, there was no potential for such pollution and therefore such an interaction would not arise.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Reid what was meant by the statement: “The classification of the aquifer-bearing limestone.” Mr. Reid explained that if limestone formed the base rock then water will percolate down into it and cause fissures and voids to be formed. This is called karstification. Mr. Sweetman asked about potential problems with karstification. Mr. Reid assured Mr. Sweetman that if the drainage scheme is effective then this problem will not occur.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the area of peat in the northern end of the corridor and the potential of that mixing with water and dissolving the limestone. Mr. Reid accepted that it would cause a reaction and dissolve the limestone if it came in contact with it. He also explained that the water will be collected and discharged directly to local watercourses, so there would be no infiltration at that location.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Reid to confirm what the noise mitigation measures will be. Mr. Reid repeated that it will be an environmental barrier mostly likely wood, or a combination of earth mounding and wood with scrub and hedgerow planting to mitigate potential visual impact. Mr. Reid acknowledged that there was more wind exposure in Ireland than where he lived in the south of Liverpool in England.

In response to Mr. Sweetman, Mr. Reid agreed that some agricultural areas would lose their shelter with the removal of stone walls but some open areas would achieve shelter with the proposed planting scheme, and overall a balance would be achieved.

Mr. Sweetman stated that some of the planting scheme suggested would not grow correctly in Ireland, and would be unsuitable for the surrounding landscape. Mr. Reid explained that the planting to be selected would be dependant on the surrounding area and that it will be the responsibility of the landscape designer, who will be employed by the DB Contractor, to ensure this.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Morgan to confirm that there are no watercourses in the study area suitable for margaretifera (i.e. freshwater pearl mussel) and that no species inhabit the rivers. Mr. Morgan explained that Ms. Evelyn Moorkens carried out a detailed survey of the records of margaretifera throughout the country and the 10km squares in which she found them did not coincide with the study area. In relation to how the rivers were surveyed Mr. Morgan explained that he performed kick samples and also visually assessed the rivers. He commented

101 on the fact that the river was drained several times over the last 50 years and that made the chances of having freshwater pearl mussels very slim.

The Inspector asked about the likelihood of finding freshwater pearl mussels from a kick test. Mr Morgan admitted that it was very low but that he would have seen them visually and that the conditions were not right for them as they require very specific conditions.

In response to Mr. Sweetman’s questions on the white-clawed crayfish Mr. Morgan explained that they were present up-stream and down-stream of the road but not where the road crosses. Mr. Morgan performed kick sampling, manual searches and trapping to discover there were not there. He also mentioned that they could occur because the conditions are suitable but he did not find any.

Mr. Sweetman asked for details of the mitigation measures to protect the crayfish downstream and what proof there was that these measures would work, and who would monitor them. Mr. Morgan suggested that the Contractor could appoint a member of the construction team to oversee the performance of each of the mitigation measures. Mr. Keane stated that Galway County Council’s representative(s) would be monitoring the works. Mr. Sweetman checked if the results from the monitoring would be freely available and Mr. Keane said that he would look into this and get specific instructions on the method of dissemination of the information.

Mr. Gaynor asked Mr. Ryan why he commented heavily on the impact on flora and fauna in his report but stated very little in relation to human impacts, and why these aspects were missing from his comments in terms of the road impacts. Mr. Keane pointed out that the human impact was incorporated in many sections of the EIS and that if Mr. Ryan had included them all it would have made that section larger than the flora and fauna section.

Mr. Gaynor then suggested to Mr. Ryan that gave the impression in his Report that everyone affected by the road can make a claim for compensation through the CPO procedures. Mr. Ryan explained that he did not mean to convey that impression that and there is an error in the Report on page 5, second last paragraph (i.e. it should not give the impression that everyone is invited to make a claim).

Mr. Sweetman continued to cross-examine Mr. Ryan, by asking how Mr. Ryan assessed the affect on human beings on the ground. Mr. Ryan explained that he undertook a desktop survey and then visited the route corridor more than once to ascertain the community severance issues, etc. Mr. Sweetman asked how the local school would be effected by the proposed road and who Mr. Ryan spoke to at the school. Mr. Ryan confirmed that children who walk to the school will have to walk an extra 3.5km. When he was assessing the school he talked to the principal

102 and was informed that no-one currently walks or cycles to school. Mr. Keane pointed out that this issue is mentioned in Section 6.5.28, Volume 1 of the EIS.

Mr. Dore then cross-examined Mr. Edwards and Mr. Martin together and asked what the maximum height of an accommodation underpass to be installed in the embankment at Ch. 6,000 without the floor of the underpass being under the existing ground level. Mr. Edwards responded that 4.5m was an accurate estimation.

Mr. Dore then asked Mr. Martin to confirm that he was the valuer acting on behalf of Galway County Council for the N18 Gort to Oranmore Scheme. Mr. Dore asked Mr. Martin if he was aware of the dimensions of the typical accommodation underpass on the N18. Mr. Martin stated that typically it is 4.5m wide and 3.5m high. Mr. Dore then queried Mr. Martin on the differences of driving different types of livestock through the underpass. Mr. Martin stated that it is more hazardous to drive limousines and thoroughbred race horses under an underpass and that it should be >4.5m to accommodate thoroughbred race horses.

Mr. Dore (on behalf of Mr. Costelloe) asked that the underpass at Ch. 6,000 be extended from 2.4m x 2.4m to 4.5m wide and 3.5m high. Mr. Edwards said that it was possible to go to 3.5m high.

Mr. Costelloe then stated that he farms alone and has trouble getting help, and that without a suitable underpass it would be difficult and dangerous for him to move his livestock. He also pointed out that one of his horses could rear up and hits its head on the concrete roof.

Mr. Keane then questioned Mr. Costelloe by asking if he was aware of the extent of land he owned to the west of the road. Mr. Costelloe stated that he has to rotate his land for grazing and so needed to use every inch of it. Mr. Keane pointed out that the proposed underpass was in addition to the access track onto Mr. Costelloe’s land and the track could be used for movement of machinery and stock. The underpass is proposed as a shortcut for Mr. Costelloe to check on his lands. Mr. Costelloe explained that to use the track he would have to load the stock into a trailer and that is very dangerous and stressful for the animals. Mr. Costelloe also explained that the area of land on the other side of the road is only suitable for grazing due the boundaries of the fields.

Mr. Costelloe asked Ms. Neff what she meant in her evidence that the hedgerows in the proposed schemes were of lower value. Ms. Neff explained that hedgerows are classified not just in relation to the types of species forming the hedgerows but also the ability of that hedgerow to support species of invertebrates or to act as funnel refuges for larger animals. Mr. Costelloe pointed out that it is an offence to wilfully interfere with or destroy the breeding place of these species. Ms. Neff explained that road developments are on the list of exemptions.

103 Mr. Gaynor asked Ms. Neff about the 9 badger sets that will be affected by the new road. Ms. Neff explained that she could only fully assess the situation at the pre-construction stage because badgers often relocate and so there may be less sets to be relocated. Underpasses roughly 2m x 2m will be provided for the badgers under the proposed road. Ms. Neff also stated that normally there are no measures for other animals to be relocated. Mr. Keane pointed out that between Ch. 280 and 370 land had been acquired for relocating badger sets.

Mr. Dore cross-examined Ms. Neff about the relationship between badgers and bovine tuberculosis. Ms. Neff explained that it was not possible to provide an answer but mentioned that presently the badgers roam freely and that cannot be stopped.

Mr. Keane re-examined Ms. Neff who confirmed that the development will not have a significant effect on the cSAC, beyond reasonable scientific doubt.

Mr. Gaynor asked Mr. Sadlier about what reassurances could be given that Pond No. 3A with the high water table would not cause the adjoining lands to be saturated. Mr. Sadler explained that depending on the problem there would be a strategy for fixing it. As the water table is very high at the pond in question one strategy would be to line the pond and use it for attenuation of water before moving it further downhill. He assured Mr. Gaynor that the pond would not saturate lands around it.

Mr. Costelloe asked Mr. Sadlier about what reassurances could be given that the flooding situation would not get any worse between Ch. 1,200 and 1,300. Mr. Sadler explained that the pond has been designed for a one in 100 year flood event. Mr. Sadler also explained that the water table is deep at this location and that the permeability of the till is moderate there.

Mr. Gaynor then indicated that he was withdrawing 31 cases and the remaining 3 were Mr. Sice (No. 44), Mr. Connolly (No. 46), and Mr. Freeney (No. 76).

DAY 4 OF THE ORAL HEARING (28 th April 2008)

The Inspector questioned Mr. Edwards on appropriate set-back distances for residences from the blasting associated with the construction of the new road, and on appropriate set-back distances to the new roadway from blasting associated with quarrying operations, given that there is extensive limestone in the area. Mr. Edwards explained that he would not like residences to be closer than 50m to blasts but that the blast master will perform trial blasting to determine the appropriate strengths and then the vibrations at the properties will be measured to ensure that it is safe. Mr. Edwards stated that in a similar project they stopped traffic on a local road that was within 100m of the blasting.

104 Mr. Sweetman cross-examined Mr. Edwards and asked whether there will be a construction compound and where it will be located. Mr. Edwards confirmed that it will be located after negotiations with the local planning authorities. Mr. Sweetman asked what would happen to the surplus soil in the construction phase. Mr. Edwards stated that the soil is to be stored and reused on site, and if there are any waste materials, they will taken to an approved landfill site.

Mr. Costelloe asked Mr. Edwards about the industrial-zoned lands on the Tuam end of the Scheme and how access to these lands would be affected. Mr. Edwards explained that the lands will be accessed through a field gate on a like-for-like basis since the current access is a field gate (even though the land has been zoned as industrial).

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Edwards about the impacts of the route in relation to the cSAC. Mr. Edwards stated that when they realised some of the area affected by the Scheme was a cSAC his team looked at the particular impacts and whether they were likely to impact significantly on the cSAC and what mitigation measures might need to be incorporated. He determined that the clear span construction of the bridges over the Abbert and Grange River were outside the cSAC and so did not materially affect it. Mr. Edwards explained that if you are disturbing a watercourse it cannot be completed over the winter months as this is the breeding season. In relation to earthworks there are no such limitations and all discharges will be taken into consideration. He explained that it will be the responsibility of the Contractor to prevent discharges into the watercourses and that there are various options to achieve this.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Wallace about the increase in traffic associated with the new road. Mr. Wallace explained that an average increase of traffic volumes of 1.5% per annum was taken.

Mr. Dunleavey pointed to the 12.5km increase each way from Galway to Tuam. Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Wallace about the justification for this extra mileage. Mr. Wallace responded that the new route will transfer traffic from the existing N17, R347 and R333 and then to the south of Annagh Hill traffic is drawn from the N63 as well. Mr. Wallace explained that the traffic work started in the year 2000. The traffic model was built up in conjunction with the other projects and is called the N6/N17/N18 model.

Mr. Sweetman asked what surveys were carried out between the publication of the EIS and the evidence given on Thursday 24 th April 2008. Mr Wallace explained that journey time surveys were undertaken in this period of time to understand the effects of these roads at peak periods. Mr. Sweetman asked why there was no traffic increase in the year 2004 as there was for the other years (i.e. from the traffic figures on page 10, Volume 1 of the EIS). Mr. Wallace explained that the figures are based on the NRA automatic traffic counters. This gives an average over the 10 year period 1997-2007.

105 Mr. Keane pointed out that the origin and destination survey was gathered in 32 roadside interview surveys, as set out in the “N6 County Galway Roadside Interview Surveys, Survey Report May, June, August 2000”, dated 13 th October 2000. Mr. Sweetman asked whether doing an origin destination survey on the 15 th August was normal. Mr. Wallace confirmed that it is an acceptable time of year.

In response to Mr. Sweetman, Mr. Wallace confirmed that 16,000 vehicles per day will be coming in at the Doughiska Roundabout. Mr. Sweetman then asked what would happen if the Galway City Bypass did not go ahead. Mr. Wallace stated that the traffic would go to the Doughiska Roundabout.

Mr. Sweetman pointed out that people working 5 day per week and 50 weeks per year there would generate a mileage increase of 6,250 km per person per year. He asked about the cost/benefit improvement of the Scheme given that the new road would simply move people faster to a traffic jam at the Doughiska Roundabout. Mr. Wallace stated that the Scheme has a €344.2 million benefit over cost and that it will save 2 minutes journey time between Tuam and Galway. Mr. Wallace also stated that there are other journey times that are improved and overall there is a cost/benefit ratio of 2.264. Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Wallace what price per barrel of oil was used. Mr Wallace stated that he used NRA parameters.

Mr. Keane re-examined Ms. Loughnane-Moran in relation to any specified distance between a quarry and a national road in relation to planning and development control. Ms. Loughnane-Moran pointed out that in 2006 a quarry located roughly 86m from the N6 was granted permission with conditions.

Mr. Sweetman cross-examined Ms. Loughnane-Moran and asked if the proposed development was in compliance with the Development Plan. Ms. Loughnane-Moran confirmed that the Project was in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development and with the policies and objectives laid out in the Development Plan. Mr. Sweetman asked what plans Ms. Loughnane- Moran had looked at. She clarified that she had looked at The National Development Plan, the National Spatial Strategy, the Regional Planning Guidelines for the West and the County Development Plan for County Galway 2003-2009.

In response to Mr. Sweetman, Ms. Loughnane-Moran explained that she was not aware of the walls of the Abbey and that she understood that someone else was dealing with this issue. She understood that there were no protected structures within 700m of the road. In relation to new planning permissions for houses she explained that planning permission in this area is usually restricted and that there is normally a condition that new boundary walls should be natural un-plastered stone walls. Mr. Sweetman asked Ms. Loughnane-Moran to confirm that 90% of the boundary fences in the proposed corridor are stone walls.

106 Mr. Keane asked to Ms. Loughnane-Moran to confirm that there is a special status to the development of this road in terms of taking priority over other objectives of the Development Plan, including for example Policy No. 43, the protection and retention of stonewalls. Ms. Loughnane-Moran explained that the policy stated that it takes precedence over other more general policies articulated in the Development Plan. Ms. Loughnane-Moran also mentioned that the issue of the cSAC had been dealt with by other experts.

Mr. Sweetman asked Ms. Loughnane-Moran how Galway County Council interpreted the setting of a protected structure. Ms. Loughnane-Moran explained that when an application comes in a conservation officer gives her expert opinion on it, and deals with the curtilage and the setting of the protected structure. In response to Mr. Sweetman, Ms. Loughnane-Moran confirmed that the conservation officer had looked at this development and there were no protected structures within 700m of the route. Ms. Loughnane-Moran confirmed that the road can be seen from the monastery but in her opinion it is not affected.

Mr. Costelloe asked Ms. Loughnane-Moran about the commonage and what the view would be on planning there. Ms. Loughnane-Moran explained that each application would be assessed on its merits and, if a piece of land were zoned, then that would be taken into account. She stated that various departments deal with new accesses and road safety issues, etc.

Mr. Dore asked Mr. Keane how many people will be using the access track that runs to the east to the Motorway Service Area (MSA). Mr. Keane explained that it will be used by approximately 30 staff and for deliveries. It will not be illuminated and there will be a gate at one end.

Mr. Dore asked Ms. Loughnane-Moran about the implications for people living along the R348 in relation to planning permission. Ms. Loughnane-Moran responded that the Scheme should not impinge on them.

Mr. Keane re-examined Ms. Loughnane-Moran in relation to the future status of the N17 when the proposed Scheme is constructed. Ms. Loughnane-Moran stated that this issue would be reviewed in due course. She confirmed that if the road is downgraded there will be less stringent conditions on the provision of a new access along the road.

Mr. Sweetman cross-examined Mr. Wallace in relation to the Diagram on page 23. Mr. Wallace explained that it is a simplified network diagram; it gives traffic information from the traffic model. It shows projected flows in the design year 2032 and also for the situation when the Scheme is opened to traffic. Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Wallace about the price of a barrel of oil in terms of the cost/benefit analysis. Mr Wallace explained that they used cents per kilometre to calculate the costs of mileage. They presume that you get 20km per litre and that a litre costs €1, based on 2002 price levels.

107 The Inspector then asked Mr. Wallace to explain how the cost/benefit analysis was carried out and what factors were taken into account. Mr. Wallace explained that the improved journey times are taken into account in the surrounding network. These are added up and given a monetary value with a 60-year assessment period. It also takes account of the predicted reduction of accidents, given that the modern layout of roads is safer, and of additional mileage on some trips and reduced mileage on other journeys. Then on the cost side of the equation, construction, land, preparation and supervision costs are considered.

Mr. Sweetman asked if the cost/benefit analysis took into consideration any wider economic benefits. Mr. Wallace explained that it did not, it took account of travel time savings, accidents and vehicle operating costs only. It is an indicator of value and is a comparative thing but is also important that the benefits exceed the costs.

In response to Mr. Keane, Mr. Wallace confirmed that the fuel costs were discounted to 2002 prices as were the construction costs.

The Inspector cross-examined Ms. Harmon , in relation to minimum distances from blasting to dwellings, and also from blasting on private quarry lands to traffic on a roadway. Ms. Harmon explained that for private blasting or quarry sites separation distances depended on the size of the blasts and what screening was in place between the blasting and the road. For the cutting along the roadway they would recommend that some test blasts be carried out and residences would be monitored to ensure that the vibration is with the levels cited in the EIS. Generally research has shown that distances of less than 10m would usually be at the critical level and at distances greater than 10m disturbance would decay significantly. In relation to the different types of rock, Ms Harmon explained that the denser rocks would achieve poorer dissipation of vibration.

Mr. Dore asked Ms. Harmon to give an opinion as to which of the noise barriers would be the best. Ms. Harmon explained that the final design will be up to the Contractor and that she could not specify the best noise barrier because they all provided the same level of attenuation. The reason it is left up to the Contractor is because the determination of the best noise barrier would depend on the final details of the development.

In response to the Inspector, Ms. Harmon explained that the density of the material to provide the correct level of attenuation is generally 25 kilograms per square metre. The Contractor would also have to provide sufficient test data to show that the proposed barriers would provide a suitable level of noise insulation.

Mr. Keane clarified that the proposed earth bund at the Rathmorrissy Motorway Service Area has a dual purpose: for visual reasons as well as for noise prevention.

108 Mr. Costelloe asked Ms. Harmon for information about the mitigation measures proposed in relation to Receptor No. 50 on Figure 11.03 in the EIS. Ms. Harmon explained that a low noise road surface will be put on the road and this will achieve the required noise levels at that property.

Mr. Sweetman asked Ms. Harmon if a Code of Practice had been drawn up for the blasting operations on the site. Ms. Harmon stated that a pre-condition survey must be conducted within 50m of any properties. A series of public notifications will be undertaken to inform residents of the timings and duration of the blasts. The Contractor will have to do test trial blasts in less sensitive areas to gauge the levels of vibrations and noise. Ms. Harmon admitted that she had not personally drawn up a comprehensive Code of Practice. She clarified that the low noise road surface will be on the main line only.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Collins about the climate assessment and what was taken into consideration. Mr. Collins explained that he used the DMRB model and information on traffic data. He did not take into account the construction phase of the Scheme and focussed merely on the operational phase. Mr. Sweetman asked about the impact of the CO 2 emissions in the production of steel and concrete. Mr Collins explained that CO 2 is produced from the use of ground granulated blast furnace slag and that in modern furnaces the level of CO 2 emissions is reduced.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Martin if he had ever seen a blackthorn tree that had grown to 3.5m in height. Mr. Martin said that he could not recall.

Mr. Dore asked Mr. Martin if thoroughbred horses were more susceptible to noise than other farm animals. Mr Martin confirmed that they were more susceptible, but contended they may not require more screening but rather a change in management practices.

Mr. Sweetman asked Ms. O’Leary about the geophysical survey carried out on the rivers and also about the archaeological survey. Ms. O’Leary clarified that aerial photographs were examined and that three areas of archaeological potential were identified. These relate to subsurface features and would be assessed pre- construction for their importance. Mr Sweetman asked what would happen if these turned out to be important. Ms. O’Leary explained that each site would be assessed on a case by case basis and that it would be a matter for the Minister of Environment to ultimately determine the course of action to be taken. In relation to underwater archaeology, Ms. O’Leary explained that the bridges will be clean span and will be set back at a minimum of 3m so that any underwater archaeology will remain intact.

109 CASE PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF OBJECTORS

Mr. Dore made a submission on behalf of four objectors, as follows:

Mr. Patrick Treacy, CPO Reference No.152, Ch. 9,000: He keeps over 20 horses and works with them in a long rectangular field beside the proposed M17. The area is in daily use and the noise will far exceed the 60 decibels. He requests a 2m noise barrier to extend the length of his work field.

Mr. Enda Mooney, CPO Reference No. 147, Ch. 7,800: He is objecting to the severance of his property and the additional journey paths that will be generated for each return trip to the severed lands. He requests a suitable underpass or overpass.

Mr. Tim Costelloe has already given his submission to the Oral Hearing

Mr. Michael Rabbitt, Ch. 8,000: He objects to the piece of unviable land he will retain, which is referred to as Parcel A in his list of objections.

Mr. Gerry Costelloe: He would like to be consulted on the proposed junction at the Rathmorrissy Motorway Service Area opposite his property.

As a general submission Mr. Dore contended that a stone boundary wall would match the surrounding environment more than the proposed timber post and rail fencing. Also house owners should have some input on the type of noise barrier to be placed beside their housees.

The Inspector cross-examined Mr. Dore and asked for the measurements of Mr. Treacys property and fields. Mr. Dore clarified that the field is 250m long, and roughly 3 hectares; his overall land holding is 17.8 hectares. It is the most suitable field for exercising his horses because of its length and size. In relation to Mr. Mooney the land severance would result in an increased journey of 2km one way and 4km each return trip to the severed lands along the access track.

Mr. Keane cross-examined Mr. Dore about the current use of Mr. Mooney’s severed lands. Mr. Dore pointed out that Mr. Mooney currently rented out the lands but he might farm the lands again in the future. Mr. Dore agreed that Mr. Rabbitt’s objection relates essentially to a compensation issue. Mr. Keane pointed out that Mr. Treacy keeps his animals and carries out his breeding at the furthest point from the road. With reference to the noise from the road in the field adjoining it, it will be a dull constant noise and the horses can become accustomed to it.

110 RESUMPTION OF CASE PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL

Mr. Kieran O’Dwyer, Environmental Division, Halcrow Barry (together with Mr. Dooley), circulated a Brief of Evidence, in relation to the hydrogeological impacts of the MSA, which they then presented on behalf of Galway County Council. The key points of Mr. O’Dwyer’s evidence are summarized as follows:

The potential affects of the development on groundwater include:

The water table could be lowered through the abstraction of groundwater on site. This could lead to nearby drains being reduced, similarly to base flow to nearby streams and watercourses being reduced. However there is no groundwater abstraction associated with the development since the proposed water supply is mains water;
There are no discernable impacts on the underlying hydrogeological flow regime;
The proposal to dispose of treated effluent to the ground has the potential to contaminate the groundwater. The risk is dependant on the quantity and composition of the hazard and the pathway (i.e. the ease with which the hazard can enter the groundwater).

In terms of hydrogeological setting the aquifer is classified as being locally important and moderately productive. The vulnerability of the underlying aquifer was classified by the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) as being ‘low’ to ‘high’. This classification (i.e. low to high) is given by the GSI when basically there's insufficient information or data to make a more definitive classification.

The Motorway Service Station will be in the South-East quadrant. It is underlain by the least important aquifer category and it is furthest from the nearest groundwater abstraction (i.e. greater than 1km to the north). The site doesn’t fall into any source protection areas for wells.

Subsequent to the EIS, trial pits and boreholes were drilled on site to provide data on the subsurface conditions. This information will be provided to potential concessionaires. The results of the site investigation indicate that the actual vulnerability of the underlying aquifer should be classified as ‘extreme’, and this should be taken as the vulnerability classification from now on. Percolation tests were also undertaken. These showed the site to be free draining with a ‘T’ value of 7.

In terms of wastewater treatment and disposal, the disposal of treated effluent would be subject to a discharge license. It is accepted that the site overlies a locally important aquifer, which has a vulnerability classification of extreme. The effluent treatment system will have to incorporate membrane technology, for cryptosporidium removal, and for disinfection of the treated effluent prior to

111 disposal to ground. The soil polishing filter will be designed in strict compliance with the EPA Wastewater Treatment Manuals and will be subject to assessment by the Licensing Authority. He was confident that a high standard of treatment together with the design of soil polishing filters in strict accordance with the EPA Manual will mitigate any potential impacts on the ground water quality.

The Inspector cross-examined Mr. O’Dwyer and initially asked what population equivalent (PE) the treatment plant would be designed to. Mr. O’Dwyer explained that the design PE was 232, which is quite significant. The Inspector asked Mr. O’Dwyer for his views on whether or not a hydrogeological impact assessment was required in this case. Mr. O’Dwyer accepted that there is an extreme vulnerability associated with the site and he accepted that carrying out a hydrogeological impact assessment would represent best practice in this regard.

The Inspector asked Mr. Keane if he would accept that a hydrogeological impact assessment should have been carried out and/or that it should have been part of the EIS. Mr. Keane explained that, in his view a preliminary hydrogeological assessment had been carried out and he also pointed out that the PPP Contractor would require an effluent discharge licence in the matter.

In response to the Inspector, Mr. O’Dwyer stated that he was confident that an appropriate on-site wastewater treatment plant, with a population equivalent of 230, could be installed and that such a plant should not adversely impact on the groundwater aquifer.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. O’Dwyer if planning permission could be obtained for a bungalow (i.e. with population of 3) with the information available in relation to the proposals for on-site wastewater treatment and disposal. Mr. O’Dwyer acknowledged that the proposed location for the on-site system is on an extremely vulnerable site and that means that the wastewater needs to be treated to the highest standard, however there is no public water supply or well within 1 kilometre.

DAY 5 OF THE ORAL HEARING (29 th April 2008)

Mr. Kieran O’Dwyer, Environmental Division, Halcrow Barry circulated a Hydrogeological Assessment for the Rathmorrissy Interchange Service Area, which he then presented on behalf of Galway County Council. The key points of Mr. O’Dwyer’s evidence are summarized as follows:

The following 4 options were available for management of wastewater from the site:

Pumping the wastewater into the Athenry Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This option was discounted because Athenry has insufficient

112 capacity but this option may be available in the future as facilities are to be upgraded and expanded;
Discharge to a watercourse following suitable treatment. This option was discounted as no suitable watercourse is available;
Discharge to groundwater following suitable treatment. This is considered the preferred solution and is deemed viable for the site; and
Disposal by tanker. This option was discounted as not being consistent with the need to find a sustainable solution.

Mr. O’Dwyer described the Bedrock Geology, obtained from maps and field guides, as follows:

The majority comprises the Lucan formation;
Undifferentiated limestone underlies a section of the access track connecting the service area to the R348;
Limestone rock is described as very strong, slightly weathered grey, thinly bedded, fine and medium grey bioplastic limestone, with sub-vertical calcite draining and local black nodules, which are typical of the Lucan formation;
The bedding of the rock dips from 26 to 28 degrees, and is undulating, locally irregular, smooth, locally polished with black or brown silt smears;
The joints are vertical, undulating, rough with brown or black silt smears and open and there are some calcite smears present in the joints.

In relation to Quaternary Geology:

The GSI mapping of the area indicates rock at or near the surface over a large portion of the site;
The remaining ground conditions comprise till derived chiefly from limestone with some esker sands and gravels to the north-east;
The ground investigation indicates that the rock varies from 0.5-2.1m below ground level, overlying soils comprise 0.1-0.5 of topsoil overlying loose to dense grey sandy gravel & cobles ranging from 0.25-1.8m. Silt was encountered in TPMS14 (Appendix 2) ranging in thickness from 1.6- 1.8m.

In relation to the Aquifer Classification:

The aquifer underlying the site is classified as LM, which is a locally important bedrock aquifer, which is moderately productive;
It overlies exactly the Lucan formation, and is locally important with moderately important local zones; and
The vulnerability has been classified as extreme.

In relation to Groundwater Quality:

113
The groundwater is a calcium carbonate type water characterised by a HARI hardness ranging from 224 to 392 milligrams per litre as calcium carbonate;
17% of the samples showed elevated iron concentrations;
Fluoride concentrations vary from 12 to 64 mg per litre;
Ammonia exceeded the maximum admissible concentration (MAC) in 11% of samples;
66% of the samples showed E. Coli;

In relation to Wastewater Treatment and Disposal:

The wastewater will be subjected to tertiary treatment, incorporating membrane bio-reactor technology;
A schematic flow diagram of the WWTP is included in the Appendices:
The design effluent volume from the proposed service area is estimated to be 42m 3 per day which is a hydraulic population equilvalent (PE) of 232 based on 180 litres per head per day;
The design effluent volume is the maximum daily volume of effluent generated in year 2032;
The selected PPP concessionaire (i.e. the Contractor) will make a discharge licence application;
The system will incorporate disinfection and will then pump the effluent into an intermittent soil-polishing filter. If there are any issues there is a sump for interim holding of the waste while the problem is resolved;
The measures proposed will provide an extremely high quality effluent similar to high quality surface water and also meet the microbiological drinking water standard.
The characteristics of the proposed treated wastewater are as follows: o BOD <5 o Suspended solids <5 o Ammonia Nitrogen <5 mg per litre as N o Total nitrogen <10 mg per litre as N o Total phosphorous <1 mg per litre as P o E coli <1
The treatment process can be designed, engineered and operated to produce a quality of effluent such that all significant impacts are mitigated.

Mr. O’Dywer then gave a summary as follows:

The disposal unit is groundwater;
The nearest well is 1.6 km from the discharge location, therefore no mitigation is required as the distance is great and the effluent quality is high;
The Aquifer is classified as locally important (LM), and the vulnerability is ‘extreme’;

114
The bedrock is at a maximum depth of 2.1m on the proposed site, and is at an average depth of 1.5m at the polishing filter discharge location;
The percolation test carried out indicated free draining overburden which is suitable for percolation;
MBR treatment system will be provided followed by disinfection and a polishing filter;
The Concessionaire will be required to meet specified management quality standards in both construction and operation;
The Concessionaire will be required to apply for and meet the terms of a discharge licence from the local authority;
The WWTP and percolation system will be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the EPA guidelines for developments of this nature and as agreed with Galway County Council;

Mr. Keane added that these measures would also be added to the mitigation measures.

The Inspector then cross-examined Mr. O’Dwyer and Mr. Dooley . Mr. Dooley explained that there were no dates or guidelines when improvements will be made to the Athenry Wastewater Syatem which could accommodate pumping of wastewater from the MSA. In clarifying the difference between vulnerability classifications Mr. O’Dwyer explained that ‘Extreme’ is 0-3m of till or clay or 0- 5m of gravel. ‘High’ is up to 10m.

In relation to organic loading (i.e. BOD5 loading as distinct from hydraulic loading), Mr. O’Dwyer explained that in 2011-2012 the proposed wastewater treatment plant would have a population equivalent (PE) of 400 and it would work up towards a PE of 848 in the design year, 2032. This is based on a BOD5 loading of 50,900 grams per day which gives a PE of 848, based on 60 grams of BOD5 per head per day. This is equivalent to just less than 300 houses. Mr. O’Dwyer withdrew his comment that the treated wastewater would be similar to typical surface water.

Mr. Keane, for the Council, pointed out that this issue was covered in Section 7.5.3 of the EIS which states as follows: "At the opening date of 2012, 400 PE will be provided. This will be increased to 648 PE as required….These are considered conservative and represent a very high projected use of the facility. In real terms loadings will increase over the life of the development and a modular effluent system would be provided. It will allow the capacity of the plant to be increased over the life of the project as required."

Mr. Sweetman cross-examined Mr. O’Dwyer and Mr. Dooley. He asked for the reference to the design of the on-site wastewater treatment plant in the EIS. Mr. Keane explained that the design details are set out in Section 13, Appendix 16 of Volume 3 of the EIS. In relation to disposing of the run-off from the car park Mr. Dooley explained that the filling station will have a closed drainage system with full retention, the area of the car park will have closed drainage system with by-

115 pass separators and will discharge to a proposed soakaway/lagoon wetland area. Mr. Dooley stated that the bypass separators would deal with the vast majority of hydrocarbons and the wetlands will deal with the rest of the hydrocarbons. Mr. Sweetman asked for information on the base of the car park and where the drawings are. Mr. Keane stated that there were no plans available.

Mr. Costelloe indicated that he was withdrawing all of his objections to the CPO and the EIS.

RESUMPTION OF SUBMISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OBJECTORS

Mr. Sweetman made a submision on behalf of An Taisce, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

Mr. Sweetman referred to the sections of amendment of the Roads Act which relate to EIS:

“An environmental impact statement (EIS) shall contain the following specified information. A description of the proposed road development comprising information on the site, design and size of the proposed road development ”. Mr. Sweetman stated there was no design of the project, in particular the design of the filling station service area. The drawings of the filling station in the EIS lack sufficient detail;
“A description of the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and, if possible remedy significant adverse effects ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that these were not contained;
“The data to identify and assess the main effects which the road development is likely to have on the environment ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that this was lacking. The person dealing with impact on human beings did not speak to any one;
“An outline of the main alternatives studied by the road authority concerned and an indication for its main reasons of its choice taking into account the environmental effects ”. Mr. Sweetman stated the new road lengthens journeys by 12km, which increases distance, travel times and emissions. The conclusion that the service station will have a neutral impact on the environment is flawed because it has very high-risk groundwater and they did not look at anything other than the ecology;
“A summary in non-technical language of the above information ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that the non-technical summary read like a sales brochure and contained very little information. There is no information on the problem with the sewage disposal from a 230-person village;
“An environmental impact statement shall, in addition, and by way of explanation in the application of the specified information referred to, and in Subsection 2, contain further information on the following matters. A description of the physical characteristics of the whole proposed road

116 development, and the land use requirements during construction and operational stages ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that they do not have the land use requirements during the construction phase. This is because this will be a matter for the Contractor, who will have to apply for planning permission;
“An estimate by type and quantity in respect of residues and emissions ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that we did not know too much about the relevant emissions.
“A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed road development, including in particular, human beings ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that a windscreen survey had been carried out, somebody had spoken to a teacher, who stated no one walked to school, when the EIS stated that they did.
“Soil, water, air, climatic factors ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that Ireland has to reduce their greenhouse gases, and transport emissions associated with the new road will increase them. The climatic impacts were not assessed in a proper manner, there was no data on the construction phase and on the amounts of materials being used. Architecture and archaeological heritage were reasonably well addressed but cultural heritage was forgotten about in the EIS. There was nothing in the EIS about the interrelationship about the above factors.
“A description of the likely significant effects including direst, indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium, long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative of the proposed road development on the environment resulting from the proposed road development ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that they did not know what natural resources would be used, there would be substantial amounts of concrete, tarmac, stone, and steel. The emissions in the EIS related solely to the operation of the road. Tarmac was not mentioned, nor was the fact that any waste will be transported to an approved landfill site.
“A description of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that he did not know most of these.

Mr. Sweetman then referred to a fax sent to the Board from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (MPWS) on 23 rd April 2008:

“The EIS is deficient in respect of flooding. There is no risk assessment of the design proposals, and the ecological and environmental mitigation measures ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that he totally agreed with that statement. There is no prior risk assessment of the design proposals and of the ecological and environmental mitigation measures.

Mr. Keane objected to the use of this fax as it was out of time.

“The alignment through Clonkeen North takes account of potential localised flooding. The NPWS photographs from December 2006 show

117 extensive flooding around the Grange and Clare Rivers in Clonkeen North and also in Clonkeen South, Illaunroe and Nahanagh, both inside and outside the Lough Corrib special area of conservation, Site Code 297 ”. Mr Sweetman stated he looked on the NPWS website and it was clear that flooding occurred there and this contradicts the evidence given.
“It is unclear how some retention ponds … will attenuate and treat the runoff and flood events. In this regard, the assessment of the likely significant effects in the motorway scheme on the Lough Corrib CSAC is incomplete. There is risk of pollution of water courses and flood events ”. Mr. Sweetman stated there were no drawings or specifications for the attenuation ponds and they would be wrong because the flood levels were wrong in the first place.
“It is unclear if flood storage, flood conveyance and flood patterns would be impacted by the existence of the motorway. This has not been assessed ”. Mr. Sweetman felt that the NPWS were being kind here because it is obvious that if you build across a flood plain it will affect the flood plain.
“It is unclear if mammal underpasses and dry ledges in flood prone areas can be designed to allow safe passage in flood events ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that they can not be designed correctly because the flood levels are not known.
“At present there is a risk that localised flood alleviation and flood control measures may be found to be necessary in certain areas in the future as a result of road construction. This has the potential to have in combination effects on the SAC ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that there is a major interaction between the flood and the SAC but Mr Reid did not think it was worth considering.
“There appear to be no assessment of the risks of any underground conduits or water supplies to springs, flushes or other wetlands being impacted by the proposed motorway scheme. For example, reference in made to an apparent underground link between the Ballyglunin Cave system east of the scheme and the Ochlogn Spring to the west but no further information or assessment is provided. In this regard the assessment of the likely significant effects on the proposed motorway scheme on the underground water supplies to groundwater dependent habitats and species in the Lough Corrib SAC and other Natura 2000 sites is incomplete ”.
“The EIS for the service area, south east of the permitted Rathmorrissy interchange, is deficient in terms of baseline information on ecology, flora and fauna. It also fails to review the compatibility and integration with ecological mitigation measures that form part of the other surrounding road scheme ”.
“Fragmentation is an issue and the location of any underpasses required for other schemes should be mapped and any additional mitigation such as ecological corridors included as necessary ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that they should have been mapped and included.

118
“At least one replacement or artificial set appears to be required to mitigate the negative impact on badgers. The location and design of this artificial set should be agreed prior to scheme approval. Where artificial replacement sets are required as mitigation their successful completion in suitable locations will need to be demonstrated in the licence application to the National Parks and Wildlife Services of this Department ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that these sentences appeared to contradict themselves slightly.
“Additional lands may need to be acquired if this element of mitigation cannot be achieved within the CPO lands ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that they probably had not included all of the lands required in the EIS.

Mr. Sweetman then referred to Circular Letter PD2 of 2007 (NPWS, 2007). He explained that this letter reflected an agreement reached between the Commission and the Department of the Environment to settle an outstanding judgement. In order to prevent Ireland being fined it was agreed that it would be issued immediately with legislation to follow in the near future.

“Compliance Condition: This Section provides that conditions to a planning permission may provide the points of detail relating to a grant of permission, may be agreed between the planning authority and the person carrying out the development. If a planning authority and that person cannot agree on the matter, the matter may be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.

Application to Local Authority on Development: Planning authorities should also have regard to this circular in the context of any proposed development which it intends to submit for approval in An Bord Pleanála in cases of a development requiring the EIA or in any case involving part B of the planning and development regulations (2001) ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that this document is relevant because it refers to planning.

“Environmental Impact Assessment: It is a requirement of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337, as amended, that adequate information into the potential effects on a proposed road development covered by the Directive and information on any necessary information measures be supplied as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the development insofar as it is relevant or reasonable to require the developer to compile the information ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that the mitigation measures should be supplied and assessed by the Board.

Mr. Sweetman then referred to Natura 2000 sites: “ In relation to special areas of conservation, SACs, and special protection areas…it is a requirement of the Habitats Directive, 92/43 EEC, that the competent

119 consent authority, which in this case is An Bord Pleanála, must ensure that a proposal which is likely to have a significant effect on an SAC or SPA is authorised only to the extent that the authority is satisfied is will not adversely the integrity of the area ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that the Board cannot give that consent because they cannot be satisfied that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area.

“When a proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of a non-priority site of international importance for nature conservation, permission should only be granted where there is no alternative solution and where there is imperative reasonable public interest in favour of granting permission, and those are of an economic and social nature ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that at this point in time this cannot arise because we cannot assess the area correctly.

“The measures to prevent negative impact should be incorporated into a project where the need arises to minimise the impact of the plan or project on the site ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that these have not been included.

“For example, mitigation measures might refer to phases in construction to avoid particularly sensitive phases in the calendar….In certain cases, the provision of compensatory sites may also be proposed as part of the application. Compensatory measures improving or recreating habitat are the last resort and may be considered only when a decision has been taken to proceed with the project despite its negative impact on the site and having regard to the proposed mitigation measures ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that this issue is both relevant and not relevant. It is relevant because of the badgers, and it is not relevant because we are unsure about the SAC. This is because when it floods we are unsure where the SAC actually is. They make no provision for the construction across the flood plane, and there are two species susceptible to siltation downstream of the site (i.e. white clawed crayfish and freshwater pearl mussels).

“It is clear from the above that the planning authority, or An Bord Pleanála in this case, must have before it adequate information on the potential affects of the proposed development including any proposed mitigation when taking its decision .” Mr. Sweetman stated that there is no proposed mitigation and there are just guidelines but nothing sensible.

“The restriction of the use of compliance conditions: Accordingly, under no circumstances should planning authorities use compliance conditions to complete an inadequate EIS or ensure the adequacy of the information supplied by the developer in an application for development, having a potential impact on a site of international importance for nature conservation, (i.e. cSAC in this case). ” Mr. Sweetman explained that this is exactly what the developer was proposing.

120
“In any such case where a developer has not provided adequate information in respect of the environment and natural heritage impacts or has not supplied adequate information on the nature or the impact of appropriate mitigation, the appropriate course for the planning authority is to require the developers to make further information in accordance with Article 33 of the Planning and Development Regulations ”. Mr. Sweetman explained that they did not have the mitigation measures. Mr. Sweetman thought the easiest way would be for the Board to refuse the development and let the project promoters start over.

“Appropriate compliance conditions: It is appropriate to attach compliance conditions to monitor the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures in relation to known environmental effects”. Mr. Sweetman stated that he had not received these yet.

“Planning authorities should however ensure that the developers are applying correctly any mitigation measures proposed in the application ”. Mr. Sweetman stated that this was a cheeky way of getting CPOs through the public and avoiding the proper recognised planning. He also says that the information provided in some areas did not contain enough information for outline permission for a bungalow.

“Guidance on the application: You should note that by the end of this general year it is intended to produce a general guidance document on the issues to be contained and considered by consent authorities when considering implications for Natura 2000 sites ”. Mr. Sweetman concluded that the Board did not have the information to perform an assessment and therefore the application should be refused.

Mr. Dunleavy made a submission on his own behalf, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

He was unhappy with the revised route because the original route was 30.7km and mirrored the existing N17, while the revised route was 12.5km longer. He pointed to two major negatives involved with the route:

Economic Impact: While the time savings would be roughly 2 minutes there would be approximately 40% more mileage. All commuters from Tuam to Galway will travel an extra 25km round trip every day. This is 125km a week, and at €0.50 a mile, that’s an extra €60 a week. Some 21,000 commuters will be transferred onto this route, giving rise to 120,000 extra miles each year. It was hard to believe there would only give rise to a 0.08% increase in CO 2 emissions.
The increase between Athlone and Tuam is in the region of 22km for a 67km journey each way. Heavy goods lorries would not use the route, and all traffic has to go through one junction at Rathmorrissy. This means it

121 may be unlikely that people will use the road and so a new bypass may be needed and this may lead to increased costs.

The Inspector cross-examined Mr. Sweetman and asked what he meant by cultural heritage. Mr. Sweetman explained that cultural heritage is local history, a typical example would have been the fairy tree on the Ennis Bypass that eventually got chopped down.

Mr. Keane cross-examined Mr. Dunleavy and asked him for the page number or reference in the Constraints Report for the ‘preferred route’. Mr. Dunleavy could not give a specific reference but stated that the proposed route was not in the Constraints Report from 2000. He also explained that when he said ‘original route’ he meant any of the routes from the Constraints Report.

Mr. Keane pointed out that the extra 12.5km only applied when travelling to Galway City and that for people travelling further south there would be a significant saving of time. Mr. Dunleavy accepted this but pointed out that they represented only a small percentage of the total traffic and that roads should cater for the majority of the traffic. The vast majority of traffic on this route is commuter traffic to Galway City and that is what causes the congestion. Mr. Dunleavy accepted that the travel time from Tuam to Gort was roughly 14mins. Mr. Keane then asked Mr. Dunleavy if he thought people travelling from Dublin to Tuam would use the new road. Mr. Dunleavy indicated that he did not think that people would use the route because of the extra mileage and the tolling.

Mr. Keane felt people would use the new road because it is better than the existing road and is safer. Also the new interchange is a free-flow interchange. Mr. Dunleavy pointed out that rather than a 63km journey it would be more than 83km and that the junction would be slow due to congestion. Overall, people would use the existing road.

Mr. Sweetman made the point that the service station should not be placed on an interchange because it is dangerous and this is not done in England or Europe.

CLOSING SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL

Mr. Keane made a closing submission on behalf of Galway County Council, the main points of which are summarised hereunder:

Further mitigation measures have been presented during the course of the Oral Hearing. These include the treatment of the effluent from the operation of the motorway service area (MSA) and compliance with the requirements stated in the hydro-geological assessment, April 2008, prepared by Halcro Barrie Ltd. A discharge licence would be required in relation to it.

122

The two tributaries to the River Clare, at Ch. 20,700 and at Ch. 21,600, will be provided with bottomless culverts.

In relation to dust suppression, further measures would include that vehicles using side roads will have their speeds restricted to 20 kilometres per hour. Material handling systems and site stockpiles of materials will be designed and laid out to minimise exposure to wind. Water misting sprays will be used as required, particularly during dry and/or windy periods. During the movement of materials with the potential for dust generation to an offsite location, trucks will be covered and a liaison officer will be appointed to provide a point of contact with local residents and to deal with any concerns raised regarding dust emissions.

Mr. Keane confirmed that at locations along the proposed route where piling is required this operation will be carried out using recognised noise reducing systems, including the selection of best available piling technology and equipment. Piling will only be carried out during specified working hours. This activity will be confined to specific locations and will be of limited duration. Noise and vibration levels during all piling works will be limited to the construction noise and vibration limits as set out in the EIS. Blasting will be permitted as an alternative to mechanical excavation but will be restricted to excavations through massive competent rock in cutting and for the installation of large diameter carrier drains and subject to the other provisions of the Contract. All blasting operations shall meet the requirements of An Garda Síochána and other requirements as set out in the EIS and the contract documents.

It is anticipated that pre-split blasting is likely to be required within the following locations although such blasting may be required at other locations: Ch. 4,900 to 5800; Ch. 9,100 to 9,600; Ch. 12,300 to 13,100; Ch. 13,500 to 13,800; and Ch. 16,600 to 18,500. The Contractor will be required to inform people in the immediate area whenever blasting is due to take place. This will include a leaflet drop at least 48 hours prior to the blast outlining the proposed time and duration of blasting and will involve a form of warning siren immediately prior to blasting.

Blasting within 50 metres of any existing structure or building shall require special considerations. In such cases the Contractor should carry out blasting trials with small charges in order to monitor vibration patterns and should provide an independent assessment of full-scale blasting. The Contractor should carry out pre-condition surveys and employ the use of engineering ‘tell tales’ in any building within 100 metres of the blasting prior to and during any blast which may occur, with subsequent surveys upon completion to identify and quantify any damage that may have occurred. Blasting trials shall follow the recommendations of Research Report No. 53 “Ground Vibration Caused by Civil Engineering Works”, UK Transport Research Laboratory, 1986.

123 Vibration levels at the nearest receptor shall be controlled in accordance with the “Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes”, NRA 2004. Contractors shall limit the weight of charges and employ all possible measures or techniques necessary to reduce vibration to a minimum, to minimize over-break and prevent undercutting of embankment or cutting slopes, structure foundations and buried services. The Contractor shall ensure that carriageways shall be protected from flying rock or other debris and that there is no damage to adjacent property or infrastructure. The Contractor shall take all necessary measures to minimise disturbance or intrusion to the general public and to prevent surprise or alarm being caused to the public or to livestock. The Contractor shall comply with the requirements of BS5607, 1998: “Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Explosives in the Construction Industry”.

Pre-split blasting techniques shall be applied in accordance with the reports LR1094: “Pre-split Blasting for Highway Rock Excavation”; published by the UK Transport Research Laboratory, 1983; and SR817: “The Device for Measuring Drill Rod and Drill Hole Orientations”, published by the UK Transport Research Laboratory, 1984.

In relation to environmental noise barriers mitigation measures will be implemented to achieve the necessary design goal, 60dB Lden . The possible mitigation solutions for achieving the design goal are as set out in the Table in the EIS with different heights of barriers related to the different Chainages. These are worst-case scenario figures. Additional noise barriers will be provided at the following locations, which have been agreed following negotiations with landowners:

A 2-metre high barrier on the eastern boundary of the proposed mainline 400 metres in length from approximate Ch. 2,850 to 3,250; and
A 1-metre high barrier along the southern boundary of the eastern Annagh Hill slip road, 160 metres in length from approximate Ch. 400 to 560.

Mitigation measures will be incorporated into the site design to ensure that the impact of noise and vibration during the operation of the service area will not cause any significant noise impact. Mitigation measures will include the erection of a 2-metre high boundary bond along the northern boundary of the site, the siting of the building services plant as far away from the nearest noise sensitive locations as practicable, and the selection of plant site pumps and motors with low inherent potential for generation of noise and vibration.

During the detailed design and construction phases, the Contractor shall consult with homeowners residing within 100 metres of the Scheme with regards to the proposed planting. Due consideration will be given to incorporating homeowner preferences into the design while complying with the landscape strategy outlined in the EIS. Existing shelter belts which are being removed to facilitate the

124 construction of the proposed scheme will be replaced with suitable alternative shelter, the location of which is to be agreed with the landowner.

Stud-type fencing will be installed required with particular care to rounding off tight angles to fields.

Additional measures will be provided at the following locations, as agreed following negotiations with landowners:

A 2.1m x 2.1m stock underpass at approximate Ch. 450 and at the eastern Annagh Hill slip road.
A 2.4m x 2.4m stock underpass at approximate Ch. 21,500 on the proposed main line.
Resurfacing consisting of a double surface dressing in accordance with Clause 919 of the MMCDRWRCD on the existing access road east of and parallel to the main line from approximate Ch. 21,980 to 23,410.
Resurfacing consisting of a double surface dressing in accordance with Clause 919 of the MMCDRWRCD on the existing access road east of the main line at approximate Ch. 15,000 for a length of 110 metres.

Mr. Keane stated that the excavation methodologies to be used would incorporate the following mitigation measures:

Levels for noise and vibration have been set at limits which accord with good practice in order to minimise as far as possible significant adverse impacts on the environment. As to the level of detail required, the EIS and the Environmental Impact Assessment, including this Oral Hearing, have addressed the detail of the works and the development to be carried out. The legislation as noted has acknowledged that not every impact can be determined in minute detail and the relevant legislation acknowledges this and specifically notes that an EIS can show areas on which there is a lack of knowledge as matters stand.

The submissions made on behalf of An Taisce contain misstatements or elements which are incomprehensible, as follows

It is wrong to say that the EIS stated that children walked to the N63. Mr. Ryan gave details also of having carried out a very comprehensive assessment of the human environment.
The submission by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) is entirely out of time and should not be considered.
It is inappropriate for the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the Department of the Environment to circulate their submissions having been given more than adequate time to make a submission within the stated timeframe.

125
Some of the comments in that Document are either misplaced or incorrect in some places: o A flood risk assessment was carried out (ref: Constraint Study, Revision A, Figures 1.36 and 1.22); o The estimated flood study area is shown in Figure 9.001 of the EIS; o The area of the cSAC is overlain with the design in Figures 7.012 and 7.013 in Volume 2 of the EIS; o The drainage catchments are outlined in Section 8.5.1 of the Preliminary Design Report; o The additional photographs (Reference Nos. 305-307) from the office of Public Works (OPW) showing the flooding that occurred in Dec. 2006 were the 2 nd highest floods recorded since the canalization of the River Clare in 1961 which reduced the riverbed by 2.5m. o The highest flood recorded is approx. 28.5m. The lowest carriageway level is 30m with a centre line level of 30.5m to allow flow of away from the road; o References 4.012 and 4.013 confirm that the mitigation measures will include the following: a rock embankment to allow for water to flow through the embankment; allowance for flood balancing culverts within the design; the removal of drainage retention ponds from the cSAC; and the addition of in-line retention in its place on either side of the potential floodplain to treat discharge out-flowing into the watercourses. o All road drainage collected upstream of the cSAC will have pre- treatment pollution control prior to attenuation by means of oversized pipes and ditch features; o The volume of the proposed alignment could displace the flood level upward by approx 10mm should it be constructed. o High level mammal underpasses can be incorporated as and if required at the detail design stage; o The loss of floodplain within the cSAC in the vicinity of the river crossings on the motorway route is only 3%. o Construction of a rock embankment with voids of approx 15% will allow storage for floodwaters and will reduce the net effect. o Appendix 16 of the EIS established that no mammals or badgers were observed at the proposed service area. The N6 and N18 EIS confirmed there were no badger sets in the Rathmorrissy service area site. If badgers are found pre-construction then they will be relocated. o Figure 70.18 in Volume 2 of the EIS shows that a badger set will be lost at Ch. 500. Land has been acquired at Ch. 300 and/or at Ch. 500-850 on the west side for them to be relocated.

126 Mr Keane then quoted Judge McKechnie in a case of Kenny v Bord Pleanala (2000). As stated by Judge McKechnie on page 565:

"During the course of this hearing it was suggested that in relation to the boiler house facilities there was a breach of the 1994 planning regulations and/or a breach of council directive 85/337/EEC (i.e. the EIA Directive) and/or the domestic provisions incorporating this Directive into Irish law .

On being invited to identify precisely what regulations or articles or sections were breached it was not possible for counsel on behalf of the applicant to so indicate. Accordingly, this submission cannot constitute substantial grounds for the purpose of this application ”.

Clearly and for very good reason, no specific breach had been identified by any of the objectors because there simply is not any such section or sub-section. As stated by the Judge:

“There can be little doubt that some confusion has arisen with regard to the proposed boiler house facilities. In both the original EIS and the revised one, at Chapter 9 of each, it is stated that the development will be served by a centralised boiler plant. At the Oral Hearing two suggested modifications to this were advanced. Firstly, it was urged upon the Inspector that these facilities could properly be placed in the basement, this being the first time that such a location was mentioned, with no real consideration having been given to the quantity of excavation involved or the effect on the tree roots or on the water table. Rightly so, in my view, at page 151 of his Report, the Inspector emphatically ruled out any further debate on this possibility. Having so rejected this suggestion, I cannot see how the applicant can in this case rely upon this point.

Plant rooms are again shown though it should be said that one could not readily identify all such rooms without an explanation that the floor plan was a typical or a representative one. At the Oral Hearing there was very considerable debate on this question. Every interested person made a contribution. Some such persons were for and some against the development, including those witnesses specifically called by the applicant. Notwithstanding this confusion and despite the entry in the EIS and the floating of the basement solution, what is abundantly clear, however, is that at the oral hearing as per the design architect, Ms Boyle, a decentralised system was in fact being sought on behalf of the developer ….

Furthermore, everyone present knew of this proposal and indeed made comment on it and yet it is alleged that there was such a lack of detail before it so as to deprive the Board of its power to decide on this application. Examples of matters in dispute were the precise location of the plant rooms, this being essential, it was claimed, to determine the emanating noise… Whilst I am satisfied that all of these matters were actually dealt with at the Oral Hearing and that many are also suitable to be dealt with by agreement with the local authority, in addition could I

127 say that I would set my face totally against such a microscopic examination by this court of such matters of detail.

Once the statutory requirements have been satisfied I should not concern myself with the qualitative nature of the EIS or the debate on it had before the Inspector. These are not matters of concern to this court. The Planning Authority and An Bord Pleanála as the bodies under the regulations must be satisfied with the EIS, with the Inspector and the Board also being satisfied with the evidence, both documentary and oral, produced at the Oral Hearing. That, in my view, concludes the matter. Nevertheless if there should be any doubt about it, my own opinion is that the EIS did address adequately, as did the Oral Hearing, any and all significant impacts which a decentralised boiler system could have on this development. Furthermore, on the specific issue of noise, Condition Number 16 is, in my view, a complete answer. As a result, I do not believe that the applicant has established a substantial ground in this regard".

Mr. Keane stated that the Council is entitled to leave matters of detail to be determined or agreed between the Council and construction company. The function of the Board in this regard is to consider the compulsory purchase order (CPO) and road closures proposed and to consider the motorway scheme and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) arising out of same.

Mr. Keane explained that the scheme is in excess of 25km and that if the Board or members of the public were brought into the level of detail suggested by others the EIS would be unreadable and useless.

Mr. Keane then referred again to Kenny v An Bord Pleanála. Judge McKechnie stated as follows:

“When an issue arises as to what might legitimately be embraced within a condition requiring the agreement of the Planning Authority, it should be noted that the answer to such an inquiry is not to be determined on the basis of irrationality or unreasonableness as per O'Keefe v An Bord Pleanála (1993) but rather the approach and solution must be determined by the appropriate vires principles. In Wicklow Trust Limited v Wicklow Council, Judge McGuinness in a similar context said that the question of reasonableness/unreasonableness was not material. The question is whether they, (i.e. the Planning Authority), were correct in law in this opinion ”.

In Gregory v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, (High Court unreported 16 July 1996) Judge Geoghegan stated as follows in the High Court:

“I have only to consider whether the Council acted ultra vires (i.e. beyond its powers). In an appeal in the Supreme Court (unreported 28 July, 1997) Judge Murphy emphatically rejected as being unsustainable an approach based on O'Keefe. Rather, he said, the proper function of the court was the implementation

128 of the condition imposed by the Board. Finally, Judge Baron in the same case said the real issue in this case is the proper construction of conditions. There is no dispute as to the direct principles of law applicable to the power of An Bord Pleanála to impose conditions of this nature ”.

The conditions which the judge was referring to here are conditions which can be imposed by the Board requiring detailed agreement in relation to fine details as between the Planning Authority and the Contractor carrying out the scheme.

Having expressly endorsed the views of Judge Murphy in Hoolan v An Bord Pleanála (High Court unreported, 4 October 1993) and the veracity of the decision of Judge Keane in his High Court judgment in the case presently mentioned, the Supreme Court, through the Chief Justice in Bolan v An Bord Pleanála (1996), summarised the applicable principles as follows:

1. “An Bord Pleanála is entitled to grant planning permission subject to conditions which may include a requirement that matters should be agreed between the Planning Authority and the recipient of the permission. 2. Whether such a requirement is intra vires is a matter of degree and depends on the nature of the matter left for resolution, the resolving of which must have regard to the nature and circumstances of each particular application and development. 3. In deciding whether or not to regulate an aspect of a proposed development in this way, the Bord is entitled a. To afford a developer, subject to the consent of the Planning Authority, a degree of flexibility, particularly if the intended scheme involves complex enterprise, and b. To leave technical matters or matters of detail including a redesign in the light of practical experience to such a device; and c. To have faith and confidence in the Planning Authority's role, given its statutory function and responsibility ”.

According to the Judge:

“Before considering condition number 8 in the aforesaid context, could I make three further observations? Firstly, in my opinion, Section 26(1) of the 1963 Act which has obviously since been replaced by the 2000 Planning & Development Act is the statutory basis upon which such a condition may be imposed with the condition specified in subsection (2) thereof expressly being without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (1).

Secondly, whilst the primary purposes of section 14(4) of the 1976 Act was the transfer of powers from the Minister to the Board, nonetheless such a transfer could not take place if, in the first instance, such a power was nonexistent. Hence, at least by implication, the recognition of the Board's power in this regard.

129 Thirdly, as Judge Keane said in the Bolan case, the court is not concerned with the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed development, neither from a planning, nor environmental point of view. This is a matter exclusively within the remit of the specialist body set up by statute for this purpose. Indeed, in the Kenny case, specific argument had been put forward by the applicant, who had challenged the decision of the Board to require the furnishing of and agreeing with the County Council further drawings and in that case the drawings have been self-contradictory in part .

McKechnie, in relation to that aspect, stated as follows: I consider that it is generally acceptable as proposed from a design point of view. I note, however, that there are some discrepancies in the drawings……… I consider that the discrepancies are not significant in a fundamental sense. Details, however, should be agreed with the Planning Authority. In response to this discussion and to implement his views, the Inspector suggested the imposition of Condition Number 6, which condition together with the reason therefore reads as follows: ‘Accurate drawings of the development with floor plans and elevations corresponding in detail shall be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to work commencing on the proposed development. Reason: To resolve ambiguities arising from discrepancies on the plans received by the Planning Authority on 7 October 1999’.

The Judge continues: Condition Number 8, I am satisfied is almost identically the same wording. The only difference is in the reason. Granted, it is said to be in the interest of orderly development whereas the suggestion of the Inspector was more specific. Notwithstanding this change, I am convinced that Condition Number 8 was essentially designed to meet the discrepancies and ambiguities outlined by the Inspector. I cannot therefore conceive of any argument objectively as sustainable which supports the applicant's submissions under this heading ."

Mr. Keane stated that the level of design in relation to the services area in Chapter 13, Appendix 16 of Volume 3 of the EIS was more than adequate. An assessment of the environmental impact of construction in relation to climate and air had been carried out and Mr. Collins had confirmed this to be less than the operational impacts. Assessments have been given on the best evidence available but clearly it is not possible or required at Stage 1 to provide exact details for emissions associated with the use of materials in the construction process where the precise amounts of same are not known at this stage. The detailed design must of necessity await the appointment of the Contractor.

Section 2.4.10 and Section 2.5 of the EIS shows the need to improve traffic safety and to avoid high rates of fatalities and injuries along the existing N18.

The proposed boundary treatment along the main line is timber post and rail fencing. Policy No. 146 of the Development Plan, (i.e. - the policy relating to the general preservation and retention of stone walls, hedgerows etc.) states: "It must

130 be noted that this is subservient to the priority status of the road development provided for by Policy 43 at page 39 of the Galway County Development Plan as amended in July 2007 ".

The effluent from the motorway services area (MSA) will be treated as set out in the evidence and in the Hydrogeological Report submitted to the Oral Hearing on the 29 th April 2008 and this will require a discharge license.

The proposed development does not conflict with any provision of the relevant County Development Plan and provides for the proper planning and sustainable development of the functional area of Galway County Council. The road is included as a specific objective in the Development Plan

In relation to Mr. Costello, who was seeking a larger underpass (i.e. 3.5m x 3.5m rather than 2.4m x 2.4m), there is no need for this when an access track has been provided for machinery. Also Mr. Costello has a herd of only 6 horses and there is adequate land on the western side where valuable livestock such as horses would generally be kept.

In relation to Mr. Rabbitt, who was seeking a proportion of the severed land being acquired, this is entirely a compensation issue.

In relation to Mr. Mooney, who was seeking an underpass or overpass, the road at that location is virtually at grade. It is not economic to build a bridge at that location given that it would cost in the order of €0.75 million. The land is rented out and in any event is used for tillage so frequent access is not required.

In relation to Mr. Treacy, the Council suggested connecting the two fields to the west and that would replace the long field and would be approx 100m away from the road. A change of management of the farm should resolve the problem and, in any event, any outstanding issues would be a matter of compensation.

In relation to cultural heritage it was contended that this was not addressed but this is wrong. This issue is covered in Chapter 13, Volume 3 of the EIS. It is entirely inappropriate to suggest that the archaeological section stopped in the year 1700 or did not include more recent areas of cultural heritage impacted by the road Scheme.

Lough Corrib cSAC is not covered by European law as the area impacted by the road is in a candidate special area of conservation (cSAC) and not a special area of conversation (SAC). This issue is discussed in the case of Murphy V Wicklow County Council (28 th Jan 2000). The case related to the Glen of the Downes site. Judge Murphy stated:

“It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that, following the decision of the second defendant, the Glen of the Downes should be included in the candidate list

131 of European sites. Certain obligations arose under Section 14 and 15 of the Regulations, in particular the consent of the Minister pursuant to Section 14 is necessary before a development program by the first named defendant could take place. Alternatively there must be an assessment pursuant to Section 15(1) of the Regulations before the Minister can consider giving her consent.

In the course of the Hearing counsel for the plaintiff rightly acknowledged Section 14 and 15(1) only applied to operational activities defined by the Regulations and that the definition excluded from its scope development a local authority, such as Wicklow County Council, were proposing to carry out in the Glen of the Downes. However council contended that these provisions, in particular Section 14, were intended to implement the substantive provisions of Article 6 of the European Habitants Directive. The Minister, in making the Regulations, clearly intended that the obligations imposed by Article 6, as implemented by Section 14, should apply to both land included in the special area of conversation and a site placed on the candidate list of European sites.

It was submitted that although Article 6 of the Directive only applied to sites of community importance (that is sites adopted by the Commission pursuant to the procedures laid down in Article 21 of the Directive), the Minister by including sites on the candidate list of European sites in Section 14 of the Regulations intended that the obligations created by Article 6 of the Directive would apply even to those sites. The application of Article 6 of the Directive is not limited in scope by the exclusion of developments by bodies such as local authorities. It was submitted that Article 6 applies to any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon which is quite different from the terms “operation” or “activity” as used in Section 14 of the Regulations and in any case does not contemplate an exception for development by local authorities. In substance, counsel argued that Section 14 of the Regulations was in this respect incompatible with the Directive. The local authority were therefore bound to observe the obligations imposed by the Directive and disregard the exemption which the Regulations purported to give to developments by local authorities on the application of that Section. Counsel also submitted that if the court did not accept the foregoing submissions the question be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities pursuant to Article 234 ( formerly Article 177) of the EEC Treaty as to whether the obligations created by Article 6 and in particular sub-articles 2, 3 and 4 thereof applied to a site on the candidate list of sites.

In my view, the argument made on behalf of the plaintiff is not well-founded. It is not contested in this context that Article 6 of the Directive and in particular, sub- articles 2, 3 and 4 which are the ones in issue in these proceedings do not apply until a site has been placed on the list of sites as selected as sites of community importance and so adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 21. This is expressly stated in Article 45 of the Directive ".

132 Mr. Keane pointed out that the Supreme Court stated that the designation of the site as a cSAC did not amount to an inclusion of that site as a site of community importance which would result in the application of Articles, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Habitats Directive.

However, cSACs are protected under the European Communities (Natural Habitat) Regulations, S.I. 94 of 1997, as amended by Section 75 of the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2000. Candidate SACs are therefore afforded protection by national legislation and not by the European Habitats Directive. The 1997 Regulations have in turn been amended by the European Communities (Natural Habitat) Amendment Regulations (1998). Article 28 places an obligation on the Board to assess whether or not there will be a significant effect on a cSAC site. If the view is that there will be such an impact then there is a test as to whether the proposed development will affect the integrity of the site. Since the design of the road incorporates two clear span bridges over the crossings of the cSAC, there will be no significant effect on the cSAC.

Mr. Keane pointed out that Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive 92/43 provides for an assessment procedure intended to ensure that a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a site is authorised only to the effect that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site. It is a matter for the national authorities to determine whether or not there is a significant impact. Given the mitigation measures proposed, the expert witnesses had pointed out that the proposed Scheme would not give rise to any significant effect on the cSAC and accordingly would have absolutely no effect on the integrity of the site. Ms. Neff, who carried out the ecological assessment, had confirmed that the Scheme would not have a significant effect on the site.

Mr. Keane then indicated that the objection by Mr. Corr of Gaynor Corr & Associates on behalf of Mr. Padraig Connolly (i.e. CPO Number 1818) was withdrawn. He pointed out that a large number of objectors had withdrawn their objections following consultation and explanations and, in some cases, resolution of issues with the Council. In relation to the remaining objectors written responses had been prepared and these would be handed in to the Inspector. Mr. Sweetman objected to this on the grounds that such documents should be in the public domain. Mr. Keane pointed out that these related mainly to private issues and this practice had been followed at other Oral Hearings.

Mr. Keane pointed out that copies of photographs from December 2006, which were referred to in the purported submission by the Department of the Environment were available. Mr. Sweetman stated that the photographic evidence about the flooding completely contradicted the evidence given. Mr. Keane responded that the flooding had been considered and that the vertical alignment had been modified (i.e. the road level had been increased) as a result, albeit within the confines of the existing CPO.

133 ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF MR. DUNLEAVY.

Mr. Dunleavy then made an additional submission referring to the Constraints Strategy, 2000. He pointed to the following statement in the Strategy: “ The N17 through Claregalway forms part of the Western Strategic Road Corridor between Wexford in the south-east and Sligo in the north. The government are committed to improving this road corridor to a higher standard of road. The dual carriageway would provide safer transportation and it would be of great benefit to the local community by reducing journey times and improving the environment ”.

Mr. Dunleavy quoted further from the Strategy in relation to the recommended approach: “ The existing traffic flows indicate a desire line of north/south traffic on the N17. We believe that this pattern should be maintained and have selected our study area to reflect the optimum limit of deviation from the existing route ”. He considered that to be an indication that one of these routes and not the proposed route would be adopted.

Mr. Keane then handed in a list of the outstanding objectors, highlighted in pink.

CLOSING SUBMISSION BY MR. SWEETMAN.

Mr. Sweetman then made a further submission the main points of which are summarised as follows:

Mr. Keane’s submission in relation to Kenny V An Bord Pleanála is flawed in every point. Using the example of a boiler as the equivalent of building a petrol station was stretching things;
In any case the law has been amended since Kenny V An Bord Pleanála and since the Glen of the Downes case. He quoted Case 21506 where the Commission stated: “ By failing to adopt all measures necessary to ensure the projects would fall within the scope of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of the project on the environment either before or after modification by 97(11)EC and before they are executed in whole or in part first considered with regard to the need for the environmental impact assessment and, secondly, were likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of the nature, location, and subject to assessment with regard to the effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337. By failing to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that development consents given for the execution of wind farm developments and associated works at County Galway were proceeded by an assessment with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, has failed to comply with the obligations it had under Articles 2, 4, 5 to 10 of the said Directive .” The developers had not assessed the track to the turbines. This shows Mr. Keane’s comments to be fundamentally

134 flawed and they should be dismissed. In addition the flawed judgements of the Irish courts have no relevance.
A cSAC actually has higher level of protection than a SAC since the exceptions allowed under Article 6(3) did not apply to the latter. A cSAC clearly has the absolute protection of the Directive.
Mr. Keane should apologise for deliberately setting out to mislead the Inspector on the law relevant to EIA and habitats.

FINAL SUBMISSION BY MR. KEANE

Mr. Keane pointed out that the amendments to the Regulations and Directives had not altered the position. The case law of Ireland remained valid. He acknowledged that the cSAC is protected because of the amendments under the Wildlife Act, 2000. This has at all times been recognised by the County Council in the development of the design of the proposed Scheme and the mitigation measures.

The clear uncontroverted evidence remained that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on the cSAC and therefore could not adversely affect the integrity of the cSAC. In addition, the provisions of the Circular Letter (i.e. relating to appropriate assessment) had been complied with.

Mr. Sweetman pointed out that the Circular Letter had the full force of European Law and he submitted that the Council had not complied with it.

The Inspector then closed the Oral Hearing and thanked all parties for their courtesy and patience during the five days of the Oral Hearing.

135

APPENDIX B:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED/RECEIVED AT ORAL HEARING

136 APPENDIX B:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT ORAL HEARING

23.04.2008

1. Brief of Evidence – Mr. Peter G Edwards, Technical Director, Mouchel (formerly Parkman). (Parkman Carl Bro Punch).

2. Map 3 National Transport Framework, handed in by Peter Edwards for Galway County Council

3. Map of Motorway Service Area Options, handed in by Peter Edwards for Galway County Council

4. Errata and Addenda to the EIS, dated April 2008, handed in by Peter Edwards for Galway County Council

5. Brief of Evidence – Mr. Steve Wallace, Technical Director of Grontmij (formerly Carl Bro). Traffic and Economics .

5.b) AADT Flow Map 2012 submitted by Mr. Steve Wallace

6. Brief of Evidence – Ms. Valerie Loughnane-Moran, Senior Executive Planner, Galway County Council.

7. Brief of Evidence – Ms. Jennifer Harmon, Senior Acoustic Consultant, AWN Consulting. Noise and Vibration

24.04.2008

8. Two Briefs of Evidence – Mr. Paul Reid, Technical Director within the Land and Environment Business Unit of Mouchel. (PCP). Landscape & Visual Impact (8.a) and Interactions & Cumulative Impacts (8.b).

9. Landscape Constraints A3 Map of Overall Scheme Layout, handed in by Paul Reid on behalf of Galway County Council.

10. Brief of Evidence – Ms. Jenny Neff, Director of Ecological Advisory and Consultancy Services (EACS). Flora and Fauna

10.b) Two cSAC Maps, Sitecode 297, Lough Corrib (43d and 57d), provided by Ms. Jenny Neff on behalf of Galway County Council

10.c) Two cSAC Maps with the proposed M17 route, Sitecode 297, Lough Corrib (43d and 57d), provided by Ms. Jenny Neff on behalf of Galway County Council

137

11. Brief of Evidence – Mr. Ray Ryan, Principal of Brian Meehan & Associates, Planning Consultants. Human Environment

12. Brief of Evidence – Mr. Piers Sadler, Technical Director of Hydrogeology, Mouchel. Hydrogeology

13. Brief of Evidence – Mr. Gerard Morgan, Manager of the Aquatic Services Unit Environmental Consultancy. Water Quality, Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology

14. Brief of Evidence – Mr. Eoin Collins, Senior Environmental Consultant with AWN Consulting. Air Quality

15. Brief of Evidence – Mr.William J. Martin, Agricultural Consultant, Martin & Associates Ltd. Material Assets – Agricultural Property

16. Brief of Evidence – Ms. Musetta O’Leary, EIS Co-ordinator, Sheila Lane & Associates Archaeological Consultants. Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

17. Brief of Evidence – Mr. John Cronin, Historic Building Consultant, John Cronin & Associates. Architectural Heritage Assessment

18. List of 4 Withdrawn Objectors represented by HDS Consulting Services Ltd. provided by Mr. Esmond Keane, S.C. for Galway County Council.

25.04.2008

19. Composite Errata and Addenda to the November 2007 EIS, dated 25 th April 2008, handed in by Galway County Council

20. List of Amendments to Plot Numbers for schedule Parts 1 & 4, handed in by Peter Edwards for Galway County Council

21. A3 Map of Focal Points/Views in the vicinity of the M17, handed in by Ms. Valerie Loughnane-Moran for Galway County Council

22. Extract from Volume 1 of Specification for Roadworks, Series 900 , handed in by Ms. Jennifer Harmon for Galway County Council

23. A3 Map of M17 Predicted Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow at Service Level D, handed in by Steve Wallace for Galway County Council

24. Geotechnical Schematic Ground Model A3 Maps handed in by Piers Sadler for Galway County Council

138 25. Anticipated Maximum Extent of Zone of Dewatering A3 Map handed in by Piers Sadler for Galway County Council

26. 2 Maps accompanying Brief of Evidence – Mr. John Dore on behalf of his client Timothy Costelloe (26.a and 26.b)

27. List of Withdrawn Objectors represented by Gaynor Corr & Associates Ltd, as at 25/04/08, provided by Jim Gaynor

28.04.2008

28. Five Legal Documents provided by Galway County Council: a. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora b. S.I. no. 94/1997, European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 c. S.I. no. 233/1998, European Communities (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 d. S.I. no. 378/2005, European Communities (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 e. Annex III Consideration of Plans and Projects affecting Natura 2000 sites

29. Galway County Council County Development Plan 2003 – 2009. Effective from 25 th July 2006 – 7 th May 2009, provided by Galway County Council.

30. Transportation Data Collection N6/DR-TR/18 (Galway to Ballinasloe). N6 County Galway Roadside Interview Surveys. Survey Report May/June/August 2000, provided by Galway County Council.

31. List of Withdrawn Objectors represented by Aidan Tynan & Associates Ltd, as at 28/04/08, provided by John Dore

32. Seventeen A3 Colour Maps of Landowner Objection Plans, provided by Galway County Council. (Drawing No’s 812191-LOP-001 to 812191-LOP-017)

33. Brief of Evidence – Messrs. Kieran O’Dwyer (Environmental Division Manager, Halcrow Barry Ltd) & John Dooley. Disposal of Treated Effluent at Service Area

29.04.2008

34. List of Withdrawn Objectors represented by Padraic Larkin & Associates Ltd, as at 29/04/08, provided by Esmond Keane S.C.

35. Brief of Evidence – Messrs. Kieran O’Dwyer (Environmental Division Manager, Halcrow Barry Ltd) & John Dooley. Hydrogeological Assessment of the Rathmorrissey Interchange Motorway Service Area

139

36. Site Investigation Factual Report on M6/M17/M18 Rathmorrissey Interchange, NRA Service & Rest Area, provided by Galway County Council

37. A3 Map of Groundwater Vulnerability and Aquifer Classification – Preliminary Design Report Figure 9.2

38. Maps of Geotechnical Investigations for Service Area Layout

39. List of Withdrawn Objectors represented by Vincent Costello & Associates Ltd, as at 29/04/08, provided by Vincent Costello

40. S.I. No. 93/1999 – European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations, 1999

41. Circular Letter PD 2/07 NPWS 1/07 – used in submission by Peter Sweetman on behalf of An Taisce

42. Final Schedule of Environmental Mitigations, submitted by Esmond Keane

43. Amendment to Motorway Scheme 2007 (April 2008) (Roads & Transportation), submitted by Galway County Council

44. List of all M17 Documents submitted by Galway County Council for/during the Oral Hearing

45. Withdrawn Objection of Padraic Connolly, faxed by Gaynor Corr & Associates Ltd

46. Letters from Galway County Council - Responses to 4 Claimants re CPO’s of Frank Dunleavy, Michael Higgins, Richard & Mary Sice,

47. Ariel Photographs of Area provided by the Office of Public Work submitted by Galway County Council

48. NRA Road Construction Details – RCD/300/1 to RCD/300/19 and RCD/700/6

49. N17/N18 Western Corridor – Extension to First Public Consultation, provided by GCC

50. List of Outstanding Objections to CPO/EIS, provided by GCC

51. N17 Galway to Tuam – Emerging Preferred Route – Public Consultation September 2001, provided by GCC.

52. A1 Maps

140